Document ID: EPA-HQ-OW-2002-0049-0001
Agency: epa
Document Type: Notice
Title: National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System-Proposed Regulations To Establish Requirements for Cooling Water Intake Structures at Phase II Existing Facilities; Notice of Data Availability.
Posted Date: 2003-03-19T05:00Z

Wednesday,

March
19,
2003
Part
IV
Environmental
Protection
Agency
40
CFR
Part
125
National
Pollutant
Discharge
Elimination
System
 
Proposed
Regulations
To
Establish
Requirements
for
Cooling
Water
Intake
Structures
at
Phase
II
Existing
Facilities;
Notice
of
Data
Availability;
Proposed
Rule
VerDate
Jan<
31>
2003
21:
12
Mar
18,
2003
Jkt
200001
PO
00000
Frm
00001
Fmt
4717
Sfmt
4717
E:\
FR\
FM\
19MRP2.
SGM
19MRP2
13522
Federal
Register
/
Vol.
68,
No.
53
/
Wednesday,
March
19,
2003
/
Proposed
Rules
ENVIRONMENTAL
PROTECTION
AGENCY
40
CFR
Part
125
[
FRL
 
7468
 
6]

RIN
2040
 
AD62
National
Pollutant
Discharge
Elimination
System
 
Proposed
Regulations
To
Establish
Requirements
for
Cooling
Water
Intake
Structures
at
Phase
II
Existing
Facilities;
Notice
of
Data
Availability
AGENCY:
Environmental
Protection
Agency
(
EPA).
ACTION:
Proposed
rule;
Notice
of
data
availability.

SUMMARY:
On
April
9,
2002,
EPA
published
proposed
standards
for
cooling
water
intake
structures
at
Phase
II
existing
facilities
as
part
of
implementing
section
316(
b)
of
the
Clean
Water
Act
(
CWA).
This
notice
presents
a
summary
of
significant
data
EPA
received
or
collected
since
proposal,
a
discussion
of
how
EPA
is
considering
using
these
data
in
revised
analyses
supporting
the
rule,
a
discussion
of
some
refinements
that
EPA
is
considering
for
the
proposed
regulatory
requirements,
and
additional
information
regarding
data
quality.
This
notice
also
provides
new
information
on
a
broader
suite
of
technology
options
that
may
be
appropriate
for
compliance
at
specific
sites.
EPA
solicits
public
comment
on
the
information
presented
in
this
notice
and
the
record
supporting
this
notice.
DATES:
Comments
on
this
notice
of
data
availability
and
all
aspects
of
the
April
9,
2002,
proposal
must
be
received
or
postmarked
on
or
before
midnight
June
2,
2003.
ADDRESSES:
Comments
may
be
submitted
electronically,
by
mail,
or
through
hand
delivery/
courier.
Mail
comments
to
the
Water
Docket,
Environmental
Protection
Agency,
Mailcode:
4101T,
1200
Pennsylvania
Ave.,
NW.,
Washington,
DC
20460,
Attention
Docket
ID
No.
OW
 
2002
 
0049.
Follow
the
detailed
instructions
as
provided
in
Section
I.
B.
of
the
SUPPLEMENTARY
INFORMATION
section
for
additional
ways
to
submit
comments.
FOR
FURTHER
INFORMATION
CONTACT:
For
additional
technical
information
contact
Debra
D.
Hart
at
(
202)
566
 
6379.
For
additional
economic
information
contact
Lynne
Tudor,
Ph.
D.
at
(
202)
566
 
1043.
For
additional
biological
information
contact
Dana
A.
Thomas,
Ph.
D.
at
(
202)
566
 
1046.
The
e­
mail
address
for
the
above
contacts
is
rule.
316b@
epa.
gov.
SUPPLEMENTARY
INFORMATION:

Contents
I.
General
Information
A.
How
Can
I
Get
Copies
Of
This
Document
and
Other
Related
Information?
B.
How
and
To
Whom
Do
I
Submit
Comments?
C.
How
Should
I
Submit
CBI
To
the
Agency?
II.
Purpose
of
this
Notice
III.
Major
Changes
to
Assumptions
Used
in
EPA's
Analyses
IV.
Engineering
Cost
Analysis
A.
Facility
Flow
Verifications
B.
Technology
Cost
Modules
C.
Facility­
Level
Costing
Options
D.
Clarifications
and
Corrections
V.
IPM
Analyses
A.
Changes
to
the
IPM
Analyses
Since
Proposal
B.
Revised
Results
for
the
Preferred
Option
C.
Revised
Results
for
the
Waterbody/
Capacity­
based
Option
VI.
Other
Economic
Analyses
A.
National
Costs
B.
Cost­
to­
Revenue
Measure
C.
Cost
Per
Household
D.
Electricity
Price
Analysis
VII.
Performance
Standards
A.
Technology
Efficacy
Database
to
Support
Performance
Standards
B.
Streamlined
Technology
Option
For
Certain
Locations
VIII.
Cost
Tests
IX.
Biology
 
Supporting
Information
A.
Entrainment
Survival
B.
Restoration
C.
Request
for
Impingement
and
Entrainment
Data
X.
National
Benefits
A.
Case
Study
Clarifications
and
Corrections
B.
Regional
Approach
To
Developing
Benefits
Estimates
C.
North
Atlantic
Regional
Study
D.
Northern
California
Regional
Study
E.
Nonuse
Benefits
F.
Regional­
Level
Benefit
Cost
Analysis
G.
Break­
Even
Analysis
XI.
Implementation
and
Other
Regulatory
Refinements
A.
Definition
and
Methods
for
Determining
the
``
Calculation
Baseline''
B.
Options
for
Evaluating
Compliance
with
Performance
Standards
C.
Compliance
Timelines,
Schedules,
and
Determination
D.
Determining
Capacity
Utilization
Rates
E.
Clarifications
and
Corrections
XII.
General
Solicitation
of
Comments
I.
General
Information
A.
How
Can
I
Get
Copies
of
This
Document
and
Other
Related
Information?

1.
Docket.
EPA
has
established
an
official
public
docket
for
this
action
under
Docket
ID
No.
OW
 
2002
 
0049.
The
official
public
docket
consists
of
the
documents
specifically
referenced
in
this
action,
any
public
comments
received,
and
other
information
related
to
this
action.
The
official
public
docket
is
the
collection
of
materials
that
is
available
for
public
viewing
at
the
Water
Docket
in
the
EPA
Docket
Center,
(
EPA/
DC)
EPA
West,
Room
B102,
1301
Constitution
Ave.,
NW.,
Washington,
DC.
The
EPA
Docket
Center
Public
Reading
Room
is
open
from
8:
30
a.
m.
to
4:
30
p.
m.,
Monday
through
Friday,
excluding
legal
holidays.
The
telephone
number
for
the
Public
Reading
Room
is
(
202)
566
 
1744,
and
the
telephone
number
for
the
Water
Docket
is
(
202)
566
 
2426.
2.
Electronic
Access.
You
may
access
this
Federal
Register
document
electronically
through
the
EPA
Internet
under
the
``
Federal
Register''
listings
at
http://
www.
epa.
gov/
fedrgstr/.
An
electronic
version
of
the
public
docket
is
available
through
EPA's
electronic
public
docket
and
comment
system,
EPA
Dockets.
You
may
use
EPA
Dockets
at
http://
www.
epa.
gov/
edocket/
to
submit
or
view
public
comments,
access
the
index
listing
of
the
contents
of
the
official
public
docket,
and
to
access
those
documents
in
the
public
docket
that
are
available
electronically.
Once
in
the
system,
select
``
search,''
then
key
in
the
appropriate
docket
identification
number.
Certain
types
of
information
will
not
be
placed
in
EPA
Dockets.
Information
claimed
as
confidential
business
information
(
CBI)
and
other
information
whose
disclosure
is
restricted
by
statute,
which
is
not
included
in
the
official
public
docket,
will
not
be
available
for
public
viewing
in
EPA's
electronic
public
docket.
EPA's
policy
is
that
copyrighted
material
will
not
be
placed
in
EPA's
electronic
public
docket
but
will
be
available
only
in
printed,
paper
form
in
the
official
public
docket.
To
the
extent
feasible,
publicly
available
docket
materials
will
be
made
available
in
EPA's
electronic
public
docket.
When
a
document
is
selected
from
the
index
list
in
EPA
Dockets,
the
system
will
identify
whether
the
document
is
available
for
viewing
in
EPA's
electronic
public
docket.
Although
not
all
docket
materials
may
be
available
electronically,
you
may
still
access
any
of
the
publicly
available
docket
materials
through
the
docket
facility
identified
in
Unit
I.
A1.
EPA
intends
to
work
towards
providing
electronic
access
to
all
of
the
publicly
available
docket
materials
through
EPA's
electronic
public
docket.
For
public
commenters,
it
is
important
to
note
that
EPA's
policy
is
that
public
comments,
whether
submitted
electronically
or
on
paper,
will
be
made
available
for
public
viewing
in
EPA's
electronic
public
docket
as
EPA
receives
them
and
VerDate
Jan<
31>
2003
21:
12
Mar
18,
2003
Jkt
200001
PO
00000
Frm
00002
Fmt
4701
Sfmt
4702
E:\
FR\
FM\
19MRP2.
SGM
19MRP2
13523
Federal
Register
/
Vol.
68,
No.
53
/
Wednesday,
March
19,
2003
/
Proposed
Rules
without
change,
unless
the
comment
contains
copyrighted
material,
CBI,
or
other
information
whose
disclosure
is
restricted
by
statute.
When
EPA
identifies
a
comment
containing
copyrighted
material,
EPA
will
provide
a
reference
to
that
material
in
the
version
of
the
comment
that
is
placed
in
EPA's
electronic
public
docket.
The
entire
printed
comment,
including
the
copyrighted
material,
will
be
available
in
the
public
docket.
Public
comments
submitted
on
computer
disks
that
are
mailed
or
delivered
to
the
docket
will
be
transferred
to
EPA's
electronic
public
docket.
Public
comments
that
are
mailed
or
delivered
to
the
Docket
will
be
scanned
and
placed
in
EPA's
electronic
public
docket.
Where
practical,
physical
objects
will
be
photographed,
and
the
photograph
will
be
placed
in
EPA's
electronic
public
docket
along
with
a
brief
description
written
by
the
docket
staff.

B.
How
and
to
Whom
Do
I
Submit
Comments?
You
may
submit
comments
electronically,
by
mail,
or
through
hand
delivery/
courier.
Please
submit
with
your
comments
any
references
cited
in
your
comments.
To
ensure
proper
receipt
by
EPA,
identify
the
appropriate
docket
identification
number
in
the
subject
line
on
the
first
page
of
your
comment.
Please
ensure
that
your
comments
are
submitted
within
the
specified
comment
period.
Comments
received
after
the
close
of
the
comment
period
will
be
marked
``
late.''
EPA
is
not
required
to
consider
these
late
comments,
however,
late
comments
may
be
considered
if
time
permits.
If
you
wish
to
submit
CBI
or
information
that
is
otherwise
protected
by
statute,
please
follow
the
instructions
in
Unit
I.
C.
Do
not
use
EPA
Dockets
or
e­
mail
to
submit
CBI
or
information
protected
by
statute.
1.
Electronically.
If
you
submit
an
electronic
comment
as
prescribed
below,
EPA
recommends
that
you
include
your
name,
mailing
address,
and
an
e­
mail
address
or
other
contact
information
in
the
body
of
your
comment.
Also
include
this
contact
information
on
the
outside
of
any
disk
or
CD
ROM
you
submit,
and
in
any
cover
letter
accompanying
the
disk
or
CD
ROM.
This
ensures
that
you
can
be
identified
as
the
submitter
of
the
comment
and
allows
EPA
to
contact
you
in
case
EPA
cannot
read
your
comment
due
to
technical
difficulties
or
needs
further
information
on
the
substance
of
your
comment.
EPA's
policy
is
that
EPA
will
not
edit
your
comment,
and
any
identifying
or
contact
information
provided
in
the
body
of
a
comment
will
be
included
as
part
of
the
comment
that
is
placed
in
the
official
public
docket,
and
made
available
in
EPA's
electronic
public
docket.
If
EPA
cannot
read
your
comment
due
to
technical
difficulties
and
cannot
contact
you
for
clarification,
EPA
may
not
be
able
to
consider
your
comment.
i.
EPA
Dockets.
Your
use
of
EPA's
electronic
public
docket
to
submit
comments
to
EPA
electronically
is
EPA's
preferred
method
for
receiving
comments.
Go
directly
to
EPA
Dockets
at
http://
www.
epa.
gov/
edocket,
and
follow
the
online
instructions
for
submitting
comments.
To
access
EPA's
electronic
public
docket
from
the
EPA
Internet
Home
Page,
select
``
Information
Sources,''
``
Dockets,''
and
``
EPA
Dockets.''
Once
in
the
system,
select
``
search,''
and
then
key
in
Docket
ID
No.
OW
 
2002
 
0049.
The
system
is
an
``
anonymous
access''
system,
which
means
EPA
will
not
know
your
identity,
e­
mail
address,
or
other
contact
information
unless
you
provide
it
in
the
body
of
your
comment.
ii.
E­
mail.
Comments
may
be
sent
by
electronic
mail
(
e­
mail)
to
OWDocket
epa.
gov,
Attention
Docket
ID
No.
OW
 
2002
 
0049.
In
contrast
to
EPA's
electronic
public
docket,
EPA's
email
system
is
not
an
``
anonymous
access''
system.
If
you
send
an
e­
mail
comment
directly
to
the
Docket
without
going
through
EPA's
electronic
public
docket,
EPA's
e­
mail
system
automatically
captures
your
e­
mail
address.
E­
mail
addresses
that
are
automatically
captured
by
EPA's
e­
mail
system
are
included
as
part
of
the
comment
that
is
placed
in
the
official
public
docket,
and
made
available
in
EPA's
electronic
public
docket.
iii.
Disk
or
CD
ROM.
You
may
submit
comments
on
a
disk
or
CD
ROM
that
you
mail
to
the
mailing
address
identified
in
Unit
I.
B.
2.
These
electronic
submissions
will
be
accepted
in
WordPerfect
or
ASCII
file
format.
Avoid
the
use
of
special
characters
and
any
form
of
encryption.
2.
By
Mail.
Send
an
original
and
three
copies
of
your
comments
to
the
Water
Docket,
Environmental
Protection
Agency,
Mailcode:
4101T,
1200
Pennsylvania
Ave.,
NW.,
Washington,
DC
20460,
Attention
Docket
ID
No.
OW
 
2002
 
0049.
3.
By
Hand
Delivery
or
Courier.
Deliver
copies
of
your
comments
to:
Water
Docket,
EPA
Docket
Center,
EPA
West,
Room
B102,
1301
Constitution
Ave.,
NW.,
Washington,
DC,
Attention
Docket
ID
No.
OW
 
2002
 
0049.
Such
deliveries
are
only
accepted
during
the
Docket's
normal
hours
of
operation
as
identified
in
Unit
I.
A.
1.
C.
How
Should
I
Submit
CBI
to
the
Agency?

Do
not
submit
information
that
you
consider
to
be
CBI
electronically
through
EPA's
electronic
public
docket
or
by
e­
mail.
Send
information
claimed
as
CBI
by
mail
only
to
the
following
address,
Office
of
Science
and
Technology,
Mailcode
4303T,
U.
S.
Environmental
Protection
Agency,
1200
Pennsylvania
Ave.,
NW.,
Washington,
DC
20460,
Attention:
Debbi
Hart/
Docket
ID
No.
OW
 
2002
 
0049.
You
may
claim
information
that
you
submit
to
EPA
as
CBI
by
marking
any
part
or
all
of
that
information
as
CBI
(
if
you
submit
CBI
on
disk
or
CD
ROM,
mark
the
outside
of
the
disk
or
CD
ROM
as
CBI
and
then
identify
electronically
within
the
disk
or
CD
ROM
the
specific
information
that
is
CBI).
Information
so
marked
will
not
be
disclosed
except
in
accordance
with
procedures
set
forth
in
40
CFR
Part
2.
In
addition
to
one
complete
version
of
the
comment
that
includes
any
information
claimed
as
CBI,
a
copy
of
the
comment
that
does
not
contain
the
information
claimed
as
CBI
must
be
submitted
for
inclusion
in
the
public
docket
and
EPA's
electronic
public
docket.
If
you
submit
the
copy
that
does
not
contain
CBI
on
disk
or
CD
ROM,
mark
the
outside
of
the
disk
or
CD
ROM
clearly
that
it
does
not
contain
CBI.
Information
not
marked
as
CBI
will
be
included
in
the
public
docket
and
EPA's
electronic
public
docket
without
prior
notice.
If
you
have
any
questions
about
CBI
or
the
procedures
for
claiming
CBI,
please
consult
the
person
identified
in
the
FOR
FURTHER
INFORMATION
CONTACT
section.

II.
Purpose
of
This
Notice
On
April
9,
2002,
EPA
published
proposed
standards
for
cooling
water
intake
structures
at
Phase
II
existing
facilities
(
67
FR
17122).
EPA
received
voluminous
comments
and
data
submissions
during
the
120­
day
public
comment
period
on
the
proposal.
However,
many
commenters,
including
both
industry
and
environmental
groups,
requested
additional
time
to
review
the
proposal
and
the
supporting
record
and
to
prepare
further
comments.
Therefore,
EPA
is
reopening
the
comment
period
on
all
aspects
of
the
April
9,
2002,
proposal.
In
addition,
following
publication
of
the
proposal,
EPA
collected
more
data
and
revised
several
methodologies
related
to
costing
and
benefits
estimations.
This
notice
makes
these
new
data
available
for
comment
and
discusses
the
relevance
of
these
data
to
the
analyses
conducted
by
EPA.
Thus,
EPA
also
solicits
public
comment
on
the
information
presented
VerDate
Jan<
31>
2003
21:
12
Mar
18,
2003
Jkt
200001
PO
00000
Frm
00003
Fmt
4701
Sfmt
4702
E:\
FR\
FM\
19MRP2.
SGM
19MRP2
13524
Federal
Register
/
Vol.
68,
No.
53
/
Wednesday,
March
19,
2003
/
Proposed
Rules
1
Note
that
these
numbers
are
unweighted.
On
a
sample­
weighted
basis,
the
number
of
Phase
II
facilities
increased
from
550
to
551.
2
Based
on
additional
research
between
the
proposal
and
the
NODA,
some
facilities
also
experienced
a
change
in
their
projected
compliance
response.
This
change,
together
with
the
increase
in
in­
scope
Phase
II
facilities,
may
have
contributed
to
the
change
in
total
compliance
costs.
See
section
IV
of
the
NODA
preamble
for
more
information.
in
this
notice
and
the
record
supporting
this
notice.
EPA
notes
that
all
options
and
issues
discussed
in
its
proposal
are
still
under
consideration
for
the
final
rule.
This
notice
merely
makes
new
information
available
for
public
review
that
the
Agency
will
consider
in
making
decisions
for
the
final
rule.

Summary
of
Proposed
Rule
for
Existing
Facilities
The
proposed
rule
would
implement
section
316(
b)
of
the
Clean
Water
Act
(
CWA)
for
certain
existing
power
producing
facilities
that
employ
a
cooling
water
intake
structure
and
that
withdraw
50
million
gallons
per
day
(
MGD)
or
more
of
water
from
rivers,
streams,
lakes,
reservoirs,
estuaries,
oceans,
or
other
waters
of
the
U.
S.
for
cooling
purposes.
The
proposed
rule
constitutes
Phase
II
in
EPA's
development
of
section
316(
b)
regulations
and
would
establish
national
requirements
applicable
to
the
location,
design,
construction,
and
capacity
of
cooling
water
intake
structures
at
these
facilities.
The
proposed
national
requirements,
which
would
be
implemented
through
National
Pollutant
Discharge
Elimination
System
(
NPDES)
permits,
would
minimize
the
adverse
environmental
impact
associated
with
the
use
of
these
structures.
The
proposed
rule
would
establish
location,
design,
construction,
and
capacity
requirements
that
reflect
the
best
technology
available
for
minimizing
adverse
environmental
impact
from
the
cooling
water
intake
structure
based
on
waterbody
type
and
the
amount
of
water
withdrawn
by
a
facility.
The
Environmental
Protection
Agency
(
EPA)
proposed
to
group
surface
water
into
five
categories
 
freshwater
rivers
and
streams,
lakes
and
reservoirs,
Great
Lakes,
estuaries
and
tidal
rivers,
and
oceans
 
and
establish
requirements
for
cooling
water
intake
structures
located
in
distinct
waterbody
types.
In
general,
the
more
sensitive
or
biologically
productive
the
waterbody
type,
the
more
stringent
the
requirements
proposed
as
reflecting
the
best
technology
available
for
minimizing
adverse
environmental
impact.
Proposed
requirements
also
vary
according
to
the
percentage
of
the
source
waterbody
withdrawn
and
facility
utilization
rate.
A
facility
may
choose
one
of
three
options
for
meeting
best
technology
available
requirements
under
the
proposed
rule.
These
options
are
(
1)
demonstrating
that
the
facility's
existing
design
and
construction
technology,
operational
measures,
and/
or
restoration
currently
meets
specified
performance
standards;
(
2)
selecting
and
implementing
design
and
construction
technologies,
operational
measures,
or
restoration
measures
that
meet
specified
performance
standards;
or
(
3)
demonstrating
that
the
facility
qualifies
for
a
site­
specific
determination
of
best
technology
available
because
its
costs
of
compliance
are
significantly
greater
than
either
(
1)
the
costs
considered
by
the
Agency
during
the
development
of
the
rule,
or
(
2)
a
site­
specific
determination
of
the
benefits
of
compliance
with
the
proposed
performance
standards.
The
proposed
rule
also
provides
that
facilities
may
use
restoration
measures
in
addition
to
or
in
lieu
of
other
technology
measures
to
meet
the
performance
standards
established
in
the
rule
or
on
a
sitespecific
basis.
EPA
expects
that
the
proposed
regulation
would
minimize
adverse
environmental
impact,
including
substantially
reducing
the
harmful
effects
of
impingement
(
organisms
trapped
against
intake
screens
or
other
barriers
at
the
entrance
of
cooling
water
intake
structures)
and
entrainment
(
organisms
drawn
into
a
cooling
water
intake
structure),
at
existing
facilities
over
the
next
20
years.
As
a
result,
the
Agency
anticipates
that
the
proposed
rule
would
help
protect
ecosystems
in
proximity
to
cooling
water
intake
structures.
The
proposal
would
help
preserve
aquatic
organisms,
including
threatened
and
endangered
species,
and
the
ecosystems
they
inhabit
in
waters
used
for
cooling
purposes
by
existing
power
producing
facilities.
EPA
considered
the
potential
benefits
of
the
proposed
rule
and
discussed
these
benefits
in
both
quantitative
and
nonquantitative
terms.
Benefits,
among
other
factors,
are
based
on
a
decrease
in
expected
mortality
or
injury
to
aquatic
organisms
that
would
otherwise
be
subject
to
entrainment
into
cooling
water
systems
or
impingement
against
screens
or
other
devices
at
the
entrance
of
cooling
water
intake
structures.
Benefits
may
also
accrue
at
multiple
ecological
scales
including
population,
community,
or
ecosystem
levels.
In
addition
to
the
proposed
regulatory
requirements,
EPA
also
invited
comments
on
a
number
of
other
regulatory
alternatives.
The
Agency
will
continue
to
consider
all
of
these
regulatory
alternatives
when
making
decisions
on
a
final
rule.

III.
Major
Changes
to
Assumptions
Used
in
EPA's
Analyses
Based
on
comments
received,
additional
information
made
available,
and
the
results
of
subsequent
analyses,
EPA
is
considering
a
number
of
revisions
to
the
assumptions
that
were
used
in
developing
the
engineering
costs,
the
information
collection
costs,
the
economic
analyses,
and
the
benefits
analyses.
These
new
assumptions
are
presented
below
and
were
used
in
the
current
analyses,
the
results
of
which
are
presented
in
this
Notice
of
Data
Availability
(
NODA).
EPA
requests
comment
on
each
of
these
revised
assumptions.

1.
Number
of
Phase
II
Facilities
Since
proposal,
EPA
verified
design
flow
information
for
facilities
that
had
been
classified
as
either
Phase
II
or
Phase
III
facilities.
This
verification
resulted
in
the
following
changes:
five
facilities
that
were
classified
as
Phase
II
facilities
at
proposal
have
been
reclassified
as
Phase
III
facilities.
Conversely,
six
facilities
that
were
classified
as
Phase
III
facilities
at
proposal
have
been
reclassified
as
Phase
II
facilities.
As
a
result,
the
overall
number
of
Phase
II
facilities
increased
from
539
to
540
facilities.
1
For
the
NODA,
all
cost
and
economic
analyses
are
based
on
the
updated
set
of
Phase
II
facilities.

2.
Technology
Costs
EPA
used
new
information
to
revise
the
capital
and
operation
and
maintenance
(
O&
M)
costs
for
several
compliance
technologies,
including
those
used
as
the
primary
basis
for
the
proposed
regulatory
option.
Overall,
the
cost
updates
resulted
in
the
following
changes.
For
the
preferred
option
(
discussed
above
at
Section
II),
total
capital
costs
increased
by
66
percent
and
total
O&
M
costs
increased
by
48
percent.
For
the
waterbody/
capacitybased
option,
which
would
set
performance
standards
for
impingement
mortality
and
entrainment
reduction
based
on
closed­
cycle,
recirculating
cooling
for
some
facilities
and
technologies
such
as
fine­
mesh
screens
and
fish­
return
systems
for
others,
total
capital
costs
increased
by
40
percent
(
net
of
existing
condenser
cost
savings),
while
total
O&
M
costs
decreased
by
13
percent.
These
comparisons
are
based
on
the
raw
costs,
adjusted
to
year­
2002
dollars,
which
have
not
been
discounted
or
annualized.
2
VerDate
Jan<
31>
2003
21:
12
Mar
18,
2003
Jkt
200001
PO
00000
Frm
00004
Fmt
4701
Sfmt
4702
E:\
FR\
FM\
19MRP2.
SGM
19MRP2
13525
Federal
Register
/
Vol.
68,
No.
53
/
Wednesday,
March
19,
2003
/
Proposed
Rules
The
revised
costing
assumptions
are
discussed
in
detail
below.
EPA
notes
that
the
proposed
rule
includes
a
compliance
option
that
allows
sitespecific
flexibility
in
cases
where
compliance
costs
for
a
particular
facility
significantly
exceed
those
estimated
in
the
analysis
for
the
final
rule.
EPA
is
currently
considering
whether
the
final
rule
should
provide
additional
guidance
on
how
to
conduct
this
comparison,
including
how
best
to
use
the
costing
information
in
the
rule
record.
EPA
requests
comment
on
its
costing
methodology;
its
relationship
to
the
proposed
site­
specific,
cost­
cost
comparison
provisions;
and
what
additional
guidance,
if
any,
EPA
should
provide
on
implementation
of
these
provisions.

3.
Permitting
and
Monitoring
Costs
At
proposal,
the
single
most
costly
permitting
activity
was
the
``
Impingement
Mortality
and
Entrainment
Characterization
Study,''
a
required
element
of
the
``
Comprehensive
Demonstration
Study.''
See
proposed
§
125.95(
b).
The
proposed
rule
did
not
require
facilities
with
cooling
towers
to
conduct
these
studies
but,
inadvertently,
EPA
included
costs
for
the
Impingement
Mortality
and
Entrainment
Characterization
Study
in
its
cost
estimates
for
facilities
projected
to
have
cooling
towers
in
the
base
case
(
i.
e.,
those
projected
to
have
cooling
towers
in
the
absence
of
the
rule).
EPA
also
applied
costs
for
this
study
to
facilities
that
EPA
projected
to
install
cooling
towers
under
certain
regulatory
options.
For
the
NODA
analysis,
EPA
did
not
include
the
cost
of
the
Impingement
Mortality
and
Entrainment
Characterization
Study
for
facilities
projected
to
have
cooling
towers
in
the
base
case
or
the
waterbody/
capacitybased
option.

4.
Net
Installation
Downtime
for
Compliance
Technologies
Other
Than
Recirculating
Cooling
Towers
In
the
analysis
for
the
proposed
rule,
EPA
made
the
assumption
that
compliance
technologies
other
than
recirculating
cooling
towers
would
not
require
facility
downtime
for
installation.
EPA
has
since
revised
this
assumption.
EPA
expects
additional
unscheduled
downtimes
of
between
two
and
eight
weeks
for
the
installation
of
the
various
non­
recirculating
compliance
technologies.

5.
Net
Installation
Downtime
and
Other
Site­
Specific
Factors
for
Recirculating
Cooling
Towers
To
support
the
proposed
Phase
II
rule,
EPA
assumed
that
each
projected
cooling
system
conversion
would
require
a
net
downtime
of
four
weeks.
This
estimate
was
based
on
information
that
had
been
previously
available
to
EPA
on
the
downtime
needed
for
fossilfuel
and
nuclear
power
plants.
Just
prior
to
proposal,
EPA
received
additional
technical
information
on
the
amount
of
operational
downtime
needed
during
cooling
system
conversions
from
once
through
to
closed­
cycle,
recirculating
with
cooling
towers
at
nuclear
power
plants
(
see
DCN
4
 
2529).
For
the
new
analyses,
EPA
is
incorporating
the
new
information
which
suggests
that
cooling
system
conversions
at
nuclear
power
plants
may
take
seven
months.
To
the
extent
that
conversions
at
nuclear
power
plants
take
less
time
to
complete,
costs
for
this
factor
would
be
lower.
For
non­
nuclear
power
plants,
EPA's
cost
estimates
at
proposal
assumed
four
weeks
downtime
for
the
retrofit
of
wet
cooling
towers
at
existing
power
plants.
The
Agency
requests
comment
on
whether
more
or
less
downtime
may
be
required
at
some
plants
due
to
sitespecific
factors
and,
if
so,
whether
EPA
should
use
a
different
estimate
of
downtime
in
analyzing
the
costs
of
this
regulatory
option.

6.
Energy
Penalties
For
the
proposed
Phase
II
rule,
the
average
annual
energy
penalty,
by
region
and
fuel
type,
was
applied
to
each
facility
upgrading
to
a
closedcycle
recirculating
cooling
system.
Based
on
comments
received,
EPA
has
changed
the
energy
penalty
assumption
to
attempt
to
account
for
seasonal,
peak
effects.
For
the
new
analyses,
the
energy
penalty
applied
is
the
greater
of
the
peak­
summer
penalty
or
the
average
annual
penalty
for
each
facility
projected
to
convert
their
cooling
systems
to
a
closed­
cycle,
recirculating
cooling
system.
EPA
notes
that
the
approach
used
at
proposal
might
have
understated
potential
impacts
of
the
energy
penalty
on
generating
capacity.
Conversely,
using
the
greater
of
the
peak
summer
penalty
and
the
average
annual
penalty
might
overestimate
potential
impacts
of
the
energy
penalty
on
generating
capacity.
EPA
has
adopted
the
latter
approach
in
order
to
ensure
that
impacts
are
not
underestimated.

7.
Capacity
Utilization
Rates
For
the
proposed
Phase
II
rule,
the
15
percent
capacity
utilization
determination
was
based
on
the
generation
and
capacity
of
the
entire
facility,
including
steam
electric
and
non­
steam
generators.
EPA
believes
that
utilization
of
the
steam
electric
part
of
a
facility
better
reflects
a
facility's
potential
for
adverse
environmental
impact
because
only
the
steam
electric
generators
use
cooling
water.
As
discussed
at
Section
XI
below,
EPA
is
considering
refining
its
regulatory
definition
for
``
capacity
utilization
rate''
at
the
proposed
§
125.93
to
reflect
use
of
the
steam
electric
part
of
a
facility.
For
the
NODA,
EPA
is
using
the
capacity
utilization
of
only
the
steam
electric
generators
at
Phase
II
facilities
so
that
its
updated
economic
analyses
include
this
potential
refinement.
In
addition,
at
proposal,
EPA
used
the
average
capacity
utilization
based
on
EIA
data
for
1995
to
1999.
This
utilization
rate
was
often
different
from
the
rate
based
on
the
``
IPM
base
case
results''
EPA
used
to
support
its
estimates
of
the
economic
impacts
of
the
rule
(
see
section
V
for
additional
description
of
EPA's
economic
analysis
methodology.
For
the
NODA
analyses,
EPA
used
projected
capacity
utilization
rates
for
2008
(
the
first
model­
run
year
in
EPA's
economic
analysis),
in
order
to
ensure
internal
consistency
in
the
analysis.
For
many
facilities,
this
resulted
in
a
lower
capacity
utilization
rate
in
the
baseline.
As
a
result,
the
compliance
requirements
and
compliance
costs
for
these
facilities
may
be
lower,
depending
on
the
waterbody
type
from
which
they
withdraw
and
the
impingement
mortality
and
entrainment
technologies
they
already
have
in
place
in
the
baseline.
Facilities
with
lower
projected
compliance
costs
than
under
the
previous
assumption
may
also
have
lower
projected
impacts
in
the
analysis,
depending
on
the
magnitude
of
the
cost
differential
and
the
facilities'
operating
characteristics
in
the
baseline
(
e.
g.,
a
change
in
cost
for
marginal
units
would
have
a
greater
effect
than
for
units
that
generate
electricity
well
below
the
cost
of
the
marginal
unit).
EPA
requests
comment
on
this
change
in
assumptions.

8.
Compliance
Schedule
At
the
time
of
proposal,
promulgation
of
the
final
section
316(
b)
Phase
II
rule
was
scheduled
for
August
28,
2003.
As
a
result,
EPA
assumed
that
facilities
would
come
into
compliance
with
the
preferred
option
between
2004
and
2008
as
their
existing
NPDES
permits
expired
and
were
reviewed.
For
regulatory
options
based
on
the
reductions
in
impingement
and
entrainment
achievable
using
a
closed­
cycle
recirculating
system,
EPA
further
assumed
that
facilities
costed
with
a
cooling
tower
would
come
into
compliance
between
2005
and
2012.
Since
proposal,
the
section
316(
b)
regulatory
development
schedule
has
changed.
Promulgation
of
the
final
rule
is
now
scheduled
for
February
16,
2004,

VerDate
Jan<
31>
2003
21:
12
Mar
18,
2003
Jkt
200001
PO
00000
Frm
00005
Fmt
4701
Sfmt
4702
E:\
FR\
FM\
19MRP2.
SGM
19MRP2
13526
Federal
Register
/
Vol.
68,
No.
53
/
Wednesday,
March
19,
2003
/
Proposed
Rules
making
it
impossible
for
facilities
to
come
into
compliance
in
2004
(
the
assumption
in
all
economic
analyses
is
that
facilities
comply
in
the
beginning
of
the
year
in
which
they
receive
requirements
in
their
permit).
As
a
result,
EPA
shifted
the
compliance
schedule
for
the
NODA
analysis
by
one
year
for
all
Phase
II
facilities.
Facilities
costed
with
a
cooling
tower
are
now
assumed
to
have
a
compliance
window
from
2005
to
2013,
while
facilities
without
a
recirculating
requirement
are
assumed
to
come
into
compliance
between
2005
and
2009
(
during
the
year
of
their
first
post­
promulgation
permit).
For
purposes
of
the
cost
and
impacts
analysis,
EPA
used
the
2010
model
run
year
instead
of
the
2008
model
run
year,
as
at
proposal.
Under
the
preferred
option,
all
facilities
are
projected
to
come
into
compliance
by
2009.

9.
Number
of
Facilities
Projected
To
Upgrade
to
Recirculating
Wet
Cooling
(
Waterbody/
Capacity­
Based
Option)
For
the
proposed
Phase
II
rule,
EPA
estimated
that
51
model
facilities
would
upgrade
their
cooling
systems
from
once­
through
to
closed­
cycle,
recirculating
cooling
systems
under
the
waterbody/
capacity­
based
option.
EPA
estimates
for
these
analyses
that
44
model
facilities
would
upgrade
cooling
systems
for
the
same
option.
The
requirements
of
the
regulatory
alternative
have
not
changed.
The
change
in
number
of
facilities
that
would
be
required
to
upgrade
their
cooling
system
is
due
to:
(
1)
EPA's
effort
to
update,
correct,
and
verify
facility
design
intake
flows
and
(
2)
the
fact
that
EPA
no
longer
needs
to
use
a
statistical
methodology
to
determine
the
number
of
short
technical
questionnaire
facilities
that
withdraw
more
than
one
percent
of
the
mean
tidal
excursion.
EPA
has
updated
design
intake
flows
for
a
number
of
in­
scope
facilities.
In
a
few
cases,
these
database
flow
changes
have
impacted
the
determination
of
whether
a
facility
is
projected
to
upgrade
its
cooling
system
because
the
requirements
for
the
waterbody/
capacity­
based
option,
in
some
instances,
hinge
on
intake
flow.
Since
proposal,
EPA
has
identified
those
short
technical
questionnaire
facilities
whose
design
intake
flow
exceeds
one
percent
of
the
mean
tidal
excursion.
This
information
was
not
available
for
the
analyses
supporting
the
proposal,
and
as
such,
EPA
utilized
a
statistical
method
to
project
which
facilities
would
meet
these
criteria.
For
these
current
analyses,
EPA
has
utilized
the
actual
data
in
lieu
of
the
statistical
method.
As
a
result,
a
number
of
changes
have
been
made
to
the
list
of
short­
technical
questionnaire
model
facilities
projected
to
upgrade
their
cooling
systems.

IV.
Engineering
Cost
Analysis
A.
Facility
Flow
Verifications
In
order
to
ensure
the
accuracy
and
quality
of
the
data
used
for
the
costing
effort,
the
Agency
revisited
its
database
of
facility
and
intake
design
flows.
Flow
is
an
important
factor
in
calculating
costs.
The
Agency
first
screened
the
flow
data
in
order
to
identify
facilities
with
potentially
inaccurate
flow
information.
From
this
first
set
of
facilities,
the
Agency
attempted
to
identify
errors
by
inspecting
the
original
questionnaires
on
which
the
flows
were
reported.
Through
this
effort,
the
Agency
was
able
to
correct
a
few
flow
values
by
identifying
survey
reporting
errors
(
such
as
unit
conversion
inconsistencies).
The
remainder
of
the
potentially
inaccurate
flow
data
set
required
outreach
to
25
facilities
to
solve
the
identified
discrepancies.
In
many
cases,
the
original
reported
flows
were
correct.
In
others,
incorrect
initial
reporting
had
led
to
incorrect
calculations
of
design
flow
rates.
The
Agency
corrected
these
flows
for
the
master
database
used
to
support
analyses
presented
in
this
Notice
of
Data
Availability
(
see
``
Flow
Correction
and
Verification,''
in
the
Confidential
Business
Information
portion
of
the
docket).

B.
Technology
Cost
Modules
The
Agency
developed
a
new
approach
to
developing
compliance
costs
that
includes
a
broader
range
of
compliance
technologies
than
it
used
for
calculating
compliance
costs
for
the
proposed
rule
requirements.
In
order
to
do
so,
the
Agency
sought
to
evaluate
new
and/
or
additional
costs
for
a
wider
range
of
intake
technologies
identified
as
having
the
potential
to
meet
the
proposed
regulation
requirements
without
the
expense
and
energy
penalty
associated
with
capacity­
reduction
technologies
such
as
cooling
towers.
In
selecting
among
available
technologies,
EPA
revised
its
traditional
least
cost
approach,
and
instead
assigned
costs
based
on
the
projected
performance
of
available
technologies
on
a
site­
specific
basis.
This
approach
is
discussed
in
more
detail
in
section
IV.
C.
below.
The
revised
and
new
technology
modules
analyzed
by
the
Agency
include
the
following:
 
Addition
of
fish
handling
and
return
system
to
an
existing
traveling
screen
system,
 
Addition
of
fine­
mesh
screens
(
both
with
and
without
a
fish
handling
and
return
system)
to
an
existing
traveling
screen
system,
 
Addition
of
a
new,
larger
intake
in
front
of
an
existing
intake
screen
system,
 
Addition
of
passive
fine­
mesh
screen
system
(
cylindrical
wedgewire)
near
shoreline,
 
Addition
of
a
fish
net
barrier
system,
 
Addition
of
an
aquatic
filter
barrier
system,
 
Relocation
of
an
existing
intake
to
a
submerged
offshore
location
(
with
velocity
cap
inlet,
passive
fine­
mesh
screen
inlet,
or
onshore
traveling
screens),
 
Addition
of
a
velocity
cap
inlet
to
an
existing
offshore
intake,
 
Addition
of
passive
fine­
mesh
screen
to
an
existing
offshore
intake,
 
Addition
or
modification
of
a
shoreline­
based
traveling
screen
for
an
offshore
intake
system,
and
 
Addition
of
dual­
entry,
single­
exit
traveling
screens
(
with
fine­
mesh)
to
a
shoreline
intake
system.
The
explanation
and
derivation
of
each
of
these
modules
is
discussed
in
the
public
record
(
see
``
316(
b)
Phase
II
NODA
Cost
Modules.'')
At
proposal,
EPA
based
its
cost
analysis
primarily
on
the
addition
of
fine­
mesh
traveling
screens
with
fish
handling
systems.
EPA
recognized
at
proposal
that
some
facilities
would
need
to
add
larger
intakes,
move
intakes,
or
modify
offshore
intakes,
and
included
an
approximate
adjustment
factor
in
its
cost
estimates
to
account
for
these
types
of
modifications,
but
lacked
sufficient
data
to
model
them
explicitly.
In
the
NODA
analysis,
EPA
has
added
explicit
cost
modules
for
each
of
these
activities.
As
a
result,
the
per
facility
costs
for
adding
traveling
screens
with
fish
handling
systems
have
gone
down
significantly,
but
a
significant
number
of
facilities
(
about
40%
of
the
in­
scope
universe)
have
been
costed
for
other
technologies,
which
are
significantly
more
expensive
than
traveling
screens.
To
help
commenters
better
understand
the
impacts
of
these
revisions,
EPA
has
placed
a
summary
document
in
the
record
that
shows
modeled
costs
for
a
range
of
flows
for
each
major
technology
module
used
at
proposal
and
in
this
NODA,
broken
out
by
salt
water
versus
freshwater
and
nuclear
facility
versus
non­
nuclear
facility
(
see
``
Comparison
of
Capital
and
Net
O
&
M
Compliance
Costs
for
Technologies
Costed
in
Proposed
Rule
and
NODA'').
As
discussed
in
section
III
above,
EPA
also
modified
its
estimate
of
facility
downtime
potentially
necessary
to
install
these
technologies,
as
well
as
VerDate
Jan<
31>
2003
21:
12
Mar
18,
2003
Jkt
200001
PO
00000
Frm
00006
Fmt
4701
Sfmt
4702
E:\
FR\
FM\
19MRP2.
SGM
19MRP2
13527
Federal
Register
/
Vol.
68,
No.
53
/
Wednesday,
March
19,
2003
/
Proposed
Rules
3
For
a
detailed
description
of
the
IPM
2000
see
Chapter
B3
of
the
Economic
and
Benefits
Analysis
(
EBA)
document
in
support
of
the
proposed
rule
(
DCN
4
 
0002;
http://
www.
epa.
gov/
ost/
316b/
econbenefits/
b3.
pdf).
4
The
ten
NERC
regions
modeled
by
the
IPM
are:
ECAR
(
East
Central
Area
Reliability
Coordination
Agreement),
ERCOT
(
Electric
Reliability
Council
of
Texas),
FRCC
(
Florida
Reliability
Coordinating
Council),
MAAC
(
Mid­
Atlantic
Area
Council),
MAIN
(
Mid­
America
Interconnected
Network,
Inc.),
MAPP
(
Mid­
Continent
Area
Power
Pool),
NPCC
(
Northeast
Power
Coordination
Council),
SERC
(
Southeastern
Electricity
Reliability
Council),
SPP
Continued
capacity
reduction
technologies
such
as
cooling
towers.
EPA
has
not
yet
examined
other
new
information
suggesting
that
site­
specific
factors
may
affect
the
costs
of
retrofitting
wet
towers
at
existing
power
plants.
For
example,
in
October
2002,
the
Department
of
Energy
(
DOE)
provided
EPA
with
a
study
analyzing
the
costs
of
retrofitting
wet
cooling
towers
at
four
facilities
(
see
DCN
W
 
00
 
32,
316(
b)
Phase
II,
comment
2.11).
The
study
found
costs
at
these
facilities
would
be
higher
than
EPA
estimated
for
similar
facilities
in
its
proposal
record.
EPA
invites
comment
on
the
data
contained
in
the
DOE
study,
and
will
consider
these
data
as
the
Agency
makes
decisions
for
the
final
rule.
In
January
2003,
the
DOE/
National
Energy
Technology
Laboratory
(
NETL)
provided
EPA
with
an
addendum
to
their
October
2002
(
see
DCN
W
 
00
 
32,
316(
b)
Phase
II,
comment
2.14).
In
that
addendum,
DOE
determined
that
three
out
of
four
facilities
would
likely
require
plume
abatement
technologies
that
could
double
the
capital
costs
of
the
cooling
tower
portion
of
a
retrofit
project.
In
February
2003,
DOE
provided
additional
information
indicating
that
one
plant
located
on
brackish
waters
in
a
densely
populated
urban
area
that
is
considering
a
cooling
tower
retrofit
may
install
a
reverse
osmosis
system
to
reduce
particulate
salt
emissions
(
see
``
Astoria
Repowering
Project
Article
X
Supplement,''
Reliant
Energy,
November
12,
2002).
EPA
notes
that
some
other
facilities
located
on
brackish
water
using
cooling
towers
do
not
use
such
systems
to
reduce
particulate
emissions
(
see
DCN
4
 
2553)
.
The
Agency
requests
comment
on
whether
site­
specific
factors
other
than
those
addressed
in
the
Agency's
derivation
of
cost
estimates
for
the
waterbody/
capacity­
based
option
at
proposal
could
increase
or
lower
the
costs
of
retrofitting
a
wet
cooling
tower
at
an
existing
plant.

C.
Facility­
Level
Costing
Options
In
order
to
implement
the
revised
costing
approach
(
see
section
IV.
B.
above),
the
Agency
necessarily
changed
its
approach
to
developing
costs
at
the
model
facility
level.
This
approach
focuses
as
much
as
possible
on
sitespecific
characteristics
for
which
the
Agency
obtained
data
through
the
316(
b)
questionnaire.
In
addition,
EPA
utilized
available
geographic
information,
including
detailed
topographic
mapping
and
overhead
satellite
imagery,
to
better
utilize
sitespecific
characteristics
of
each
model
facility's
intake(
s)
to
inform
decisions
on
the
proper
costing
modules
projected
for
compliance.
``
Technology
Costing
Module
Applications
for
Model
Facilities,''
provides
the
background
and
explanation
of
the
Agency's
approach
to
model
facility
level
costing.
EPA's
approach
to
model
facility­
level
costing
may
be
described
as
follows.
In
order
to
project
upgrades
to
technologies
as
a
result
of
compliance
with
the
proposed
rule,
the
Agency
utilizes
as
much
information
as
is
available
about
the
characteristics
of
the
hundreds
of
facilities
within
the
scope
of
the
proposed
rule.
By
incorporating
as
many
site­
specific
features
as
possible
into
the
design
and
implementation
of
its
costing
approach
the
Agency
has
been
able
to
capture
a
representative
range
of
compliance
costs
at
what
it
deems
``
model
facilities.''
However,
the
Agency
did
not
have
and
will
never
have
the
opportunity
to
visit
and
study
in
detail
all
of
the
engineering
aspects
of
each
facility
complying
with
this
rule
(
over
400
facilities
could
incur
technology­
related
compliance
costs
as
a
result
of
this
rule).
Therefore,
although
the
Agency
has
developed
costs
that
represent
EPA's
best
effort
to
develop
a
site­
specific
engineering
assessment
for
a
particular
facility,
this
assessment
does
not
incorporate
certain
peculiarities
that
only
long­
term
study
of
each
facility
would
bear
out.
Hence,
the
Agency
refers
to
its
approach
as
a
``
model''
facility
approach.
In
selecting
technology
modules
for
each
model
facility,
EPA
departed
from
its
traditional
least
cost
approach.
This
is
because,
while
the
Agency
is
confident
that
the
suite
of
available
technologies
can
achieve
compliance
with
the
proposed
performance
generally
(
60
 
90%
reduction
in
entrainment
and
80
 
95%
reduction
in
impingement
relative
to
the
calculation
baseline)
EPA
lacks
sufficient
data
to
determine
the
performance
of
each
technology
on
a
site­
specific
basis.
The
Agency
thus
selected
the
best
performing
technology
(
rather
than
the
least
costly
technology)
that
was
suitable
for
each
site,
in
order
to
ensure
that
the
technology
on
which
costs
were
based
would
in
fact
achieve
compliance
at
that
site.
EPA
recognizes
that
this
approach
may
entail
a
greater
degree
of
cost
conservatism
than
is
typical
in
regulatory
analyses,
and
that
this
may
have
implications
for
the
cost­
cost
comparison
provisions
in
the
proposed
rule.
EPA
requests
comment
on
its
revised
approach
for
selecting
model
facility
cost
modules.
EPA
believes
that
its
modular
approach
to
deriving
costs
of
technologies
and
the
costs
to
install
and
operate
technologies
incorporates
sufficient
flexibility
to
derive
costs
that
reflect
a
broad
range
of
applications.
To
ensure
that
the
Agency
does
not
underestimate
the
costs
of
the
rule,
EPA
has
approached
the
compliance
costing
effort
with
great
conservatism.
When
there
is
uncertainty
or
the
data
are
inconclusive,
EPA
has
favored
conservative
approaches
to
costs
(
that
is,
higher
than
average).
Therefore,
the
Agency
is
confident
that
the
compliance
costs
represented
in
the
analyses
accompanying
this
Notice
of
Data
Availability
represent
conservative
estimates
for
the
range
of
model
facilities
represented.
However,
for
a
particular
facility,
the
costs
may
be
higher
or
may
be
lower
than
would
actually
be
realized.

D.
Clarifications
and
Corrections
Estimating
Design
Intake
Flows
for
Short
Technical
Questionnaire
Facilities
At
proposal,
the
Agency
utilized
a
statistical
methodology
based
on
linear
regression
to
assess
the
design
intake
flow
information
for
facilities
that
responded
to
the
short
technical
questionnaire.
Because
the
Agency
initially
asked
short
technical
respondents
for
only
their
actual
annual
intake
flow
for
the
reporting
year,
it
was
necessary
to
obtain
design
intake
flow
information
for
the
purpose
of
accurately
assessing
compliance
costs.
The
Agency
did
not
include
the
statistical
methodology
for
estimating
design
intake
flows
for
short
technical
questionnaire
facilities
and
its
results
in
the
record
for
the
proposed
rule.
The
Agency
continues
to
use
this
methodology
for
this
Notice
of
Data
Availability
and
hereby
includes
the
supporting
information
in
the
record
(
see
DCN
5
 
2501).

V.
IPM
Analyses
At
proposal,
EPA
used
an
electricity
market
model,
the
Integrated
Planning
Model
2000
(
IPM
 
2000),
to
identify
potential
economic
and
operational
impacts
of
various
regulatory
options
considered
for
proposal.
3
EPA
conducted
impact
analyses
at
the
market
level,
by
North
American
Electric
Reliability
Council
(
NERC)
region,
4
and
for
facilities
subject
to
the
VerDate
Jan<
31>
2003
21:
12
Mar
18,
2003
Jkt
200001
PO
00000
Frm
00007
Fmt
4701
Sfmt
4702
E:\
FR\
FM\
19MRP2.
SGM
19MRP2
13528
Federal
Register
/
Vol.
68,
No.
53
/
Wednesday,
March
19,
2003
/
Proposed
Rules
(
Southwest
Power
Pool),
and
WSCC
(
Western
Systems
Coordinating
Council).
Electric
generators
in
Alaska
and
Hawaii
are
not
modeled
by
the
IPM.
5
For
more
information
on
this
analysis,
please
refer
to
Section
VIII.
A
of
the
preamble
to
the
proposed
rule
and
Chapter
B3
of
the
EBA
document.
6
For
more
information
on
changes
made
to
the
EPA
Base
Case
2000,
see
EBA,
Chapter
B3,
Section
B3
 
2.2.
Phase
II
regulation.
Analyzed
characteristics
included
changes
in
capacity,
generation,
revenue,
cost
of
generation,
and
electricity
prices.
These
changes
were
identified
by
comparing
two
scenarios:
(
1)
The
base
case
scenario
(
in
the
absence
of
any
Section
316(
b)
regulation)
and
(
2)
the
post
compliance
scenario
(
after
the
implementation
of
the
new
Section
316(
b)
regulations).
The
results
of
these
comparisons
were
used
to
assess
the
impacts
of
the
preferred
option
and
two
of
the
five
alternative
regulatory
options
considered
by
EPA:
(
1)
the
``
Intake
Capacity
Commensurate
with
Closed­
Cycle,
Recirculating
Cooling
System
based
on
Waterbody
Type/
Capacity''
Option
(
hereafter
the
``
waterbody/
capacity­
based''
option)
and
(
2)
the
``
Intake
Capacity
Commensurate
with
Closed­
Cycle,
Recirculating
Cooling
System
for
All
Facilities''
Option
(
hereafter
the
``
all
closed­
cycle''
option).
Since
publication
of
the
proposed
rule,
EPA
has
made
several
changes
to
its
IPM
analysis.
The
following
sections
present
a
discussion
of
these
changes
and
the
results
of
the
re­
analysis
of
the
preferred
option
and
the
waterbody/
capacity­
based
option.
EPA
would
use
the
same
methodology
as
described
in
Chapter
B3
of
the
EBA
(
as
amended
in
this
NODA)
to
analyze
other
options
presented
at
proposal
but
not
explicitly
analyzed
for
this
NODA
if
they
were
chosen
for
promulgation.

A.
Changes
to
the
IPM
Analyses
Since
Proposal
This
section
presents
the
changes
to
the
IPM
assumptions
and
modeling
procedures
used
at
proposal.
This
section
also
describes
modifications
EPA
made
to
the
analyses
to
correct
errors
that
were
discovered
after
publication
of
the
proposed
rule.

1.
IPM
Analysis
of
the
Proposed
Regulatory
Requirements
For
the
proposal,
EPA
did
not
explicitly
analyze
the
preferred
option
because
of
time
constraints.
Rather,
EPA
conducted
an
electricity
market
model
analyses
of
two
alternative
options
that
had
higher
costs
than
those
of
the
preferred
option.
To
assess
the
expected
economic
impacts
of
the
preferred
option
at
proposal,
EPA
adopted
an
indirect
approach.
5
EPA
acknowledges
that
an
analysis
specific
to
the
requirements
of
the
preferred
option
is
preferable,
and,
as
a
result,
EPA
conducted
an
IPM
model
run
using
the
proposed
regulatory
requirements
for
this
NODA.
The
results
of
this
analysis
are
presented
in
Section
V.
B
below.

2.
Model
Aggregation
At
proposal,
the
steam
electric
generators
of
the
530
Phase
II
facilities
that
are
modeled
by
the
IPM
were
disaggregated
from
the
existing
IPM
model
plants
(
as
used
in
the
standard
IPM
base
case
used
for
other
EPA
regulations,
the
EPA
Base
Case
2000)
and
``
run''
as
individual
facilities
along
with
the
other
existing
model
plants.
This
change
increased
the
total
number
of
model
plants
from
1,390
under
the
EPA
Base
Case
2000
to
1,777
under
the
316(
b)
Proposal
Base
Case.
6
For
this
NODA,
EPA
made
two
further
changes
to
the
model
aggregation,
which
increased
the
total
number
of
model
plants
from
1,777
to
2,096:
 
Disaggregation
of
non­
steam
generators
at
Phase
II
facilities.
At
proposal,
EPA
only
disaggregated
Phase
II
steam
electric
generators
from
the
original
model
plant
specification.
These
steam
electric
generators
were
then
re­
aggregated
to
the
facility­
level,
and
the
facility­
level
output
was
used
in
EPA's
facility
impact
analyses.
Disaggregating
only
steam­
electric
generators
led
to
the
underestimation
of
certain
facility­
level
operating
characteristics
(
e.
g.,
generation
and
revenues)
because
the
facility­
level
results
produced
by
the
model
did
not
include
the
economic
activities
of
nonsteam
generators
at
Phase
II
facilities.
Therefore,
for
this
NODA
analysis,
EPA
also
disaggregated
the
non­
steam
generators
at
facilities
subject
to
the
rule
from
the
original
model
plant
specification,
so
that
the
facility­
level
results
include
the
economic
activities
of
the
entire
plant.
 
Phase
III
facilities.
In
addition
to
disaggregating
generators
at
Phase
II
facilities,
EPA
also
disaggregated
generators
at
Phase
III
facilities
for
this
NODA.
(
At
the
time
this
analysis
was
started,
the
section
316(
b)
regulatory
schedule
called
for
proposal
of
the
Phase
III
rule
three
months
before
promulgation
of
the
Phase
II
rule.)
Because
changes
in
model
aggregation
can
result
in
changes
to
the
base
case
results,
EPA
compared
the
base
case
results
generated
for
the
proposal
and
NODA
analyses.
This
comparison
identified
little
difference
in
the
base
case
results
caused
by
the
modification
in
the
model
aggregation:
Base
case
total
production
costs
(
capital,
O&
M,
and
fuel)
using
the
revised
NODA
specifications
are
lower
by
0.2%
to
0.3%
in
the
years
2008,
2010,
and
2020.
Early
retirements
of
base
case
oil
and
gas
steam
capacity
under
the
NODA
specifications
decreased
by
1,258
MW.
Early
retirements
of
base
case
nuclear
and
coal
capacity
remained
constant.
In
addition,
the
revised
model
specifications
result
in
changes
in
base
case
coal
and
gas
fuel
use
by
less
than
1.0
percent.

3.
Capacity
Utilization
Under
the
preferred
option
and
the
alternative
regulatory
options
considered
at
proposal,
facilities
with
a
capacity
utilization
rate
of
less
than
15
percent
may
be
subject
to
less
stringent
compliance
requirements
than
facilities
with
a
utilization
rate
of
15
percent
or
more,
depending
on
the
water
body
from
which
they
withdraw
and
the
technologies
they
already
have
in
place.
EPA
made
the
following
changes
to
the
determination
of
the
capacity
utilization
of
Phase
II
facilities
for
the
economic
analysis:
 
Capacity
utilization
rates
based
on
steam­
electric
generators
only.
At
proposal,
the
15
percent
capacity
utilization
determination
was
based
on
the
generation
and
capacity
of
the
entire
facility,
including
steam
electric
and
non­
steam
generators.
As
discussed
at
Section
III
above,
EPA
believes
that
utilization
of
the
steam
electric
part
of
the
facility
better
reflects
the
facility's
potential
for
adverse
environmental
impact
because
only
the
steam
electric
generators
use
cooling
water
subject
to
this
regulation.
At
Section
XI
below,
EPA
invites
comment
on
a
refinement
to
the
definition
of
``
capacity
utilization
rate''
at
proposed
§
125.93
to
focus
only
on
the
steam
electric
generators
at
a
facility.
For
the
NODA,
EPA
is
using
the
capacity
utilization
of
only
the
steam
electric
generators
at
Phase
II
facilities
so
that
the
updated
economic
analyses,
including
the
IPM
analysis,
include
this
potential
refinement.
 
IPM
capacity
utilization
rates.
At
proposal,
EPA
used
the
average
capacity
utilization
based
on
Energy
Information
Administration
(
EIA)
data
for
1995
to
1999.
This
utilization
rate
was
often
different
from
the
rate
based
on
the
IPM
base
case
results.
This
discrepancy
might
have
led
to
an
underestimation
of
economic
impacts
for
those
facilities
whose
utilization
rate
is
less
than
15
percent
based
on
EIA
data
but
15
percent
or
more
based
on
IPM
data,
and
to
an
overestimation
of
economic
impacts
for
those
facilities
whose
utilization
rate
is
15
percent
or
more
based
on
EIA
data
but
less
than
15
VerDate
Jan<
31>
2003
21:
12
Mar
18,
2003
Jkt
200001
PO
00000
Frm
00008
Fmt
4701
Sfmt
4702
E:\
FR\
FM\
19MRP2.
SGM
19MRP2
13529
Federal
Register
/
Vol.
68,
No.
53
/
Wednesday,
March
19,
2003
/
Proposed
Rules
7
Model
run
years
2020
and
2026
were
specified
for
model
balance,
while
run
years
2008,
2010,
and
2013
were
selected
to
provide
output
across
the
compliance
period.
Output
for
2020
and
2026
is
not
used
in
EPA's
analyses.
For
more
information
on
IPM
model
run
years,
see
Chapter
B3,
section
B3
 
2.1.
d
of
the
EBA.
percent
based
on
IPM
data.
To
make
the
compliance
response
and
costs
consistent
with
the
economic
performance
of
facilities
in
the
IPM,
EPA
used
projected
IPM
capacity
utilization
rates
for
2008
(
the
first
model­
run
year)
for
the
NODA.
As
a
result
of
these
two
changes,
of
the
530
facilities
modeled
by
the
IPM
at
proposal,
19
facilities
that
had
a
capacity
utilization
rate
of
less
than
15
percent
for
the
proposal
analysis
have
a
rate
of
15
percent
or
more
for
the
NODA
analysis
(
base
case
using
the
EPA
electricity
demand
growth
assumption).
Conversely,
75
facilities
that
had
a
rate
of
15
percent
or
more
for
the
proposal
analysis
have
a
rate
of
less
than
15
percent
for
the
NODA
analysis
(
base
case
using
the
EPA
electricity
demand
growth
assumption).
The
net
effect
of
these
changes
is
that
for
the
NODA
analysis
more
facilities
are
estimated
to
have
the
less
stringent
compliance
requirements
associated
with
a
low
capacity
utilization
rate
than
was
the
case
for
the
proposal
analysis.
 
Generation
cap.
A
final
modification
to
the
capacity
utilization
of
Phase
II
facilities
relates
to
the
potential
change
in
the
utilization
rate
between
the
base
case
and
the
postcompliance
cases.
Because
facilities
with
a
baseline
capacity
utilization
rate
of
less
than
15
percent
are
potentially
subject
to
less
stringent
compliance
requirements
(
depending
on
the
water
body
from
which
they
withdraw
and
the
technologies
they
already
have
in
place),
they
would
not
be
able
to
increase
their
post­
compliance
capacity
utilization
without
incurring
more
stringent
compliance
requirements.
In
order
to
ensure
that
the
capacity
utilization
rate
in
the
post­
compliance
case
is
consistent
with
the
costing
assumptions,
the
generation
of
facilities
with
a
steam­
electric
capacity
of
less
than
15
percent
in
the
base
case
was
capped
so
that
their
post­
compliance
capacity
utilization
would
remain
below
15
percent.

4.
Treatment
of
Installation
Downtime
The
IPM
models
the
electric
power
market
over
the
26­
year
period
2005
to
2030.
Due
to
the
data­
intensive
processing
procedures,
the
model
is
run
for
a
limited
number
of
years
only.
Run
years
are
selected
based
on
analytical
requirements
and
the
necessity
to
maintain
a
balanced
choice
of
run
years
throughout
the
modeled
time
horizon.
EPA
selected
the
following
run
years
for
the
Section
316(
b)
analyses:
2008,
2010,
2013,
2020,
and
2026.7
2005
to
2009
are
mapped
into
the
2008
run
year;
2010
to
2012
are
mapped
into
the
2010
run
year;
and
2013
to
2015
are
mapped
into
the
2013
run
year.
The
years
that
are
mapped
into
a
run
year
are
assumed
to
have
the
same
characteristics
as
the
run
year
itself.
This
model
characteristic
creates
a
challenge
in
correctly
representing
estimated
downtimes
associated
with
recirculating
systems
and
other
compliance
technologies
exactly
the
way
they
are
estimated
to
occur
(
downtimes
assigned
to
a
model
run
year
are
also
assigned
to
non­
run
years,
and
downtimes
assigned
to
nonrun
years
are
not
taken
into
account).
There
are
different
options
of
accounting
for
downtimes.
At
proposal,
EPA
decided
to
model
the
downtime
for
each
facility
in
its
estimated
year
of
compliance.
Since
2005
through
2009
are
all
mapped
into
2008,
a
facility
that
had
downtime
in
2008
was
modeled
as
if
it
also
had
downtimes
in
2005,
2006,
2007,
and
2009.
This
may
have
understated
the
net
present
value
(
NPV)
of
the
facility's
operations
and
therefore
overestimated
its
closure
decision.
Conversely,
a
facility
that
had
a
downtime
in
a
non­
model
run
year
was
modeled
as
if
it
had
no
downtime
at
all.
This
may
have
overestimated
its
NPV
and
therefore
understated
its
closure
decision.
While
this
approach
potentially
affected
the
facility­
level
analysis,
it
provided
for
a
realistic
snapshot
of
the
market
effect
of
downtimes
in
the
model
run
year.
For
the
NODA
analysis,
EPA
decided
to
change
the
representation
of
downtimes
to
an
average
over
the
years
that
are
mapped
into
each
model
run
year.
For
example,
a
facility
with
a
downtime
in
2008
was
modeled
as
if
1/
5th
of
its
downtime
occurred
in
each
year
between
2005
and
2009.
This
approach
more
closely
models
potential
facility­
level
impacts
as
it
accounts
for
the
correct
total
amount
of
downtime
for
each
facility.
The
potential
drawback
of
this
approach
is
that
the
snapshot
of
the
market­
level
effect
of
downtimes
during
the
model
run
year
is
the
average
effect;
this
approach
does
not
model
potential
worst­
case
effects
of
above­
average
amounts
of
capacity
being
down
in
one
NERC
region
during
a
specific
year.

5.
Correction
of
Errors
EPA
corrected
two
IPM
input
errors
that
were
discovered
after
publication
of
the
proposed
rule:
(
1)
At
proposal,
the
capital
costs
of
compliance
were
erroneously
considered
sunk
and
were
not
taken
into
account
in
making
early
retirement
decisions;
(
2)
The
energy
penalty
was
omitted
for
a
few
facilities
costed
with
a
recirculating
system
(
one
out
of
49
facilities
under
the
waterbody/
capacity­
based
option
and
nine
out
of
408
facilities
under
the
all
closed­
cycle
option).
These
errors
may
have
led
the
IPM
to
understate
the
modeled
economic
impacts
at
these
facilities.

6.
Other
Changes
Affecting
the
IPM
Results
In
addition
to
the
modeling
changes
described
above,
a
number
of
other
changes
affect
the
results
presented
below.
These
changes
are
outlined
in
Section
III
above
and
include
the
following:
an
increase
in
the
estimated
number
of
in­
scope
Phase
II
facilities
from
550
to
551
(
as
a
result,
the
number
of
Phase
II
facilities
modeled
by
the
IPM
increased
from
530
to
531);
revisions
of
technology
and
permitting/
monitoring
costs;
changes
to
the
assumption
of
construction
downtimes
of
recirculating
cooling
towers
and
other
compliance
technologies;
an
adjustment
of
energy
penalties;
changes
in
the
estimation
of
the
capacity
utilization
threshold;
and
adjustments
to
the
compliance
schedule.
EPA
also
notes
that
in
2010,
nondispatched
capacity
in
the
IPM
base
case
(
based
on
EPA's
electricity
demand
growth
assumption)
is
approximately
12
percent
of
total
capacity,
which
is
consistent
with
historical
rates
to
ensure
system
reliability.
(
Non­
dispatched
facilities
are
those
that
operate
on
a
stand­
by
basis
throughout
the
year
but
are
not
called
upon
to
generate
and
dispatch
electricity.)
Most
of
this
capacity
is
oil/
gas
steam
capacity
(
66
percent)
and
gas
turbines
(
27
percent).
Overall,
11
percent
of
steam
electric
capacity
and
15
percent
of
non­
steam
capacity
are
modeled
to
be
on
stand­
by.
A
large
portion
of
the
non­
dispatched
steam
electric
capacity
is
subject
to
Phase
II
regulation.
In
total,
approximately
12
percent
of
Phase
II
steam
electric
capacity
is
not
dispatched
in
the
base
case.
This
number
is
higher
than
historical
data
for
these
facilities.
The
main
reason
for
this
difference
is
that
over
time,
existing
capacity,
especially
oil/
gas
steam
capacity,
is
expected
to
become
less
competitive
relative
to
new
capacity
additions,
especially
combined­
cycle
facilities.
Oil
and
gas
steam
units
generally
have
(
a)
higher
heat
rates,
(
b)
higher
fuel
costs,
(
c)
higher
variable
O&
M
costs,
and
(
d)
higher
emission
rates
than
other
steam
electric
capacity.
As
a
result,
some
relatively
inefficient
oil
and
gas
steam
units
are
modeled
to
be
idle
in
the
IPM.

VerDate
Jan<
31>
2003
21:
12
Mar
18,
2003
Jkt
200001
PO
00000
Frm
00009
Fmt
4701
Sfmt
4702
E:\
FR\
FM\
19MRP2.
SGM
19MRP2
13530
Federal
Register
/
Vol.
68,
No.
53
/
Wednesday,
March
19,
2003
/
Proposed
Rules
8
Two
base
case
scenarios
were
used
to
analyze
the
impacts
associated
with
the
preferred
option
and
the
waterbody/
capacity­
based
option.
The
base
case
scenario
used
to
analyze
the
preferred
option
was
developed
using
EPA's
electricity
demand
assumption.
Under
this
assumption,
demand
for
electricity
is
based
on
the
Annual
Energy
Outlook
(
AEO)
2001
forecast
adjusted
to
account
for
demand
reductions
resulting
from
the
implementation
of
the
Climate
Change
Action
Plan
(
CAAP).
The
base
case
for
the
waterbody/
capacity­
based
option
was
developed
using
the
unadjusted
electricity
demand
from
the
AEO
2001.
(
See
the
Appendix
of
ch.
B8
of
the
EBA,
as
published
for
the
proposed
rule,
for
further
explanation
on
the
two
base
cases;
http://
www.
epa.
gov/
ost/
316b/
econbenefits/
b8.
pdf.)
EPA
is
currently
completing
additional
IPM
runs
and
will
develop
analyses
of
both
options
using
both
base
cases.
EPA
intends
to
place
these
additional
analyses
in
the
docket
during
the
comment
period
on
this
Notice.
EPA
expects
to
use
information
from
the
analyses
in
today's
Notice
and
these
additional
analyses
to
support
decision­
making
for
the
final
rule.

9
EPA
also
analyzed
potential
market­
level
impacts
of
the
preferred
option
for
a
year
within
the
compliance
period
during
which
some
Phase
II
facilities
experience
installation
downtimes.
This
analysis
used
output
from
model
run
year
2008.
See
ch.
B3,
sec.
B3
 
4.3
of
the
EBA,
as
updated
for
this
NODA
analysis,
for
the
results
of
this
analysis.
All
Phase
II
facilities
are
subject
to
the
requirements
of
the
Phase
II
regulation,
even
if
they
do
not
generate
electricity.
Therefore,
unless
EPA
modeled
a
facility
to
cease
operations
and
exit
the
marketplace,
EPA
assigned
compliance
costs
to
non­
dispatched
facilities.
While
none
of
the
Phase
II
units
that
stand­
by
in
the
base
case
are
modeled
to
be
economic
closures
under
the
preferred
option,
it
is
possible
that
other
economic
measures,
e.
g.,
impacts
on
pre­
tax
income,
may
be
overestimated
for
these
facilities.
This
would
be
the
case
because
revenues
might
be
understated
if
the
modeling
assumption
that
these
facilities
do
not
generate
electricity
is
not
realistic.
EPA
requests
comment
on
this
part
of
the
analysis.

B.
Revised
Results
for
the
Preferred
Option
This
section
presents
the
revised
impact
analysis
of
the
preferred
option.
The
impacts
of
compliance
with
the
preferred
option
are
defined
as
the
difference
between
the
model
output
for
the
base
case
scenario
and
the
model
output
for
the
post­
compliance
scenario.
8
EPA
analyzed
impacts
from
the
preferred
option
using
output
from
model
run
year
2010.
2010
was
chosen
to
represent
the
effects
of
the
preferred
option
for
a
typical
year
in
which
all
facilities
are
in
compliance
(
compliance
years
for
the
preferred
option
are
2005
to
2009).
9
The
analysis
was
conducted
at
two
levels:
the
market
level
including
all
facilities
(
by
NERC
region)
and
the
Phase
II
facility
level
(
including
analyses
of
the
in­
scope
Phase
II
facilities
as
a
group
and
of
individual
Phase
II
facilities).
The
results
of
these
analyses
are
presented
below.

1.
Market­
Level
Impacts
of
the
Preferred
Option
The
market­
level
analysis
includes
results
for
all
generators
located
in
each
NERC
region
including
facilities
both
in
scope
and
out
of
scope
of
the
proposed
Phase
II
rule.
Exhibit
1
below
presents
five
measures
used
by
EPA
to
assess
market­
level
impacts
associated
with
the
preferred
option:
(
1)
Incremental
capacity
closures,
calculated
as
the
difference
between
capacity
closures
under
the
preferred
option
and
capacity
closures
under
the
base
case;
(
2)
incremental
capacity
closures
as
a
percentage
of
baseline
capacity;
(
3)
postcompliance
changes
in
variable
production
costs
per
MWh,
calculated
as
the
sum
of
total
fuel
and
variable
O&
M
costs
divided
by
total
generation;
(
4)
post­
compliance
changes
in
energy
price,
where
energy
prices
are
defined
as
the
wholesale
prices
received
by
facilities
for
the
sale
of
electric
generation;
and
(
5)
post­
compliance
changes
in
pre­
tax
income,
where
pretax
income
is
defined
as
total
revenues
minus
the
sum
of
fixed
and
variable
O&
M
costs,
fuel
costs,
and
capital
costs.
Additional
results
are
presented
in
Chapter
B3:
Electricity
Market
Model
Analysis
(
sec.
B3
 
4.1)
of
the
EBA,
as
updated
for
this
NODA
analysis.
Chapter
B3
also
presents
a
more
detailed
interpretation
of
the
results
of
the
market­
level
analysis.

EXHIBIT
1.
 
MARKET­
LEVEL
IMPACTS
OF
THE
PREFERRED
OPTION
(
2010)

NERC
region
Baseline
capacity
(
MW)
Incremental
capacity
closures
(
MW)
Closures
as
%
of
baseline
capacity
Change
in
variable
production
cost
per
MWh
Change
in
energy
price
per
MWh
Change
in
pre­
tax
income
($
2002)

ECAR
....................
118,529
0
0.0
0.1
0.0
¥
1.1
ERCOT
.................
75,290
0
0.0
0.0
6.1
¥
6.0
FRCC
....................
50,324
0
0.0
0.4
0.6
¥
3.1
MAAC
....................
63,784
0
0.0
¥
0.1
0.0
¥
0.9
MAIN
.....................
59,494
434
0.7
0.8
¥
0.3
¥
0.7
MAPP
....................
35,835
0
0.0
¥
0.1
¥
0.4
¥
0.6
NPCC
....................
72,477
0
0.0
¥
0.4
0.9
0.8
SERC
....................
194,485
0
0.0
¥
0.1
0.0
¥
0.5
SPP
.......................
49,948
0
0.0
¥
0.1
¥
0.2
¥
0.4
WSCC
...................
167,748
0
0.0
0.0
0.0
¥
1.1
Total
...............
887,915
434
0.0
0.0
n/
a
¥
1.1
One
of
the
ten
NERC
regions
modeled,
MAIN,
would
experience
economic
closures
of
existing
capacity
as
a
result
of
the
preferred
option.
However,
this
closure
of
434
MW
of
nuclear
capacity
represents
a
relatively
small
percentage
of
baseline
capacity
in
the
region
(
0.7
percent).
Three
NERC
regions
would
experience
increases
in
variable
production
costs
per
MWh,
although
the
largest
increase
would
not
exceed
1.0
percent.
In
addition,
three
NERC
regions
would
experience
an
increase
in
energy
price
under
the
preferred
option.
Of
these,
only
ERCOT
would
experience
an
increase
of
more
than
1.0
percent
(
6.1
percent).
Pre­
tax
incomes
would
decrease
in
all
but
one
region,
but
the
majority
of
these
changes
would
be
on
the
order
of
1.0
percent
or
less.
ERCOT
would
experience
the
largest
decrease
in
pre­
tax
income
(
¥
6.0
percent).
Only
one
region,
NPCC,
would
experience
an
increase
in
market­
level
pre­
tax
income
(
0.8
percent).

2.
Facility­
Level
Impacts
of
the
Preferred
Option
The
results
from
model
run
year
2010
were
used
to
analyze
two
potential
facility­
level
impacts
associated
with
the
preferred
option:
(
1)
Potential
changes
in
the
economic
and
operational
characteristics
of
the
group
VerDate
Jan<
31>
2003
21:
12
Mar
18,
2003
Jkt
200001
PO
00000
Frm
00010
Fmt
4701
Sfmt
4702
E:\
FR\
FM\
19MRP2.
SGM
19MRP2
13531
Federal
Register
/
Vol.
68,
No.
53
/
Wednesday,
March
19,
2003
/
Proposed
Rules
of
in­
scope
Phase
II
facilities
and
(
2)
potential
changes
to
individual
facilities
within
the
group
of
Phase
II
facilities.
EPA
analyzed
incremental
capacity
closures,
changes
in
variable
production
costs
per
MWh
of
generation,
total
generation,
and
pre­
tax
income
to
assess
impacts
to
all
Phase
II
facilities
resulting
from
the
preferred
option.
Exhibit
2
below
presents
the
results
of
this
analysis,
by
NERC
region.

EXHIBIT
2.
 
IMPACTS
ON
PHASE
II
FACILITIES
OF
THE
PREFERRED
OPTION
(
2010)

NERC
region
Baseline
capacity
(
MW)
Incremental
closures
Change
in
variable
production
cost
per
MWh
(%)
Change
in
generation
(%)
Change
in
pre­
tax
Income
(%)
Capacity
(
MW)
%
of
baseline
capacity
ECAR
....................
82,313
0
0.0
0.0
¥
0.1
¥
1.4
ERCOT
..................
43,522
0
0.0
¥
0.7
¥
1.7
¥
11.0
FRCC
....................
27,537
0
0.0
0.3
¥
0.8
¥
4.1
MAAC
....................
33,590
0
0.0
0.0
0.2
¥
1.4
MAIN
.....................
35,373
434
1.2
0.5
¥
1.1
¥
1.0
MAPP
....................
15,727
0
0.0
0.0
0.0
¥
1.6
NPCC
....................
37,651
0
0.0
¥
1.4
¥
2.3
¥
0.8
SERC
....................
107,450
0
0.0
¥
0.2
¥
0.2
¥
0.7
SPP
.......................
20,471
0
0.0
¥
0.4
¥
0.6
¥
1.0
WSCC
...................
27,206
0
0.0
¥
1.0
¥
5.5
¥
27.0
Total
...............
430,840
434
0.1
¥
0.5
¥
0.8
¥
2.0
Similar
to
the
market
level
results,
MAIN
is
the
only
region
that
would
experience
incremental
capacity
closures
at
Phase
II
facilities
under
this
regulatory
option:
A
total
of
434
MW,
or
1.2
percent
of
all
Phase
II
capacity
in
this
region,
would
be
retired.
Total
capacity
closures
in
MAIN
are
a
net
estimate
(
i.
e.,
policy
case
closures
minus
base
cases
closures)
consisting
of
519
MW
of
capacity
retiring
at
one
facility
and
an
85
MW
reduction
in
closures
at
a
second
facility.
Variable
production
costs
per
MWh
at
Phase
II
facilities
would
increase
in
two
regions
and
decrease
in
five
regions
under
the
preferred
option.
No
region
would
experience
an
increase
in
Phase
II
variable
production
costs
that
exceeds
0.5
percent
while
Phase
II
facilities
in
NPCC
and
WSCC
would
see
reductions
of
1.4
percent
and
1.0
percent,
respectively.
Phase
II
facilities
in
four
NERC
regions
would
experience
decreases
in
generation
in
excess
of
1.0
percent
as
a
result
of
the
preferred
option.
The
largest
decrease
would
be
in
WSCC,
where
Phase
II
facilities
would
experience
a
5.5
percent
reduction
in
both
generation
and
revenues.
Overall,
pre­
tax
income
would
decrease
by
2.0
percent
for
the
group
of
Phase
II
facilities.
The
effects
of
this
change
are
concentrated
in
a
few
regions:
WSCC
would
experience
a
reduction
in
pre­
tax
income
of
27.0
percent,
which
is
driven
by
a
reduction
in
both
generation
and
revenues
(
not
presented
in
this
exhibit).
ERCOT
and
FRCC
are
estimated
to
experience
a
reduction
of
11.0
and
4.1
percent,
respectively.
Results
for
the
group
of
Phase
II
facilities
as
a
whole
may
mask
shifts
in
economic
performance
among
individual
facilities
subject
to
this
rule.
To
assess
potential
distributional
effects,
EPA
analyzed
facility­
specific
changes
in
capacity
utilization
(
defined
as
generation
divided
by
capacity
times
8,760
hours),
generation,
revenue,
variable
production
costs
per
MWh
(
defined
as
variable
O&
M
cost
plus
fuel
cost
divided
by
generation),
and
pre­
tax
income.
Exhibit
3
presents
the
total
number
of
Phase
II
facilities
with
different
degrees
of
change
in
each
of
these
measures.
This
exhibit
excludes
18
in­
scope
facilities
with
significant
status
changes
(
10
facilities
are
baseline
closures,
one
facility
is
a
policy
closure,
and
seven
facilities
changed
their
repowering
decision
between
the
base
case
and
the
policy
case).
These
facilities
are
either
not
operating
at
all
in
either
the
base
case
or
the
post­
compliance
case,
or
they
experience
fundamental
changes
in
the
type
of
units
they
operate;
therefore,
the
measures
presented
below
would
not
be
meaningful
for
these
facilities.
In
addition,
the
change
in
variable
production
cost
per
MWh
of
generation
could
not
be
developed
for
57
facilities
with
zero
generation
in
either
the
base
case
or
post­
compliance
scenario.
For
these
facilities,
the
change
in
variable
production
cost
per
MWh
is
indicated
as
``
n/
a.''

EXHIBIT
3.
 
OPERATIONAL
CHANGES
AT
PHASE
II
FACILITIES
FROM
THE
PREFERRED
OPTION
(
2010)
a
Economic
measures
Reduction
Increase
No
change
N/
A
 
=
1%
1
 
3%
>
3%
 
=
1%
1
 
3%
>
3%

Change
in
Capacity
Utilization
b
...................
9
15
24
9
6
9
441
0
Change
in
Generation
..................................
7
1
44
10
3
17
431
0
Change
in
Revenue
.....................................
80
27
42
100
22
15
227
0
Change
in
Variable
Production
Costs/
MWh
33
13
9
140
13
14
234
57
Change
in
Pre­
Tax
Income
..........................
105
113
199
22
13
37
24
0
a
For
all
measures
percentages
used
to
assign
facilities
to
impact
categories
have
been
rounded
to
the
nearest
10th
of
a
percent.
b
The
change
in
capacity
utilization
is
the
difference
between
the
capacity
utilization
percentages
in
the
base
case
and
post­
compliance
case.
For
all
other
measures,
the
change
is
expressed
as
the
percentage
change
between
the
base
case
and
post­
compliance
values.

Exhibit
3
indicates
that
the
majority
of
Phase
II
facilities
would
not
experience
changes
in
capacity
utilization
or
generation
due
to
compliance
with
the
preferred
option.
Of
those
facilities
with
changes
in
post­
compliance
capacity
VerDate
Jan<
31>
2003
21:
12
Mar
18,
2003
Jkt
200001
PO
00000
Frm
00011
Fmt
4701
Sfmt
4702
E:\
FR\
FM\
19MRP2.
SGM
19MRP2
13532
Federal
Register
/
Vol.
68,
No.
53
/
Wednesday,
March
19,
2003
/
Proposed
Rules
10
Two
base
case
scenarios
were
used
to
analyze
the
impacts
associated
with
the
preferred
option
and
the
waterbody/
capacity­
based
option.
See
footnote
8
above
for
a
full
explanation.
11
EPA
also
analyzed
potential
market­
level
impacts
of
the
alternative
waterbody/
capacity­
based
option
for
a
year
within
the
compliance
period
during
which
some
Phase
II
facilities
experience
installation
downtimes.
This
analysis
used
output
from
model
run
year
2008.
See
Chapter
B8,
Section
B8
 
4
of
the
EBA,
as
updated
for
this
NODA
analysis,
for
the
results
of
this
analysis.
utilization
and
generation,
most
would
experience
decreases
in
these
measures.
Exhibit
3
also
indicates
that
the
majority
of
facilities
with
changes
in
postcompliance
variable
production
costs
would
experience
increases.
However,
more
than
80
percent
of
those
increases
would
not
exceed
1.0
percent.
Changes
in
revenues
at
most
Phase
II
facilities
would
also
not
exceed
1.0
percent.
The
largest
effect
of
the
preferred
option
would
be
on
facilities'
pre­
tax
income:
over
80
percent
of
facilities
would
experience
a
reduction
in
pre­
tax
income,
with
almost
40
percent
experiencing
a
reduction
of
3.0
percent
or
greater.

C.
Revised
Results
for
the
Waterbody/
Capacity­
Based
Option
This
section
presents
the
revised
impact
analysis
of
the
alternative
waterbody/
capacity­
based
option.
Under
this
option,
facilities
that
withdraw
water
from
an
estuary,
tidal
river,
or
ocean
and
that
meet
certain
intake
flow
requirements,
would
generally
be
required
to
meet
performance
standards
for
reducing
impingement
mortality
and
entrainment
based
on
a
level
that
can
be
attained
by
using
a
closed­
cycle,
recirculating
cooling
system.
These
facilities
would
have
the
choice
to
comply
with
Track
I
or
Track
II
requirements.
Facilities
that
choose
to
comply
with
Track
I
would
be
required
to
reduce
their
intake
flow
to
a
level
commensurate
with
that
which
can
be
attained
by
a
closed­
cycle,
recirculating
system.
Facilities
that
choose
to
comply
with
Track
II
would
have
to
demonstrate
that
alternative
technologies
would
reduce
impingement
and
entrainment
to
comparable
levels
that
would
be
achieved
with
a
closed­
cycle
recirculating
system
(
see
section
VI.
B.
2
of
the
proposal
preamble
for
a
discussion
of
Track
I
and
Track
II
under
this
option).
Other
facilities
would
be
required
to
reduce
impingement
mortality
or
impingement
mortality
and
entrainment
based
on
the
performance
of
technologies
such
as
fine­
mesh
screens
and
fish­
return
systems.
EPA's
estimation
of
impacts
associated
with
the
alternative
waterbody/
capacity­
based
option
is
based
on
an
electricity
market
model
analysis
that
assumes
that
all
facilities
required
to
reduce
impingement
mortality
and
entrainment
based
on
the
performance
of
a
closed­
cycle
recirculating
cooling
system
would
choose
to
comply
with
the
requirements
of
Track
I.
This
analysis
further
assumes
that
such
facilities
would
install
a
recirculating
wet
cooling
tower.
These
requirements
would
be
met
by
the
end
of
the
term
of
the
first
permit
after
promulgation
of
the
final
rule
(
2005
to
2013),
depending
on
when
a
permittee's
first
NPDES
permit
after
promulgation
expires.
The
impacts
of
compliance
with
the
waterbody/
capacity­
based
option
are
defined
as
the
difference
between
the
model
output
for
the
base
case
scenario
and
the
model
output
for
the
post­
compliance
scenario.
10
EPA
analyzed
impacts
using
IPM
output
from
model
run
year
2013.
2013
was
chosen
to
represent
the
effects
of
the
waterbody/
capacity­
based
option
for
a
typical
year
in
which
all
facilities
are
in
compliance
(
compliance
years
for
the
waterbody/
capacity­
based
option
are
2005
to
2013;
however,
for
the
purposes
of
this
analysis,
all
facilities
are
modeled
to
comply
by
2012).
11
The
analysis
was
conducted
at
two
levels:
the
market
level
including
all
facilities
(
by
NERC
region)
and
the
Phase
II
facility
level
(
including
analyses
of
the
in­
scope
Phase
II
facilities
as
a
group
and
of
individual
Phase
II
facilities),
using
the
same
framework
as
the
analysis
of
the
preferred
option
presented
above.
It
should
be
noted
that
a
direct
comparison
of
the
results
of
the
preferred
option
and
the
waterbody/
capacity­
based
option
is
not
possible
because
(
1)
the
analyses
use
output
for
different
model
run
years
(
2010
for
the
preferred
option
and
2013
for
the
waterbody/
capacity­
based
option)
and
(
2)
the
two
analyses
use
different
base
cases
with
different
assumptions
about
future
growth
in
electricity
demand.
As
noted
above,
EPA
will
provide
analyses
of
both
regulatory
options
for
both
base
cases
and
intends
to
place
these
in
the
docket
during
the
comment
period
on
this
Notice.

1.
Market­
Level
Impacts
of
the
Waterbody/
Capacity­
Based
Option
The
market­
level
analysis
includes
results
for
all
generators
located
in
each
NERC
region
including
facilities
both
in
scope
and
out
of
scope
of
Phase
II
regulation.
Exhibit
4
below
presents
the
same
five
measures
as
discussed
for
the
preferred
option:
(
1)
Incremental
capacity
closures,
calculated
as
the
difference
between
capacity
closures
under
the
waterbody/
capacity­
based
option
and
capacity
closures
under
the
base
case;
(
2)
incremental
capacity
closures
as
a
percentage
of
baseline
capacity;
(
3)
post­
compliance
changes
in
variable
production
costs
per
MWh,
calculated
as
the
sum
of
total
fuel
and
variable
O&
M
costs
divided
by
total
generation;
(
4)
post­
compliance
changes
in
energy
price,
where
energy
prices
are
defined
as
the
prices
received
by
facilities
for
the
sale
of
electric
generation;
and
(
5)
post­
compliance
changes
in
pre­
tax
income,
where
pretax
income
is
defined
as
total
revenues
minus
the
sum
of
fixed
and
variable
O&
M
costs,
fuel
costs,
and
capital
costs.
Additional
results
are
presented
in
Chapter
B8
(
Section
B8
 
2)
of
the
EBA,
as
updated
for
this
NODA
analysis.
Chapter
B8
also
presents
a
more
detailed
interpretation
of
the
results
of
the
market­
level
analysis.

EXHIBIT
4.
 
MARKET­
LEVEL
IMPACTS
OF
THE
WATERBODY/
CAPACITY­
BASED
OPTION
(
2013)
 
NERC
Region
Baseline
capacity
(
MW)
Incremental
capacity
closures
(
MW)
Closures
as
%
of
baseline
capacity
Change
in
variable
production
cost
per
MWh
Change
in
energy
price
per
MWh
Change
in
pre­
tax
income
($
2002)

ECAR
....................
133,048
0
0.0%
0.5%
0.8%
1.3%
ERCOT
..................
86,609
0
0.0
1.2
1.7
¥
0.1
FRCC
....................
57,078
0
0.0
1.7
3.8
¥
5.4
MAAC
....................
71,441
0
0.0
1.3
1.4
¥
4.1
MAIN
.....................
66,420
1,012
1.5
2.2
1.6
1.4
MAPP
....................
39,694
0
0.0
0.3
1.8
2.0
NPCC
....................
77,557
0
0.0
1.2
1.1
¥
3.3
SERC
....................
220,567
0
0.0
1.0
1.4
0.2
SPP
.......................
55,711
0
0.0
0.6
1.5
1.2
VerDate
Jan<
31>
2003
21:
12
Mar
18,
2003
Jkt
200001
PO
00000
Frm
00012
Fmt
4701
Sfmt
4702
E:\
FR\
FM\
19MRP2.
SGM
19MRP2
13533
Federal
Register
/
Vol.
68,
No.
53
/
Wednesday,
March
19,
2003
/
Proposed
Rules
EXHIBIT
4.
 
MARKET­
LEVEL
IMPACTS
OF
THE
WATERBODY/
CAPACITY­
BASED
OPTION
(
2013)
 
 
Continued
NERC
Region
Baseline
capacity
(
MW)
Incremental
capacity
closures
(
MW)
Closures
as
%
of
baseline
capacity
Change
in
variable
production
cost
per
MWh
Change
in
energy
price
per
MWh
Change
in
pre­
tax
income
($
2002)

WSCC
...................
186,001
2,150
1.2
2.9
1.4
¥
1.7
Total
...............
994,126
3,162
0.3
1.2
n/
a
¥
0.5
Two
of
the
ten
NERC
regions
modeled,
MAIN
and
WSCC,
would
experience
economic
closures
of
facilities
as
a
result
of
this
option.
The
capacity
closures
in
MAIN
and
WSCC
represent
1.5
percent
and
1.2
percent,
respectively,
of
baseline
capacity
in
these
regions
and
0.3
percent
of
total
baseline
capacity
for
all
regions
taken
as
a
whole.
Variable
production
costs
per
MWh
and
energy
prices
would
increase
in
all
NERC
regions.
The
increases
in
variable
production
costs
would
exceed
1.0
percent
in
six
NERC
regions,
and
two
regions,
MAIN
and
WSCC,
would
experience
increases
of
more
than
2.0
percent.
Energy
prices
would
increase
by
more
than
1.0
percent
in
nine
of
the
ten
regions
modeled,
with
FRCC
experiencing
the
largest
increase
(
3.8
percent).
Half
of
the
regions
would
experience
a
reduction
in
pre­
tax
income,
while
the
other
half
would
experience
increases
in
this
measure.
The
majority
of
these
changes
would
be
less
than
2.0
percent.
FRCC,
MAAC,
and
NPCC
would
experience
the
largest
decrease
in
pre­
tax
income
(­
5.4,
­
4.1,
and
­
3.3
percent,
respectively),
while
the
largest
increase
would
occur
in
MAPP
(
2.0
percent).

2.
Phase
II
Facility­
Level
Impacts
of
the
Waterbody/
Capacity­
Based
Option
The
results
from
model
run
year
2013
were
used
to
analyze
two
potential
facility­
level
impacts
associated
with
the
preferred
option:
(
1)
Potential
changes
in
the
economic
and
operational
characteristics
of
the
group
of
in­
scope
Phase
II
facilities
and
(
2)
potential
changes
to
individual
facilities
within
the
group
of
Phase
II
facilities.
EPA
analyzed
the
same
measures
as
discussed
for
the
preferred
option
to
assess
impacts
to
the
group
of
Phase
II
facilities
resulting
from
the
waterbody/
capacity­
based
option:
economic
closures,
changes
in
variable
production
costs
per
MWh
of
generation,
total
generation,
and
pre­
tax
income.
Exhibit
5
below
presents
the
results
from
this
analysis,
by
NERC
region.

EXHIBIT
5.
 
IMPACTS
ON
PHASE
II
FACILITIES
OF
THE
WATERBODY/
CAPACITY
 
BASED
OPTION
(
2013)

NERC
Baseline
capacity
(
MW)
Closure
analysis
Change
in
variable
production
cost
per
MWh
Change
in
generation
Change
in
pre­
tax
income
Capacity
(
MW)
%
of
baseline
capacity
ECAR
....................
82,258
0
0.0%
0.3%
0.1%
1.0%
ERCOT
..................
44,400
0
0.0
0.3
0.6
0.5
FRCC
....................
27,513
0
0.0
0.3
3.5
10.5
MAAC
....................
34,696
0
0.0
0.8
1.0
7.7
MAIN
.....................
34,944
1,012
2.9
1.2
2.5
1.5
MAPP
....................
15,723
0
0.0
0.0
0.1
2.0
NPCC
....................
37,219
0
0.0
0.8
¥
0.6
¥
9.2
SERC
....................
107,458
0
0.0
0.7
0.1
¥
0.1
SPP
.......................
20,471
0
0.0
¥
0.7
¥
0.6
1.4
WSCC
...................
28,093
2,150
7.7
0.5
¥
29.2
¥
30.7
Total
...............
432,776
3,162
0.7
0.0
¥
2.1
¥
2.1
Similar
to
the
results
of
the
broader
market­
level
analysis,
MAIN
and
WSCC
are
the
only
regions
that
would
experience
incremental
capacity
closures
at
Phase
II
facilities
under
this
regulatory
option.
In
MAIN,
1,012
MW,
or
2.9
percent
of
baseline
Phase
II
capacity,
would
retire;
in
WSCC,
2,150
MW,
or
7.7
percent
of
baseline
Phase
II
capacity,
would
retire.
In
aggregate,
these
closures
of
3,162
MW
represents
less
than
1.0
percent
of
total
baseline
Phase
II
capacity.
Phase
II
facilities
in
only
one
region,
MAIN,
would
experience
an
increase
in
excess
of
1.0
percent
in
variable
production
cost
per
MWh.
Phase
II
facilities
in
seven
NERC
regions
would
experience
a
decrease
in
generation.
Of
these,
three
regions
would
see
reductions
in
excess
of
2.0
percent
with
the
largest
decrease
occurring
in
WSCC
(­
29.2
percent),
partially
because
of
the
post­
compliance
closures.
Similar
to
the
market
level,
FRCC,
MAAC,
and
NPCC
would
experience
relatively
large
reductions
in
pre­
tax
income
(­
10.5,
­
7.7,
and
­
9.2
percent,
respectively).
However,
the
highest
reduction
would
be
seen
in
WSCC
(­
30.7
percent),
where
the
compliance
costs
per
MW
of
Phase
II
capacity
is
relatively
high,
and
where
only
a
relatively
small
portion
of
the
overall
capacity
is
regulated
under
the
Phase
II
rule.
To
assess
potential
shifts
in
economic
performance
among
individual
facilities
subject
to
this
rule,
EPA
analyzed
the
same
facility­
specific
changes
as
for
the
preferred
option:
changes
in
capacity
utilization
(
defined
as
generation
divided
by
capacity
times
8,760
hours),
generation,
revenue,
variable
production
costs
per
MWh
(
defined
as
variable
O&
M
cost
plus
fuel
cost
divided
by
generation),
and
pre­
tax
income.
Exhibit
6
presents
the
total
number
of
Phase
II
facilities
with
different
degrees
of
change
in
each
of
these
measures.
This
exhibit
excludes
30
in­
scope
facilities
with
significant
status
changes
(
nine
facilities
are
baseline
closures,
three
facilities
are
policy
closures,
and
18
facilities
changed
their
repowering
decision
between
the
base
case
and
the
policy
case).
These
facilities
are
either
not
operating
at
all
in
either
the
base
case
or
the
post­
compliance
case,
or
they
experience
fundamental
changes
in
the
type
of
units
they
operate;
therefore,

VerDate
Jan<
31>
2003
21:
12
Mar
18,
2003
Jkt
200001
PO
00000
Frm
00013
Fmt
4701
Sfmt
4702
E:\
FR\
FM\
19MRP2.
SGM
19MRP2
13534
Federal
Register
/
Vol.
68,
No.
53
/
Wednesday,
March
19,
2003
/
Proposed
Rules
12
For
example,
compliance
requirements
in
NERC
regions
without
estuarine/
tidal
river
or
ocean
facilities
(
i.
e.,
ECAR,
MAIN,
MAPP,
and
SPP)
are
identical
under
the
two
options.
For
this
NODA
analysis,
all
facilities
in
these
regions
would
have
had
identical
compliance
costs
under
the
two
options,
were
it
not
for
the
difference
in
base
case
assumptions.
13
At
proposal,
EPA
assumed
that
the
technologies
required
to
comply
with
the
preferred
option
would
not
require
installation
downtimes
(
see
Section
III.
4
of
this
Notice).
the
measures
presented
below
would
not
be
meaningful
for
these
facilities.
In
addition,
the
change
in
variable
production
cost
per
MWh
of
generation
could
not
be
developed
for
62
facilities
with
zero
generation
in
either
the
base
case
or
post­
compliance
scenario.
For
these
facilities,
the
change
in
variable
production
cost
per
MWh
is
indicated
as
``
n/
a.''

EXHIBIT
6.
 
NUMBER
OF
PHASE
II
FACILITIES
WITH
OPERATIONAL
CHANGES
AT
PHASE
II
FACILITIES
WATERBODY/
CAPACITY­
BASED
OPTION
(
2013)
a
Economic
measures
Reduction
Increase
No
change
N/
A
 
1%
1
 
3%
>
3%
 
1%
1
 
3%
>
3%

Change
in
Capacity
Utilization
b
..................
4
11
21
6
14
15
430
0
Change
in
Generation
..................................
7
24
37
5
7
23
398
0
Change
in
Revenue
.....................................
56
13
41
108
247
28
8
0
Change
in
Variable
Production
Costs/
MWh
18
5
8
154
115
21
118
62
Change
in
Pre­
Tax
Income
..........................
51
62
164
45
141
36
2
0
a
For
all
measures
percentages
used
to
assign
facilities
to
impact
categories
have
been
rounded
to
the
nearest
10th
of
a
percent.
b
The
change
in
capacity
utilization
is
the
difference
between
the
capacity
utilization
percentages
in
the
base
case
and
post­
compliance
case.
For
all
other
measures,
the
change
is
expressed
as
the
percentage
change
between
the
base
case
and
post­
compliance
values.

Exhibit
6
indicates
that
the
majority
of
Phase
II
facilities
would
not
experience
changes
in
capacity
utilization
or
generation
due
to
compliance
with
the
waterbody/
capacity­
based
option.
Of
facilities
with
post­
compliance
changes
in
capacity
utilization
and/
or
generation,
the
majority
would
experience
a
decrease
in
these
measures.
Exhibit
6
also
indicates
that
the
majority
of
Phase
II
facilities
would
experience
increases
in
both
revenues
and
variable
production
costs
of
between
0.0
and
3.0
percent.
Similarly,
almost
all
Phase
II
facilities
would
experience
a
change
in
pre­
tax
income,
with
a
slight
majority
seeing
a
reduction
in
this
measure.

VI.
Other
Economic
Analyses
EPA
updated
several
of
its
other
economic
analyses
conducted
at
proposal
to
determine
the
effect
of
changes
made
to
the
assumptions
for
this
NODA
on
steam
electric
generating
facilities.
For
more
detailed
information
on
these
analyses,
refer
to
the
memo
entitled
``
Supporting
Documentation
of
Changes
to
Economic
Impacts
in
Support
of
the
Section
316(
b)
Phase
II
NODA''
(
DCN
5
 
3004).
This
section
and
the
supporting
memo
discuss
changes
made
to
EPA's
methodology
and
assumptions
as
well
as
the
updated
results.
For
a
discussion
of
the
original
methodology
used
by
EPA
for
the
proposal
analysis,
refer
to
the
chapters
in
Part
B
of
the
Economic
and
Benefits
Analysis
(
EBA)
document
in
support
of
the
proposed
rule
at
http://
www.
epa.
gov/
waterscience/
316b/
econbenefits/.
It
should
be
noted
that
the
measures
presented
in
this
section
are
provided
in
addition
to
the
impact
measures
based
on
the
Integrated
Planning
Model
(
IPM
 
)
analyses
(
see
Section
V
of
this
Notice).
The
following
measures
are
used
to
assess
the
magnitude
of
compliance
costs;
they
are
not
used
to
predict
closures
or
other
types
of
economic
impacts
on
facilities
subject
to
Phase
II
regulation.
It
should
also
be
noted
that
the
results
of
the
preferred
option
and
the
waterbody/
capacity­
based
option
cannot
be
directly
compared
to
each
other.
EPA
used
two
different
demand
growth
assumptions
for
the
IPM
base
cases
of
the
preferred
option
(
EPA
electricity
demand
assumption)
and
the
waterbody/
capacity­
based
option
(
AEO
electricity
demand
assumption,
upon
request
by
the
Department
of
Energy).
Since
EPA
is
using
IPM
base
case
data
in
its
estimate
of
the
cost
of
installation
downtime,
the
cost
of
the
energy
penalty,
and
revenues,
the
results
presented
in
this
section
could
vary
between
the
two
options,
even
for
facilities
or
NERC
regions
with
identical
compliance
requirements
under
the
two
options.
12
EPA
intends
to
place
additional
IPM
runs
in
the
record
during
the
NODA
comment
period
to
allow
direct
comparisons
of
both
policy
alternatives
under
both
base
cases.

A.
National
Costs
Based
on
the
NODA
analysis,
EPA
estimates
that
facilities
subject
to
the
preferred
option
would
incur
annualized
post­
tax
compliance
costs
of
approximately
$
265
million
(
at
proposal,
this
estimate
was
$
178
million).
These
costs
include
one­
time
technology
costs
of
complying
with
the
rule,
a
one­
time
cost
of
installation
downtime,
13
annual
operating
and
maintenance
costs,
and
permitting
costs
(
including
initial
permit
costs,
annual
monitoring
costs,
and
permit
reissuance
costs).
This
cost
estimate
does
not
include
the
costs
of
administering
the
rule
by
permitting
authorities
and
the
federal
government.
Also
excluded
are
compliance
costs
for
eight
facilities
that
are
projected
to
be
baseline
closures.
Including
compliance
costs
for
projected
baseline
closure
facilities
would
result
in
a
total
annualized
compliance
cost
of
approximately
$
269
million
(
at
proposal,
this
estimate
was
$
182
million).
The
cost
differences
between
proposal
and
the
NODA
are
accounted
for
primarily
by
the
expanded
range
of
technology
options
considered
for
the
NODA
and
the
``
best
performing
technology''
selection
criteria
used
to
assign
cost
modules
to
model
facilities
(
see
Section
IV
of
this
Notice).
EPA
also
updated
the
estimated
total
national
annualized
post­
tax
cost
of
compliance
for
the
alternative
waterbody/
capacity­
based
option.
Costs
for
this
option
include
the
same
components
as
the
estimate
for
the
preferred
option
(
one­
time
technology
costs,
cost
of
downtime,
annual
operating
and
maintenance
costs,
and
permitting
costs)
but
also
include
the
cost
of
the
energy
penalty
incurred
by
facilities
estimated
to
upgrade
to
a
recirculating
cooling
tower
system.
For
the
NODA
analysis,
the
estimated
total
annualized
post­
tax
cost
of
compliance
for
the
waterbody/
capacity­
based
option
is
approximately
$
793
million
(
at
proposal,
this
estimate
was
$
585
million).
This
increase
reflects
a
number
VerDate
Jan<
31>
2003
21:
12
Mar
18,
2003
Jkt
200001
PO
00000
Frm
00014
Fmt
4701
Sfmt
4702
E:\
FR\
FM\
19MRP2.
SGM
19MRP2
13535
Federal
Register
/
Vol.
68,
No.
53
/
Wednesday,
March
19,
2003
/
Proposed
Rules
14
The
number
of
baseline
closures
is
different
for
the
preferred
option
and
the
waterbody/
capacitybased
option
because
different
IPM
base
cases
were
used
to
estimate
baseline
closures.
See
footnote
8
above
for
a
full
explanation.

15
EPA
used
2008
rather
than
2010
baseline
revenues
for
this
analysis
because
2008
is
the
first
model
run
year
specified
in
the
IPM
analyses.
EPA
used
the
first
model
run
year
because
it
more
closely
resembles
the
current
operating
conditions
of
in­
scope
facilities
than
later
run
years
(
over
time,
facilities
may
be
increasingly
affected
by
factors
other
than
a
Phase
II
regulation).

16
For
the
preferred
option,
IPM
revenues
for
2008
were
not
available
for
eight
facilities
estimated
to
be
baseline
closures,
ten
facilities
not
modeled
by
the
IPM,
and
five
facilities
projected
to
have
zero
baseline
revenues.
EPA
used
facility­
specific
electricity
generation
and
firm­
specific
wholesale
prices
as
reported
to
the
Energy
Information
Administration
(
EIA)
to
calculate
the
cost­
torevenue
ratio
for
the
15
non­
baseline
closure
facilities
with
missing
information.
The
revenues
for
one
of
these
facilities
remains
unknown.
of
changes
including
increased
technology
costs,
increased
downtime
for
technology
installation,
and
the
use
of
electric
demand
assumptions
from
DOE's
Annual
Energy
Outlook.
Not
included
in
this
estimate
are
seven
facilities
that
are
projected
to
be
baseline
closures.
14
Including
compliance
costs
for
projected
baseline
closure
facilities
would
result
in
a
total
annualized
cost
of
compliance
with
the
waterbody/
capacity­
based
option
of
approximately
$
797
million
(
at
proposal,
this
estimate
was
$
595
million).
Exhibit
7
below
summarizes
the
changes
between
the
proposal
and
NODA
analyses
for
the
preferred
option
and
the
waterbody/
capacity­
based
option.

EXHIBIT
7
 
SUMMARY
OF
CHANGES
IN
NATIONAL
COSTS
Proposal
($
2001;
mill.)
NODA
($
2002;
mill.)
Change
Absolute
Percent
Preferred
Option
Number
of
Phase
II
facilities
...........................................................................................
550
551
1
0.2
All
facilities
(
pre­
tax)
........................................................................................................
$
279
$
416
$
137
49.1
All
facilities
(
post­
tax)
.......................................................................................................
$
182
$
269
$
87
47.8
Number
of
baseline
closures
...........................................................................................
11
8
(
3)
 
27.3
Non­
baseline
closures
(
pre­
tax)
......................................................................................
$
271
$
410
$
139
51.3
Non­
baseline
closures
(
post­
tax)
.....................................................................................
$
178
$
265
$
87
48.9
Waterbody/
Capacity­
Based
Option
Number
of
Phase
II
facilities
...........................................................................................
550
551
1
0.2
All
facilities
(
pre­
tax)
........................................................................................................
$
968
$
1,280
$
312
32.2
All
facilities
(
post­
tax)
.......................................................................................................
$
595
$
797
$
202
34.0
Number
of
baseline
closures
...........................................................................................
9
7
(
2)
 
22.2
Non­
baseline
closures
(
pre­
tax)
......................................................................................
$
951
$
1,273
$
322
33.9
Non­
baseline
closures
(
post­
tax)
.....................................................................................
$
585
$
793
$
208
35.6
B.
Cost­
to­
Revenue
Measure
1.
Facility­
Level
Analysis
EPA
examined
the
annualized
posttax
compliance
costs
of
the
preferred
option
and
the
waterbody/
capacitybased
option
as
a
percentage
of
baseline
annual
revenues,
for
each
of
the
551
facilities
subject
to
Phase
II
of
the
Section
316(
b)
regulation.
This
measure
allows
for
a
comparison
of
compliance
costs
incurred
by
each
facility
with
its
revenues
in
the
absence
of
Phase
II
regulation.
The
revenue
estimates
are
facility­
specific
baseline
projections
from
the
IPM
base
case
for
2008
(
see
Section
V
of
this
Notice
for
a
discussion
of
EPA's
analyses
using
the
IPM).
15
Similar
to
the
findings
at
proposal,
the
results
of
this
analysis
show
that
the
vast
majority
of
facilities
subject
to
the
preferred
option,
404
out
of
551
(
73
percent),
would
incur
annualized
costs
of
less
than
one
percent
of
revenues.
Of
these,
292
facilities
would
incur
compliance
costs
of
less
than
0.5
percent
of
revenues.
Ninety­
seven
facilities
(
18
percent)
would
incur
costs
of
between
one
and
three
percent
of
revenues,
and
41
facilities
(
seven
percent)
would
incur
costs
of
greater
than
three
percent.
Eight
facilities
are
estimated
to
be
baseline
closures,
and
for
one
facility,
revenues
are
unknown.
16
Exhibit
8
below
summarizes
these
findings
and
also
presents
the
ratios
estimated
at
proposal.

EXHIBIT
8
 
COST­
TO­
REVENUE
RATIO
FOR
THE
PREFERRED
OPTION
(
FACILITY
LEVEL)

Annualized
cost­
to­
revenue
ratio
Proposal
NODA
All
phase
II
Percent
of
total
phase
II
All
phase
II
Percent
of
total
phase
II
<
0.5%
...............................................................................................................................
331
60
292
53
>/=
0.5
to
<
1.0%
..............................................................................................................
78
14%
112
20
>/=
1.0%
to
<
3.0%
...........................................................................................................
82
15
97
18
>/=
3.0%
..........................................................................................................................
46
8
41
7
Baseline
Closure
..............................................................................................................
11
2
8
1
n/
a
....................................................................................................................................
1
0
1
0
Total
..........................................................................................................................
550
100
551
100
Exhibit
9
below
presents
the
same
information
for
the
waterbody/
capacity­
based
option.
17
VerDate
Jan<
31>
2003
21:
22
Mar
18,
2003
Jkt
200001
PO
00000
Frm
00015
Fmt
4701
Sfmt
4755
E:\
FR\
FM\
19MRP2.
SGM
19MRP2
13536
Federal
Register
/
Vol.
68,
No.
53
/
Wednesday,
March
19,
2003
/
Proposed
Rules
17
For
the
waterbody/
capacity­
based
option,
IPM
revenues
for
2008
were
not
available
for
seven
facilities
estimated
to
be
baseline
closures,
ten
facilities
not
modeled
by
the
IPM,
and
two
facilities
projected
to
have
zero
baseline
revenues.
EPA
used
facility­
specific
electricity
generation
and
firmspecific
wholesale
prices
as
reported
to
the
Energy
Information
Administration
(
EIA)
to
calculate
the
cost­
to­
revenue
ratio
for
the
12
non­
baseline
closure
facilities
with
missing
information.
The
revenues
for
one
of
these
facilities
remains
unknown.
EXHIBIT
9.
 
COST­
TO­
REVENUE
RATIO
FOR
THE
WATERBODY/
CAPACITY­
BASED
OPTION
(
FACILITY
LEVEL)

Annualized
cost­
to­
revenue
ratio
Proposal
NODA
All
phase
II
Percent
of
total
phase
II
All
phase
II
Percent
of
total
phase
II
<
0.5%
...............................................................................................................................
355
65
281
51
>/=
0.5
to
<
1.0%
...............................................................................................................
60
11
101
18
>/=
1.0
to
<
3.0%
...............................................................................................................
57
10
102
19
>/=
3.0%
............................................................................................................................
67
12
58
11
Baseline
Closure
..............................................................................................................
9
2
7
1
n/
a
....................................................................................................................................
1
0
1
0
Total
..........................................................................................................................
550
100
551
100
2.
Firm­
Level
Analysis
The
firms
owning
the
facilities
subject
to
Phase
II
regulation
may
experience
greater
impacts
than
individual
in­
scope
facilities
if
they
own
more
than
one
facility
with
compliance
costs.
EPA
therefore
also
analyzed
the
cost­
torevenue
ratios
at
the
firm
level.
EPA
identified
the
domestic
parent
entity
of
each
in­
scope
facility
and
obtained
their
sales
revenue
from
publicly
available
data
sources
(
the
Dun
and
Bradstreet
database
for
parent
firms
of
investorowned
utilities
and
nonutilities;
and
Form
EIA
 
861
for
all
other
parent
entities)
and
EPA's
2000
Section
316(
b)
Industry
Survey.
This
analysis
showed
that
128
unique
domestic
parent
entities
own
the
facilities
subject
to
Phase
II
regulation.
For
both
analyzed
options,
EPA
compared
the
aggregated
annualized
post­
tax
compliance
costs
for
each
facility
owned
by
the
128
parent
entities
to
the
firms'
total
sales
revenue.
Since
proposal,
EPA
has
not
updated
the
parent
firm
determination
for
Phase
II
facilities.
However,
EPA
updated
the
average
Form
EIA
 
861
data
used
for
this
analysis
from
1996
to
1998
(
used
at
proposal)
to
1997
to
1999
(
used
for
the
NODA).
In
addition,
EPA
made
one
modification
to
the
data
sources
used:
At
proposal,
EPA
used
Dun
and
Bradstreet
(
D&
B)
data
for
any
parent
entity
listed
in
the
database.
If
D&
B
data
were
not
available,
EPA
used
the
EIA
database
or
the
Section
316(
b)
Survey.
For
the
NODA
analysis,
EPA
used
the
D&
B
database
for
privately­
owned
entities
only.
For
other
entities,
EPA
used
the
EIA
database.
For
the
preferred
option,
EPA
estimates
that
of
the
128
unique
entities,
only
two
entities
would
incur
compliance
costs
of
greater
than
three
percent
of
revenues;
11
entities
would
incur
compliance
costs
of
between
one
and
three
percent
of
revenues;
eight
entities
would
incur
compliance
costs
of
between
0.5
and
one
percent
of
revenues;
and
the
remaining
107
entities
would
incur
compliance
costs
of
less
than
0.5
percent
of
revenues.
The
highest
estimated
cost­
to­
revenue
ratio
for
this
NODA
analysis
is
7.4
percent
of
the
entities'
annual
sales
revenue
(
at
proposal
this
value
was
5.3
percent).
Exhibit
10
below
summarizes
these
findings
and
also
presents
the
ratios
estimated
at
proposal.

EXHIBIT
10.
 
COST­
TO­
REVENUE
RATIO
FOR
THE
PREFERRED
OPTION
(
FIRM
LEVEL)

Annualized
cost­
to­
revenue
ratio
Proposal
NODA
All
phase
II
Percent
of
total
phase
II
All
phase
II
Percent
of
total
phase
II
<
0.5%
...............................................................................................................................
104
79
107
84
>/=
0.5
to
<
1.0%
..............................................................................................................
12
9
8
6
>/=
1.0
to
<
3.0%
..............................................................................................................
10
8
11
9
>/=
3.0%
..........................................................................................................................
3
2
2
2
Baseline
Closure
..............................................................................................................
2
2
0
0
Total
..........................................................................................................................
131
100
128
100
Exhibit
11
below
presents
the
same
information
for
the
waterbody/
capacity­
based
option.

EXHIBIT
11.
 
COST­
TO­
REVENUE
RATIO
FOR
THE
WATERBODY/
CAPACITY­
BASED
OPTION
(
FIRM
LEVEL)

Annualized
cost­
to­
revenue
ratio
Proposal
NODA
All
phase
II
Percent
of
total
phase
II
All
phase
II
Percent
of
total
phase
II
<
0.5%
..............................................................................................................................
108
82
95
74
>/=
0.5
to
<
1.0%
..............................................................................................................
12
9
16
13
>/=
1.0
to
<
3.0%
..............................................................................................................
6
5
15
12
VerDate
Jan<
31>
2003
19:
17
Mar
18,
2003
Jkt
200001
PO
00000
Frm
00016
Fmt
4701
Sfmt
4702
E:\
FR\
FM\
19MRP2.
SGM
19MRP2
13537
Federal
Register
/
Vol.
68,
No.
53
/
Wednesday,
March
19,
2003
/
Proposed
Rules
18
There
are
twelve
NERC
regions:
ASCC
(
Alaska
Systems
Coordinating
Council),
ECAR
(
East
Central
Area
Reliability
Coordination
Agreement),
ERCOT
(
Electric
Reliability
Council
of
Texas),
FRCC
(
Florida
Reliability
Coordinating
Council),
HI
(
Hawaii),
MAAC
(
Mid­
Atlantic
Area
Council),
MAIN
(
Mid­
America
Interconnected
Network,
Inc.),
MAPP
(
Mid­
Continent
Area
Power
Pool),
NPCC
(
Northeast
Power
Coordination
Council),
SERC
(
Southeastern
Electricity
Reliability
Council),
SPP
(
Southwest
Power
Pool),
and
WSCC
(
Western
Systems
Coordinating
Council).

19
Note
that
Alaska
and
Hawaii
are
not
represented
in
the
AEO.
EXHIBIT
11.
 
COST­
TO­
REVENUE
RATIO
FOR
THE
WATERBODY/
CAPACITY­
BASED
OPTION
(
FIRM
LEVEL)
 
Continued
Annualized
cost­
to­
revenue
ratio
Proposal
NODA
All
phase
II
Percent
of
total
phase
II
All
phase
II
Percent
of
total
phase
II
>/=
3.0%
..........................................................................................................................
3
2
2
2
Baseline
Closure
..............................................................................................................
2
2
0
0
Total
..........................................................................................................................
131
100
128
100
C.
Cost
Per
Household
EPA
also
conducted
an
analysis
that
evaluates
the
potential
cost
per
household,
if
Phase
II
facilities
were
able
to
pass
compliance
costs
on
to
their
customers.
This
analysis
estimates
the
average
compliance
cost
per
household
for
each
North
American
Electricity
Reliability
Council
(
NERC)
region,
18
using
two
data
inputs:
(
1)
The
average
annual
pre­
tax
compliance
cost
per
megawatt
hour
(
MWh)
of
total
electricity
sales
and
(
2)
the
average
annual
MWh
of
residential
electricity
sales
per
household.
The
results
of
this
analysis
show
that
the
average
annual
cost
per
residential
household
would
range
from
$
0.55
(
in
ASCC)
to
$
5.69
(
in
HI)
for
the
preferred
option
and
from
$
0.55
(
in
ASCC)
to
$
20.41
(
in
HI)
for
the
waterbody/
capacity­
based
option.
Exhibit
12
below
presents
the
values
for
each
NERC
region
for
the
preferred
option
and
the
waterbody/
capacity­
based
option.
The
exhibit
also
presents
the
values
for
the
preferred
option
at
proposal.

EXHIBIT
12.
 
SUMMARY
OF
COST
PER
HOUSEHOLD
BY
NERC
REGION
NERC
region
Preferred
option
W/
C­
based
option
Proposal
($
2001)
NODA
($
2002)
Change
NODA
($
2002)

ASCC
.....................................................................................................................
$
0.33
$
0.55
$
0.22
$
0.55
ECAR
.....................................................................................................................
0.99
1.49
0.50
1.52
ERCOT
..................................................................................................................
1.01
1.12
0.11
1.75
FRCC
.....................................................................................................................
1.58
2.04
0.46
12.08
HI
...........................................................................................................................
2.55
5.69
3.14
20.41
MAAC
.....................................................................................................................
1.16
1.50
0.34
9.53
MAIN
......................................................................................................................
0.84
1.32
0.48
1.32
MAPP
.....................................................................................................................
0.88
1.09
0.21
1.10
NPCC
.....................................................................................................................
1.09
1.49
0.40
4.57
SERC
.....................................................................................................................
0.83
1.17
0.34
3.21
SPP
........................................................................................................................
0.64
0.88
0.24
0.88
WSCC
....................................................................................................................
0.36
0.94
0.58
5.08
U.
S.
Average
.........................................................................................................
0.87
1.30
0.43
4.00
D.
Electricity
Price
Analysis
EPA
also
considered
potential
effects
of
the
proposed
Phase
II
rule
on
electricity
prices.
EPA
used
three
data
inputs
in
this
analysis:
(
1)
Total
pre­
tax
compliance
cost
incurred
by
facilities
subject
to
Phase
II
regulation,
(
2)
total
electricity
sales,
based
on
the
Annual
Energy
Outlook
(
AEO)
2002,
and
(
3)
prices
by
end
use
sector
(
residential,
commercial,
industrial,
and
transportation),
also
from
the
AEO
2002.
All
three
data
elements
were
calculated
by
NERC
region.
The
results
of
the
NODA
analysis
show
that
the
annualized
costs
of
complying
(
in
cents
per
KWh
sales)
range
from
0.007
cents
in
SPP
to
0.020
cents
in
NPCC
for
the
preferred
option,
and
from
0.007
cents
in
SPP
to
0.096
cents
in
MAAC
for
the
waterbody/
capacity­
based
option.
To
determine
potential
effects
of
these
compliance
costs
on
electricity
prices,
EPA
compared
the
per
KWh
compliance
cost
to
baseline
electricity
prices
by
end
use
sector
and
for
the
average
of
the
sectors.
This
analysis
shows
that
the
average
increase
in
electricity
prices
would
be
0.17
percent
under
the
preferred
option
and
0.51
percent
under
the
waterbody/
capacity­
based
option.
(
At
proposal,
the
estimated
increase
in
electricity
prices
for
the
preferred
option
was
0.11
percent.)
Exhibit
13
below
presents
the
values
for
each
NERC
region
for
the
preferred
option
and
the
waterbody/
capacitybased
option.
The
exhibit
also
presents
the
values
for
the
preferred
option
at
proposal.
19
VerDate
Jan<
31>
2003
19:
17
Mar
18,
2003
Jkt
200001
PO
00000
Frm
00017
Fmt
4701
Sfmt
4702
E:\
FR\
FM\
19MRP2.
SGM
19MRP2
13538
Federal
Register
/
Vol.
68,
No.
53
/
Wednesday,
March
19,
2003
/
Proposed
Rules
EXHIBIT
13.
 
SUMMARY
OF
ELECTRICITY
PRICES
BY
NERC
REGION
NERC
region
Preferred
option
W/
C­
based
option
Proposal
($
2001)
NODA
($
2002)
NODA
($
2002)

Annualized
pretax
compliance
cost
(
cents/
KWh
sales)
%
change
in
price
Annualized
pretax
compliance
cost
(
cents/
KWh
sales)
%
change
in
price
Annualized
pretax
compliance
cost
(
cents/
KWh
sales)
%
change
in
price
ECAR
.............................................................
0.010
0.15
0.015
0.23
0.015
0.23
ERCOT
...........................................................
0.007
0.11
0.008
0.12
0.013
0.18
FRCC
.............................................................
0.012
0.15
0.015
0.20
0.088
1.16
MAAC
.............................................................
0.012
0.13
0.015
0.17
0.096
1.05
MAIN
..............................................................
0.010
0.14
0.016
0.22
0.016
0.22
MAPP
.............................................................
0.008
0.13
0.010
0.15
0.010
0.16
NPCC
.............................................................
0.017
0.19
0.020
0.22
0.061
0.68
SERC
.............................................................
0.006
0.10
0.008
0.14
0.023
0.38
SPP
................................................................
0.005
0.09
0.007
0.12
0.007
0.12
WSCC
............................................................
0.004
0.05
0.010
0.13
0.053
0.70
U.
S.
Average
..................................................
0.008
0.11
0.012
0.17
0.037
0.51
VII.
Performance
Standards
In
the
proposed
rule,
EPA
set
up
a
framework
that
would
require
facilities
that
did
not
reduce
their
intake
capacity
commensurate
with
a
closed­
cycle
recirculating
cooling
system
to
meet
certain
other
performance
standards
for
reducing
impingement
mortality
and
entrainment
based
on
technologies
such
as
fine­
mesh
screens
and
fish­
return
systems.
These
other
performance
standards
were
based
on
the
source
water
body
type
where
the
cooling
water
intake
structure
is
located,
the
facility's
capacity
utilization
rate,
and
the
proportion
or
volume
of
the
water
body
that
is
withdrawn
by
the
facility.
In
general,
most
facilities
would
be
required
to
implement
control
technologies
that
reduce
impingement
mortality
by
80
to
95
percent
and/
or
entrainment
by
60
to
90
percent
unless
they
demonstrate
the
need
for
a
sitespecific
determination
of
best
technology
available.
(
See
proposed
§
125.94
and
Chapter
VI.
Best
Technology
Available
for
Minimizing
Adverse
Environmental
Impact
at
Phase
II
Existing
Facilities
(
67
FR
17140)).

A.
Technology
Efficacy
Database
to
Support
Performance
Standards
In
an
effort
to
document
and
further
assess
the
performance
of
various
technologies
and
operational
measures
designed
to
minimize
the
impacts
of
cooling
water
withdrawals,
EPA
compiled
a
database
of
documents
that
analyzes
the
efficacy
of
a
specific
technology
or
suite
of
technologies.
The
database
contains
materials
that
range
from
brief
journal
articles
to
more
intensive
analyses
found
in
historical
section
316(
b)
demonstration
reports
and
technology
evaluations.
At
this
time,
EPA
is
assembling
as
much
documentation
as
possible
to
support
future
Agency
decisions.
Information
entered
into
the
database
includes
some
notation
of
the
limitations
the
individual
studies
may
have
for
use
in
further
analyses
(
e.
g.,
no
biological
data
or
conclusions).
EPA's
intent
in
assembling
this
information
is
four­
fold.
First,
EPA
seeks
to
develop
a
categorized
database
containing
a
comprehensive
collection
of
available
literature
regarding
technology
performance
that
will
serve
as
a
more
rigorous
compilation
of
data
supporting
the
determination
that
the
proposed
performance
standards
are
best
technology
available.
Second,
EPA
expects
to
use
the
data
to
demonstrate
that
the
technologies
chosen
as
compliance
technologies
for
costing
purposes
are
reasonable
and
can
meet
the
performance
standards.
Third,
the
availability
of
a
user­
friendly
database
would
allow
EPA,
State
permit
writers,
and
the
public
to
more
easily
evaluate
potential
compliance
options,
facility
compliance
with
performance
standards,
and
data
pertaining
to
the
streamlined
option
described
in
this
NODA
(
see
section
VII.
B
below).
Fourth,
EPA
has
attempted
to
evaluate
the
technology
efficacy
data
against
objective
criteria
in
order
to
assess
the
general
quality
and
thoroughness
of
each
study.
This
may
assist
in
further
analysis
of
conclusions
made
using
the
data.
Basic
information
from
each
document
is
recorded
in
the
database
(
e.
g.,
type
of
technology
evaluated,
facility
at
which
it
was
tested,
etc.)
In
addition
to
basic
document
information,
the
database
contains
information
in
two
principal
areas:
(
1)
General
facility
information
and
(
2)
detailed
study
information.
For
those
documents
that
refer
to
a
specific
facility
(
or
facilities),
basic
technical
information
is
included
to
enable
EPA
to
classify
facilities
according
to
general
categories.
EPA
collected
locational
data
(
e.
g.,
waterbody
type,
name,
state)
as
well
as
basic
cooling
water
intake
structure
configuration
information.
Each
technology
evaluated
in
the
study
is
also
recorded,
along
with
specific
details
regarding
its
design
and
operation.
Major
categories
of
technology
include
modified
traveling
screens,
wedge­
wire
screens,
fine­
mesh
screens,
velocity
caps,
barrier
nets,
and
behavioral
barriers.
(
Data
identifying
the
technologies
present
at
a
facility
as
well
as
the
configuration
of
the
intake
structure
refer
to
the
configuration
at
the
time
the
study
was
conducted
and
do
not
necessarily
reflect
the
present
facility
set­
up.)
Information
on
the
type
of
study
and
any
study
results,
is
recorded
in
the
second
portion
of
the
database.
EPA
identifies
whether
the
study
evaluates
the
technology
with
respect
to
impingement
mortality
reduction
(
or
avoidance),
entrainment
survival,
or
entrainment
exclusion
(
or
avoidance).
Some
studies
address
more
than
one
area
of
concern
and
are
noted
accordingly.
If
provided,
EPA
records
basic
biological
data
used
to
evaluate
the
technology.
These
include
target
or
commercially/
recreationally
valuable
species,
species
type,
life
history
stage,
size,
sample
size,
and
raw
numbers
of
impinged
and/
or
entrained
organisms.
Finally,
EPA
records
any
overall
conclusions
reached
by
the
study,
usually
presented
as
a
percentage
reduction
or
increase,
depending
on
the
area
of
focus.
Identifying
this
information
for
each
document
allows
EPA
and
others
to
more
readily
locate
VerDate
Jan<
31>
2003
19:
17
Mar
18,
2003
Jkt
200001
PO
00000
Frm
00018
Fmt
4701
Sfmt
4702
E:\
FR\
FM\
19MRP2.
SGM
19MRP2
13539
Federal
Register
/
Vol.
68,
No.
53
/
Wednesday,
March
19,
2003
/
Proposed
Rules
20
Information
to
support
the
use
of
restoration
measures
and/
or
the
use
of
site­
specific
determinations
would
be
required
to
be
collected
and
submitted
only
by
permit
applicants
that
choose
to
use
restoration
measures
or
demonstrate
that
a
site­
specific
determination
of
best
technology
available
is
appropriate
for
their
facility.
and
compare
documents
addressing
similar
technologies.
Each
document
is
reviewed
according
to
five
areas
of
data
quality
where
possible:
(
1)
Applicability
and
utility,
(
2)
soundness,
(
3)
clarity
and
completeness,
(
4)
uncertainty
and
variability,
and
(
5)
evaluation
and
review.
Because
the
literature
in
question
comes
from
many
different
sources
and
was
developed
under
widely
varying
standards,
EPA
was
not
able
to
evaluate
all
of
these
criteria
for
all
documents
contained
in
the
database.
To
date,
EPA
has
collected
148
documents
for
inclusion
in
the
database.
EPA
did
not
exclude
any
document
that
addressed
technology
performance
in
relation
to
impingement
and
entrainment,
regardless
of
the
overall
quality
of
the
data.
Sample
questions
are
included
in
Exhibit
1
below.
The
proposed
technology
database
is
available
in
the
record
(
See
the
document
``
Technology
Efficacy
Database''
in
the
docket).

EXHIBIT
1.
 
QUALITY
ASSURANCE
SAMPLE
QUESTIONS
QA
Criteria
Sample
Questions
Applicability
and
Utility.
 
Does
the
study
address
impingement
and/
or
entrainment
reduction?
 
Does
the
study
evaluate
a
technology
(
or
technologies)
in
situ
or
against
performance
data
from
another
source?
 
Does
the
study
include
biological
data?

Soundness
.........
 
Does
the
study
detail
the
CWIS
configuration
at
the
time
of
the
study?
 
Are
SOPs
for
sampling
and
testing
included?
 
Is
some
measure
of
before
and
after
biological
data
included?
 
Are
O&
M
procedures
described
for
the
test
period?

Clarity
and
Completeness
 
Is
the
sampling
method
clearly
described?
 
Is
a
complete
biological
data
set
included?
 
Are
results
clearly
and
completely
documented

Uncertainty
and
Variability.
 
Does
the
study
identify
potential
uncertainties
or
mitigating
factors
such
as
those
due
to
environmental
conditions
EXHIBIT
1.
 
QUALITY
ASSURANCE
SAMPLE
QUESTIONS
 
Continued
QA
Criteria
Sample
Questions
Evaluation
and
Review.
 
What
is
the
source
of
the
document?
 
Is
the
document
a
primary
study?
 
Has
the
document
been
peer
reviewed?
 
Was
the
purpose
of
the
study
to
evaluate
the
performance
of
a
specific
technology?

EPA
is
seeking
comment
on
the
applicability,
quality,
and
quantity
of
the
information
and
analyses
in
this
database
upon
which
EPA
is
relying.
More
specifically,
EPA
requests
comment
on
whether
these
data
are
of
sufficient
quantity
and
quality
to
support
the
determination
that
the
proposed
performance
standards
are
best
technology
available
and
that
the
existing
facilities
can
meet
these
standards
by
implementing
design
and
construction
technologies
either
singly
or
in
conjunction
with
other
design
and
construction
technologies
(
including
operational
and
restoration
measures).
In
addition,
EPA
requests
comment
on
limitations
of
the
data
and
identification
of
other
relevant
information
available
to
be
included
in
this
database.
Based
on
a
preliminary
review
of
the
available
data,
the
Agency
continues
to
believe
that
an
80
 
95%
reduction
in
impingement
mortality
and
a
60
 
90%
reduction
in
entrainment
are
achievable.

B.
Streamlined
Technology
Option
for
Certain
Locations
EPA
received
a
number
of
comments
expressing
concern
that
the
proposed
Comprehensive
Demonstration
Study
requirements
at
§
125.95(
b)
would
impose
a
significant
burden
on
permit
applicants.
As
proposed,
the
Comprehensive
Demonstration
Study
would
have
as
many
as
seven
different
components:
(
1)
A
Proposal
for
Information
Collection,
(
2)
Source
Waterbody
Flow
Information;
(
3)
an
Impingement
Mortality
and
Entrainment
Characterization
Study;
(
4)
a
Design
and
Construction
Technology
Plan;
(
5)
Information
to
Support
any
Proposed
Restoration
Measures;
(
6)
Information
to
Support
Site­
Specific
Determination
of
Best
Technology
Available
for
Minimizing
Adverse
Environmental
Impact;
and
(
7)
a
Verification
Monitoring
Plan.
20
The
proposed
Comprehensive
Demonstration
Study
requirement
would
allow
a
permit
applicant
to
either
identify
and
compile
available
existing
data,
or
to
perform
new
site­
specific
studies
to
characterize
the
waterbody
within
the
influence
of
the
cooling
water
intake
structure
and
the
efficacy
of
proposed
technologies.
Some
commenters
suggested
that
EPA
provide
an
additional,
more
streamlined
compliance
option
under
which
a
facility
could
implement
certain
specified
technologies
that
are
deemed
highly
protective
in
exchange
for
not
having
to
perform,
or
greatly
reducing
the
scope
of,
the
proposed
Comprehensive
Demonstration
Study
required
at
§
125.95(
b).
In
response
to
these
comments
EPA
is
considering,
and
invites
the
public
to
comment
on
two
variations
of
a
streamlined
compliance
option
that
would
reduce
the
information
collection
burden
imposed
on
permit
applicants.
Under
the
first
variation,
EPA
would
evaluate
the
effectiveness
of
specific
technologies
using
the
impingement
mortality
and
entrainment
performance
standards
specified
in
the
proposed
rule
as
assessment
criteria.
Specifically,
EPA
would
require
that
the
demonstrated
efficacy
of
the
control
technology
would
at
least
reduce
impingement
mortality
by
80
to
95
percent
for
fish
and
shellfish.
If
it
was
also
to
be
used
by
facilities
with
an
additional
requirement
to
reduce
entrainment
by
60
to
90
percent
for
all
life
stages
of
fish
and
shellfish,
then
EPA
would
ensure
that
the
technology
would
also
satisfy
this
requirement.
Evaluation
of
the
level
of
impingement
mortality
or
entrainment
reduction
would
be
based
on
review
and
analysis
of
available
data,
studies,
and
literature.
The
Agency
also
would
assess
the
conditions
where
such
technologies
are
effective
(
e.
g.,
location,
whether
a
technology
reduces
impingement
or
entrainment
or
both,
flow,
velocity,
species,
life
stage,
etc.).
If,
based
on
such
an
assessment,
the
Agency
identifies
technologies
that
are
sufficiently
protective
and
for
which
applicability
conditions
can
be
defined,
EPA
would
promulgate
regulations
(
either
as
part
of
the
316(
b)
Phase
II
rule
or
at
some
later
date)
that
allow
for
their
use
as
a
means
of
complying
with
Phase
II
section
316(
b)
requirements.
EPA
is
in
the
process
of
assessing
this
option
and
has
not
completed
a
comprehensive
review
of
control
technology
efficacy
data
for
the
purpose
of
identifying
and
delineating
technologies
that
might
qualify
under
this
option.
However,
the
efficacy
data
VerDate
Jan<
31>
2003
19:
17
Mar
18,
2003
Jkt
200001
PO
00000
Frm
00019
Fmt
4701
Sfmt
4702
E:\
FR\
FM\
19MRP2.
SGM
19MRP2
13540
Federal
Register
/
Vol.
68,
No.
53
/
Wednesday,
March
19,
2003
/
Proposed
Rules
currently
available
to
EPA
do
seem
to
support
the
use
of
a
streamlined
technology
option
for
certain
limited
locations.
Such
a
technology
would
be
used
to
treat
the
entire
cooling
water
intake
flow
and
would
not
be
used
in
combination
with
restoration
measures
to
meet
the
performance
standards.
EPA
is
considering
whether
the
following
technology
operated
in
the
following
locations
would
qualify
for
streamlined
application
requirements:

Use
of
submerged
wedge­
wire
screens
where
the
cooling
water
intake
structure
is
located
in
a
freshwater
river
or
stream,
sustained
countercurrents
exist
to
promote
cleaning
of
the
screen
face,
and
the
design
intake
velocity
is
0.5
feet
per
second
(
ft/
s)
or
less.

EPA
believes
that
sufficient
data
exist
in
the
record
to
demonstrate
that
all
facilities
that
meet
the
criteria
(
e.
g.,
cooling
water
intake
structure
is
located
in
a
freshwater
river
or
stream,
facility
proposes
to
use
wedge­
wire
screen
technology
only,
technology
has
a
design
intake
velocity
of
0.5
ft/
s
or
less,
and
sustained
countercurrents
exist)
and
employ
this
technology
would
meet
both
the
impingement
mortality
and
entrainment
reduction
performance
standards
and
that
the
record
would
thus
justify
limiting
the
amount
of
sitespecific
information
required
to
be
collected
to
support
the
use
of
this
technology
in
freshwater
systems
(
See
DCN
1
 
3075,
1
 
5069,
1
 
5070,
3
 
0002,
and
4
 
4002B).
Facilities
that
choose
to
comply
under
this
compliance
option
would
still
be
required
to
meet
the
proportional
flow
standards
in
§
125.94(
b)(
2),
(
3),
or
(
4).
At
a
minimum,
the
permitting
authority
would
require
each
facility
applying
to
use
this
technology
to
provide
documentation
that
the
facility's
cooling
water
intake
meets
the
applicability
conditions
specified
for
the
technology
and
that,
once
installed,
the
facility
will
properly
operate
and
maintain
the
technology.
In
addition,
at
a
minimum,
monitoring
would
be
required
as
necessary
to
verify
that
the
technology
is
in
fact
achieving
an
acceptable
level
of
performance.
Under
the
second
variation
of
this
option,
the
Phase
II
regulations
would
establish
the
criteria
and
process
for
approving
cooling
water
intake
structure
control
technologies,
but
would
allow
the
approval
process
to
be
carried
out
by
the
Director,
perhaps
with
EPA
oversight
or
approval.
Under
this
option,
the
rule
would
define
the
criteria
that
a
control
technology
must
meet
to
be
approved,
and
the
process
for
approval.
The
criteria
would
focus
on
reducing
impingement
mortality
and/
or
entrainment
levels
consistent
with
the
proposed
performance
standards
(
see
§
125.94),
as
appropriate
under
specified
conditions.
This
option
would
also
specify
the
data
requirements
and
process
required
to
have
a
control
technology
approved.
Under
the
option,
the
requisite
data
would
be
submitted
to
the
Director
who
would
determine
whether
the
technology
satisfied
the
applicable
performance
criteria.
If
so,
the
technology
would
be
approved
for
use
by
any
eligible
facility
(
i.
e.,
any
facility
that
meets
the
applicability
criteria)
under
the
jurisdiction
of
the
Director.
The
Director's
draft
determinations
would
likely
be
published
and
an
opportunity
for
public
comment
would
be
provided.
The
Director
would
then
modify
the
State's
implementing
regulations
to
include
the
other
technology
as
one
eligible
for
a
streamlined
comprehensive
demonstration
study.
This
option
could
create
an
incentive
for
the
regulated
community
to
develop
and
document
both
existing
and
new
innovative
technologies
to
reduce
cooling
water
structure
impacts.
The
two
variations
are
not
mutually
exclusive.
If
EPA
implemented
both,
it
might
adopt
regulatory
language
similar
to
that
provided
below
as
a
new
§
125.94(
a)(
4).
Note
that
4(
i)
corresponds
to
the
first
approach
and
4(
ii)
to
the
second.

(
4)(
i)
You
may
demonstrate
to
the
Director
that
your
Phase
II
existing
facility
meets
the
conditions
in
(
A),
(
B)
and
(
C),
and
you
will
properly
install,
operate,
and
maintain
submerged
wedge­
wire
screen
technology;
(
A)
Your
cooling
water
intake
structure
is
located
in
a
freshwater
river
or
stream;
(
B)
Your
cooling
water
intake
structure
is
situated
such
that
sufficient
ambient
counter
currents
exist
to
promote
cleaning
of
the
screen
face;
and
(
C)
Your
design
intake
velocity
is
0.5
ft/
s
or
less.
(
ii)
Any
interested
person
may
submit
a
request
that
a
technology
be
approved
for
use
under
the
compliance
option
in
§
125.94(
a)(
4).
If
the
Director
approves,
the
technology
may
be
used
with
compliance
option
§
125.94(
a)(
4)
by
all
facilities
under
their
jurisdiction.
Requests
for
alternative
technologies
for
compliance
under
§
125.94(
a)(
4)
must
be
submitted
to
the
Director
and
include
the
information
in
paragraphs
(
A),
(
B),
and
(
C)
below:

(
A)
A
detailed
description
of
the
technology;
(
B)
A
list
of
design
criteria
for
the
technology
and
site
characteristics
and
conditions
that
each
facility
must
posses
in
order
to
ensure
that
the
technology
can
consistently
meet
the
appropriate
impingement
mortality
and
entrainment
performance
standards
in
§
125.94(
b);
and
(
C)
Information
and
data
sufficient
to
demonstrate
that
all
facilities
under
the
jurisdiction
of
the
Director
can
meet
the
applicable
impingement
mortality
and
entrainment
performance
standards
in
§
125.94(
b)
if
the
applicable
design
criteria
and
site
characteristics
and
conditions
are
present
at
the
facility.
Another
paragraph
could
be
added
as
§
125.95(
c)
that
would
establish
the
streamlined
information
collection
requirements
for
the
new
compliance
option
at
§
125.94(
a)(
4).
The
language
might
read
as
follows:
(
c)
You
must
submit
to
the
director
the
application
information
required
by
40
CFR
122.21(
r)(
2),
(
3),
and
(
5)
and
the
Verification
Monitoring
Plan
in
125.95(
b)(
7).

Both
options
discussed
above
pose
several
implementation
issues.
There
is
the
question
of
how,
and
on
what
basis,
should
technology
effectiveness
be
assessed?
Because
each
control
technology
is
being
assessed
in
a
general
context
(
i.
e.,
not
as
applied
to
a
specific
facility,
but
as
applied
in
specified
conditions),
it
is
not
clear
that
an
appropriate
baseline
can
be
established.
Thus,
EPA
is
considering
using
available
data,
studies,
and
literature
to
establish
the
performance
levels
of
specific
control
technologies.
Such
an
approach
presents
additional
issues,
such
as
which
data
are
of
sufficient
quality
to
be
considered,
how
much
data
are
needed
to
make
a
national
determination,
whether
actual
data
or
modeled
data
suffice,
and
whether
sufficient
data
exist
to
pursue
such
an
approach.
Another
issue
is
determining
what
factors
beyond
impingement
mortality
and
entrainment
reduction
efficacy
are
most
critical
to
determining
when
a
specific
control
technology
can
be
used
effectively.
As
noted
above,
many
factors
influence
control
technology
efficacy.
Additionally,
EPA
would
have
to
determine
how
broadly
applicable
a
technology
must
be
before
it
could
qualify
as
``
pre­
approved.''
Finally,
where
a
facility
plans
to
implement
an
approved
technology,
EPA
expects
that
Directors
would
retain
discretion
to
impose
permit
conditions
necessary
to
ensure
the
technology
meets
applicable
standards,
as
well
as
the
ability
to
add
permit
conditions
as
necessary
to
ensure
all
Phase
II
existing
facilities
that
pursue
this
compliance
option
meet
section
316(
b)
standards.
EPA
requests
comment
on
both
variations
of
this
option
for
Phase
II
section
316(
b)
compliance.
The
Agency
is
interested
in
comments
on
the
overall
approach,
as
well
as
on
the
specific
issues
each
option
presents,
as
discussed
above.
In
addition,
EPA
is
VerDate
Jan<
31>
2003
20:
53
Mar
18,
2003
Jkt
200001
PO
00000
Frm
00020
Fmt
4701
Sfmt
4702
E:\
FR\
FM\
19MRP2.
SGM
19MRP2
13541
Federal
Register
/
Vol.
68,
No.
53
/
Wednesday,
March
19,
2003
/
Proposed
Rules
interested
in
comments
on
the
criteria
used
to
determine
eligibility
for
the
streamlined
technology
option
presented
above,
the
availability
of
data
needed
to
make
technology
determinations
in
general,
as
well
as
in
receiving
actual
data
that
may
support
such
determinations.

VIII.
Cost
Tests
Under
the
proposed
rule,
a
facility
may
choose
a
site­
specific
alternative
to
demonstrate
use
of
best
technology
available
for
minimizing
adverse
environmental
impact
at
its
site.
If
a
facility
chooses
this
alternative,
the
facility
must
demonstrate
to
the
Director
that
the
costs
of
compliance
with
the
applicable
performance
standards
would
be
``
significantly
greater''
than
the
costs
considered
by
the
Administrator
when
establishing
the
performance
standards,
or
that
costs
would
be
``
significantly
greater''
than
the
benefits
of
complying
with
the
applicable
performance
standards
at
its
site.
As
discussed
in
the
proposed
rule,
EPA's
new
facility
rule
required
costs
to
be
``
wholly
out
of
proportion''
to
the
costs
EPA
considered
when
establishing
the
requirement
at
issue
rather
than
``
significantly
greater''
as
proposed
for
existing
facilities
(
see
67
FR
17146).
This
difference
in
standards
for
new
and
existing
facilities
is
based
on
(
1)
the
greater
flexibility
available
to
new
facilities
for
selecting
the
location
of
their
intakes
and
installing
technologies
at
lower
costs
relative
to
the
costs
associated
with
retrofitting
existing
facilities
and
(
2)
the
desire
to
avoid
economically
impracticable
impacts
on
energy
prices,
production
costs,
and
energy
production
that
could
occur
if
large
numbers
of
Phase
II
existing
facilities
incurred
costs
that
were
more
than
``
significantly
greater''
than
but
not
``
wholly
out
of
proportion''
to
the
costs
in
EPA's
record.
At
proposal,
EPA
invited
comment
on
whether
a
``
significantly
greater''
cost
test
was
appropriate
for
evaluating
requests
for
alternative
requirements
by
Phase
II
existing
facilities
but
did
not
specify
what
degree
of
difference
in
cost
or
cost
as
compared
to
benefit
is
``
significant''.
Many
commenters
requested
that
``
significantly''
be
explicitly
defined
for
the
purposes
of
this
rulemaking.
At
this
time,
EPA
requests
comment
on
whether
the
Agency
should
adopt
a
quantitative
definition
of
``
significantly
greater,''
and
if
so,
what
specific
ratio
would
be
appropriate.
IX.
Biology
 
Supporting
Information
A.
Entrainment
Survival
Following
publication
of
the
proposed
rule,
EPA
reviewed
an
additional
23
facility
reports
that
evaluated
entrainment
survival.
To
date,
EPA
has
reviewed
a
total
of
36
entrainment
survival
studies.
The
additional
facility
studies
examined
by
EPA
after
publication
of
the
proposed
rule
include
studies
from
the
following
facilities:
Anclote
Power
Plant,
Bergum
Power
Station,
Bowline
Point
Generating
Station,
Connecticut
Yankee
Atomic
Power
Company,
Contra
Costa
Power
Plant,
Danskammer
Point
Generating
Station,
Fort
Calhoun
Nuclear
Station,
Ginna
Generating
Station,
Indian
Point
Generating
Station,
Muskingum
River
Plant,
Northport
Generating
Station,
Pittsburg
Power
Plant,
and
Roseton
Generating
Station.
Based
on
its
review,
EPA
believes
that
the
entrainment
survival
studies
support
the
use
of
a
default
assumption
of
zero
percent
survival
in
the
benefits
assessment.
The
studies
reviewed
are
characterized
by
significant
uncertainty
and
variability
which
complicates
efforts
to
synthesize
the
various
results
in
a
manner
that
would
provide
useful
generalizations
of
the
results
or
application
to
other
particular
facilities.
The
primary
issue
with
regard
to
these
studies
is
whether
the
results
can
support
a
defensible
estimate
of
survival
substantially
different
from
the
value
of
zero
percent
survival
assumed
by
EPA.
The
review
of
the
studies
has
shown
that
while
some
individual
organisms
may
be
alive
in
the
discharge
samples,
the
proportion
of
the
organisms
that
are
alive
in
the
samples
is
highly
variable
and
unpredictable.
The
current
state
of
knowledge
would
not
support
reliable
predictions
of
entrainment
survival
for
the
range
of
species,
life
stages,
regions,
and
facilities
involved
in
EPA's
national
benefits
estimates.
Therefore,
EPA
believes
that
the
reported
results
do
not
provide
a
clear
indication
as
to
the
extent
of
entrainment
survival
above
zero
percent
to
be
used
as
a
defensible
assumption
to
calculate
national
benefits
for
this
rule.
EPA
requests
comment
on
this
issue.
The
revised
version
of
Chapter
A7:
Entrainment
Survival
from
the
Case
Study
Analysis
for
the
Section
316(
b)
Phase
II
Existing
Facilities
Rule
provides
more
detailed
information
on
the
scientific
basis
for
this
position
and
has
been
added
to
the
docket.
EPA
plans
to
conduct
a
formal,
external
peer
review
of
this
document
prior
to
the
final
rule,
and
results
from
the
peer
review
will
be
added
to
the
docket
when
complete.
As
at
proposal,
EPA
notes
that
the
proposed
rule
language
does
not
preclude
the
use
of
estimates
of
entrainment
mortality
and
survival
when
presenting
a
fair
estimation
of
the
monetary
benefits
achieved
through
the
installation
of
the
best
technology
available,
instead
of
assuming
100
percent
entrainment
mortality.
In
EPA's
view,
estimates
of
entrainment
mortality
and
survival
used
for
this
purpose
should
be
based
on
sound
scientific
studies.
EPA
believes
such
studies
should
address
times
of
both
full
facility
capacity
and
peak
abundance
of
entrained
organisms.
EPA
requests
comment
on
whether
it
is
appropriate
to
allow
consideration
of
entrainment
mortality
and
survival
in
benefit
estimates,
and
if
so,
should
EPA
set
minimum
data
quality
objectives
and
standards
for
a
study
of
entrainment
mortality
and
survival
used
to
support
a
site­
specific
determination
of
best
technology
available
for
minimizing
adverse
environmental
impact.
EPA
also
requests
comment
on
how
an
applicant
can
design
and
implement
an
entrainment
mortality
and
survival
study
to
properly
account
for
those
organisms
which
may
disintegrate
upon
passage
through
a
facility.
EPA
may
decide
to
specify
data
quality
objectives
and
standards
either
in
the
final
rule
language
or
through
guidance.

B.
Restoration
Restoration
projects,
when
successful,
can
recreate
otherwise
lost
natural
resources.
The
Agency
proposed
in
§
125.94(
d)
(
67
FR
17221)
that
a
facility
may
implement
restoration
measures
in
lieu
of
or
in
combination
with
reductions
in
impingement
mortality
and
entrainment
upon
demonstration
to
the
Director
that
such
efforts
will
maintain
fish
and
shellfish
in
the
waterbody,
including
the
community
structure
and
function,
at
a
level
comparable
to
that
which
would
be
achieved
through
compliance
with
standards
proposed
in
§
§
125.94(
b)
and
(
c)
(
67
FR
17221).
The
Agency
believes
restoration
projects
have
the
potential
to
mitigate
harm
to
fish
and
shellfish
from
cooling
water
intake
structures.
However,
careful
execution
of
these
projects
is
vital
to
their
successful
use
(
see
``
Note
to
Docket
on
Restoration
Information
Sources.'')
Use
of
good
practices
drawn
from
historical
experiences
with
restoration
increases
the
probability
of
restoration
project
success,
and
therefore,
reduces
environmental
and
compliance
costs
associated
with
project
failure.
Therefore,
EPA
is
considering
requiring
the
following
VerDate
Jan<
31>
2003
19:
17
Mar
18,
2003
Jkt
200001
PO
00000
Frm
00021
Fmt
4701
Sfmt
4702
E:\
FR\
FM\
19MRP2.
SGM
19MRP2
13542
Federal
Register
/
Vol.
68,
No.
53
/
Wednesday,
March
19,
2003
/
Proposed
Rules
practices
during
the
development
of
restoration
projects:
 
Documentation
of
sources
and
magnitude
of
uncertainty
in
expected
restoration
project
performance
 
Creation
and
implementation
of
an
adaptive
management
plan
 
Use
of
an
independent
peer
review
to
evaluate
restoration
proposals
These
practices
are
described
in
greater
detail
below.
This
discussion
supplements
the
discussions
and
requirements
for
restoration
found
in
the
Phase
II
proposal.

1.
Documentation
of
Sources
and
Magnitude
of
Uncertainty
A
clear
and
thorough
documentation
of
the
sources
and
nature
of
uncertainty
in
predictions
of
a
project's
ability
to
meet
performance
targets
is
vital
to
fully
evaluating
the
capabilities
of
a
project
and
subsequently
taking,
as
necessary,
the
appropriate
steps
to
prevent
or
compensate
for
potential
performance
shortfalls.
Restoration
projects
in
particular
require
careful
documentation
because
of
the
uncertainties
found
in
the
current
state
of
the
art.
Documentation
of
uncertainty
must
be
quantitative
wherever
possible,
qualitative
otherwise,
and
make
use
of
sound
statistical
techniques.
The
Agency
is
considering
requiring
permittees
to
submit
documentation
of
uncertainty
as
part
of
the
information
required
under
proposed
§
125.95(
b)(
5).
Because
of
the
complexity
and
evolving
nature
of
restoration
projects
as
an
environmental
management
tool,
most
will
have
several
areas
of
uncertainty
in
descriptions
of
their
performance.
These
areas
may
include
project
organism
productivity,
time
lag
before
full
productivity,
and
comparison
of
compensatory
project
performance
with
adverse
environmental
impact
measurements,
among
others.
The
Agency
solicits
comment
on
these
and
other
areas
of
uncertainty
in
restoration
projects
and
on
appropriate
methods
for
their
characterization.
Sample
regulatory
language
is
offered
below
(
new
language
is
in
italic):
Add
to
Section
125.95(
b)(
5):

(
ii)
A
quantification
of
the
combined
benefits
from
implementing
design
and
construction
technologies,
operational
measures
and/
or
restoration
measures
and
the
proportion
of
the
benefits
that
can
be
attributed
to
each.
This
quantification
must
include:
the
percent
reduction
in
impingement
mortality
and
entrainment
that
would
be
achieved
through
the
use
of
any
design
and
construction
technologies
or
operational
measures
you
have
selected
(
i.
e.,
the
benefits
you
would
achieve
through
impingement
and
entrainment
reduction);
a
demonstration
of
the
benefits
that
could
be
attributed
to
the
restoration
measures
you
have
selected;
a
demonstration
that
the
combined
benefits
of
design
and
construction
technologies,
operational
measures,
and/
or
restoration
measures
will
maintain
fish
and
shellfish
at
a
level
comparable
to
that
which
would
be
achieved
under
§
125.94.
If
it
is
not
possible
to
demonstrate
quantitatively
that
restoration
measures
such
as
creation
of
new
habitats
to
serve
as
spawning
or
nursery
areas
or
establishment
of
riparian
buffers
will
achieve
comparable
performance,
you
may
make
a
qualitative
demonstration
that
such
measures
will
maintain
fish
and
shellfish
in
the
waterbody
at
a
level
substantially
similar
to
that
which
would
be
achieved
under
§
125.94.
To
the
extent
that
restoration
measures
are
relied
upon,
the
documentation
should
include
a
discussion,
and
quantification
where
feasible,
of
uncertainty
associated
with
the
implementation
and
results
of
these
measures.

2.
Adaptive
Management
Under
adaptive
management,
an
approach
is
chosen
to
address
a
problem
and
its
effectiveness
monitored
during
its
implementation.
Information
from
this
monitoring
is
then
used
to
make
adjustments,
as
necessary,
to
the
approach.
Adaptive
management
is
a
particularly
useful
method
when
the
outcome
of
a
chosen
approach
is
uncertain.
Because
of
the
uncertainty
and
evolving
nature
of
restoration
projects
as
an
environmental
management
tool,
the
Agency
is
considering
requiring
permittees
who
choose
to
utilize
restoration
projects
to
create
and
implement
an
adaptive
management
plan.
Permittees
would
submit
this
plan
to
the
Director
as
part
of
the
information
required
under
§
125.95(
b)(
5).
The
adaptive
management
plan
would
outline,
to
the
extent
possible,
the
actions
a
permittee
would
take
should
monitoring
of
project
performance
indicate
deviation
of
performance
from
acceptable
levels.
The
plan
would
describe,
quantitatively
where
possible,
the
performance
levels
at
which
project
adjustment
would
be
necessary.
The
adaptive
management
process
relies
heavily
on
adequate
performance
measurement
methods
and
metrics
to
alert
project
managers
to
project
deviations
from
expected
performance
levels
or
to
indicate
that
a
project
is
meeting
performance
goals.
It
is
important
for
these
reasons
that
project
planners
choose
performance
metrics
that
reflect
attainment
of
project
goals
(
i.
e.,
maintenance
of
fish
and
shellfish
levels
in
a
waterbody)
as
accurately
and
directly
as
possible.
Proxy
measurement
methods
should
be
used
with
adequate
caution.
Project
planners
should
also,
where
feasible,
monitor
for
information
useful
for
making
corrections,
as
needed,
in
a
project's
performance.
The
Agency
is
considering
requiring
that
permittees
would
stipulate
performance
measurement
methods
and
metrics
in
their
monitoring
plan.
(
See
proposed
§
125.95(
b)(
7)
(
67
FR
17178,
17224)).
Sample
regulatory
language
is
offered
below
(
new
language
is
in
italic):
Add
to
§
125.95(
b)(
5):

(
iii)
A
plan
utilizing
the
adaptive
management
method
for
implementing
and
maintaining
the
efficacy
of
the
restoration
measures
you
have
selected
and
supporting
documentation
to
show
that
the
restoration
measures,
or
the
restoration
measures
in
combination
with
design
and
construction
technology(
is)
and
operational
measures,
will
maintain
the
fish
and
shellfish
in
the
waterbody,
including
the
community
structure
and
function,
to
a
level
comparable
or
substantially
similar
to
that
which
would
be
achieved
through
§
125.94(
b)
or
(
c).

EPA
requests
comment
on
requiring
an
adaptive
management
plan
for
restoration
projects.

3.
Independent
Peer
Review
One
challenge
of
successful
restoration
planning
is
the
coordination
of
information
from
a
large
number
of
scientific
disciplines,
particularly
hydrology,
landscape
ecology,
and
organismal
biology.
The
Agency
believes
a
thorough,
multi­
disciplinary
review
of
restoration
proposals
would
help
to
ensure
their
quality
and
therefore
maximize
the
probability
of
project
success.
The
Agency
is
concerned,
however,
that
thorough
review
of
restoration
proposals
may
place
a
significant
additional
burden
on
the
review
capacities
of
permit
writers,
the
majority
of
whom
are
trained
primarily
in
the
engineering
sciences.
To
aid
permit
writers
in
their
review
of
restoration
proposals
and
to
aid
permittees
in
ensuring
that
the
full
range
of
pertinent
expertise
is
brought
to
bear
upon
project
plans,
the
Agency
is
considering
requiring
that
the
information
a
facility
develops
under
proposed
§
§
125.95(
b)(
5)
and
(
7)
in
support
of
its
restoration
plan
undergo
an
independent
peer
review
prior
to
the
plan's
submission
to
the
Director.
EPA
is
considering
whether
a
facility
should
be
required
to
choose
the
members
of
the
peer
review
panel
in
consultation
with
Federal,
State,
and
Tribal
fish
and
wildlife
management
agencies
with
responsibility
for
fish
and
shellfish
potentially
affected
by
the
facility
cooling
water
intake
structure.
The
peer
reviewers
would
be
scientists
who
are
otherwise
independent
of
the
permitting
process
for
the
facility
and
who,
as
a
panel,
have
the
appropriate
multidisciplinary
expertise
for
the
review
of
the
restoration
proposal.
Peer
reviewers
would
be
charged
with
evaluating
specific
elements
of
each
restoration
proposal
(
e.
g.,
the
quantitative
or
qualitative
descriptions
of
the
uncertainty
associated
with
restoration
goals
and
projected
outcomes,
delays
between
project
initiation
and
when
a
restoration
program
shows
measurable
success,
and
the
nexus
between
impingement
and
entrainment
losses
and
the
productivity
of
the
proposed
restoration
program.).
If
permittees
VerDate
Jan<
31>
2003
19:
17
Mar
18,
2003
Jkt
200001
PO
00000
Frm
00022
Fmt
4701
Sfmt
4702
E:\
FR\
FM\
19MRP2.
SGM
19MRP2
13543
Federal
Register
/
Vol.
68,
No.
53
/
Wednesday,
March
19,
2003
/
Proposed
Rules
decided
to
combine
restoration
measures
with
technologies
or
operational
measures,
they
would
provide
peer
reviewers,
for
background
information
purposes,
with
access
to
materials
for
submission
to
the
Director
under
proposed
§
§
125.95(
b)(
2)­(
4).
EPA
requests
comment
on
whether
adding
a
peer
review
requirement
may
add
expense
and
delay
to
the
permitting
process
and,
if
so,
what
might
be
the
extent
of
the
expense
or
delay.
EPA
also
requests
comment
on
whether
a
peer
review
may
result
in
cost
savings
by
ensuring
that
restoration
projects
are
effective
and
cost­
effective.
If
EPA
were
to
add
such
a
requirement,
regulatory
language
might
be
modified
as
follows:
Add
to
Section
125.95(
b)(
5):

(
vi)
The
final
report
from
an
independent
peer
review
of
the
items
you
submit
under
(
b)(
5)(
I),
(
ii),
(
iii),
(
iv),
(
v),
and
(
b)(
7)
of
this
section.
You
must
choose
the
peer
reviewers
in
consultation
with
Federal,
State,
and
Tribal
fish
and
wildlife
management
agencies
with
responsibility
for
fish
and
wildlife
potentially
affected
by
your
cooling
water
intake
structure.

EPA
requests
comment
on
adding
such
a
requirement.

C.
Request
for
Impingement
and
Entrainment
Data
EPA
solicits
data
on
additional
impingement
and
entrainment
at
facilities
withdrawing
cooling
water
from
surface
waters
of
the
U.
S.
Facilities
responding
to
EPA's
questionnaire
surveys
reported
studies
of
impingement
or
entrainment
at
the
following
water
sources:
estuary
or
tidal
river,
98
facilities;
freshwater
stream
or
river,
201
facilities;
the
Great
Lakes,
20
facilities;
lake
or
reservoir,
74
facilities;
ocean,
21
facilities.
Despite
the
large
number
of
facilities
reporting
studies
in
freshwater,
EPA
has
received
relatively
few
such
studies.
To
date,
EPA
has
received
approximately
20
studies
from
inland
facilities.
Thus,
EPA
especially
requests
recent
impingement
and
entrainment
studies
and
data
for
freshwater
sources
(
streams,
rivers,
lakes,
and
reservoirs).
Please
see
the
section
entitled
FOR
FURTHER
INFORMATION
CONTACT
at
the
beginning
of
this
notice
for
technical
points
of
contact
to
whom
studies
and/
or
data
may
be
submitted.

X.
National
Benefits
A.
Case
Study
Clarifications
and
Corrections
EPA
had
numerous
lengthy
telephone
conferences
with
industry
and
environmental
groups
to
respond
to
questions
on
the
cost­
benefit
analysis
presented
at
proposal.
EPA
also
provided
detailed
written
responses
to
these
questions
in
a
series
of
memoranda
provided
to
commenters
during
the
summer
of
2002.
These
materials
are
entitled:
``
Appendix
2:
Summary
of
CBI
and
Non­
CBI
Facilities
from
Questionnaires,''
``
Response
to
UWAG
Questions
Re:
Phase
II
Proposal
Record,
Revised
December
2,
2002,''
``
Appendix
1:
Additional
Detail
on
Extrapolation,''
``
Appendix
3:
Tables
1
 
4,''
``
Response
to
Riverkeeper
Questions
Regarding
Phase
II
Proposal
Record,
Revised
July
31,
2002,''
``
Example
calculations
for
national
extrapolation,''
``
Responses
to
Riverkeeper
Questions
on
§
316(
b)
Phase
II
Case
Study
Benefits
Analyses,''
``
Responses
to
PG&
E
Questions
about
the
§
316(
b)
Phase
II
Brayton
Point
Case
Study,''
``
Responses
to
Riverkeeper
Follow­
Up
Questions
on
§
316(
b)
Phase
II
Case
Study
Benefits
Analyses,''
``
Responses
to
Riverkeeper
Questions
on
§
316(
b)
Phase
II
Case
Study
Benefits
Analyses,''
and
``
Responses
to
Riverkeeper
Questions
About
the
§
316(
b)
Phase
II
Case
Study
I&
E
Analyses.''
The
memorandum
entitled
``
Analytical
and
Clerical
Errors
in
the
§
316(
b)
Phase
II
Case
Study
Document,
Preamble,
and
Economic
and
Benefits
Analysis''
is
an
additional
memorandum
that
corrects
any
clerical
or
analytical
errors
that
were
identified
subsequent
to
proposal.

B.
Regional
Approach
to
Developing
Benefits
Estimates
1.
Objectives
of
Regional
Approach
In
its
analysis
for
section
316(
b)
Phase
II
proposal,
EPA
relied
on
nine
case
studies
to
estimate
the
potential
economic
benefits
of
reduced
impingement
and
entrainment.
EPA
extrapolated
facility­
specific
estimates
to
other
facilities
located
on
the
same
waterbody
type
and
summed
the
results
for
all
waterbody
types
to
obtain
national
estimates.
A
number
of
commenters
expressed
concern
about
this
method
of
extrapolation,
noting
that
even
within
the
same
water
body
type,
there
are
important
ecological
and
socioeconomic
differences
among
different
regions
of
the
country.
For
example,
commercial
and
recreational
fisheries
of
Atlantic
Coast
estuaries
are
substantially
different
from
those
of
Pacific
Coast
estuaries.
To
address
this
concern,
EPA
has
revised
the
design
of
its
analysis
to
examine
cooling
water
intake
structure
impacts
at
the
regional­
scale.
The
regional
approach
to
developing
national
benefits
estimates
involves
evaluating
changes
in
impingement
and
entrainment
losses
and
the
associated
monetary
values
for
improved
recreational
and
commercial
catch
and
nonuse
value
of
these
changes
in
impingement
and
entrainment,
at
the
regional
level.
The
estimated
benefits
will
then
be
aggregated
across
all
regions
to
yield
the
national
benefit
estimate.
For
this
analysis,
coastal
regions
are
fisheries
regions
defined
by
National
Oceanic
and
Atmospheric
Administration
(
NOAA)
National
Marine
Fisheries
Service
(
NMFS).
Freshwater
facilities
are
grouped
into
either
the
Great
Lakes
region
or
the
interior
region
of
the
U.
S.
(
The
regional
approach
is
further
discussed
in
the
document
entitled
``
Regional
Methodology
Used
in
the
section
316(
b)
Phase
II
Notice
of
Data
Availability.'')
EPA
believes
that
these
regional
definitions
are
both
ecologically
and
economically
meaningful,
and
offer
a
better
scale
of
resolution
upon
which
to
base
estimates
of
national
impacts
and
benefits.
EPA
is
proposing
this
regional
analytical
approach
for
this
national
rulemaking
effort,
but
is
not
advocating
this
approach
for
impact
and/
or
benefits
analyses
that
might
be
conducted
for
individual
National
Pollution
Discharge
Elimination
System
(
NPDES)
permits.
At
the
individual
permit
level
it
should
be
generally
necessary
to
conduct
a
more
detailed,
site­
specific
analysis
of
the
environmental
ramifications
of
the
cooling
water
intake
structures
governed
by
the
permit
in
question
than
is
necessary
or
feasible
for
this
nationallevel
rulemaking
analysis.
Such
a
sitespecific
analysis
to
support
a
permit
might,
for
example,
consider
detailed,
species
specific
information
on
impingement
mortality
and
entrainment,
different
factors,
or
use
different
approaches
in
estimating
total
benefits.
In
addition,
EPA
received
a
number
of
comments
on
the
valuation
approaches
applied
to
evaluate
the
proposed
rule.
In
estimating
benefits
of
the
proposed
rule
for
each
case
study,
the
Agency
used
several
valuation
approaches
that
are
the
focus
of
this
NODA:
(
1)
Commercial
fishery
benefits
were
valued
using
market
data;
(
2)
recreational
fishery
benefits
were
valued
using
both
primary
research
and
benefit
transfer
from
other
nonmarket
valuation
studies;
(
3)
nonuse
benefits
were
estimated
based
on
benefits
transfer
using
the
``
50
percent
rule''
(
i.
e.,
50
percent
of
use
value).
Several
commenters
posed
questions
or
expressed
concern
with
how
the
Agency
at
proposal
attempted
to
convert
projected
changes
in
commercial
landings
into
suitable
measures
of
producer
and
consumer
surplus.
Most
commenters
agreed
that
properly
executed
benefits
transfer
is
an
VerDate
Jan<
31>
2003
19:
17
Mar
18,
2003
Jkt
200001
PO
00000
Frm
00023
Fmt
4701
Sfmt
4702
E:\
FR\
FM\
19MRP2.
SGM
19MRP2
13544
Federal
Register
/
Vol.
68,
No.
53
/
Wednesday,
March
19,
2003
/
Proposed
Rules
appropriate
method
for
valuing
nonmarket
goods,
and
they
pointed
out
that
original
travel
cost
analysis
is
one
of
the
most
appropriate
approaches
for
estimating
recreational
use
benefits.
Most
commenters
agreed
that
nonuse
values
are
difficult
to
estimate.
Stated
preference
methods
have
been
the
most
commonly
used
methods
for
estimating
nonuse
benefits.
With
these
methods,
people
are
asked
through
surveys
to
state
their
willingness
to
pay
for
particular
ecological
improvements,
such
as
increased
protection
of
aquatic
species
or
habitats
with
particular
attributes.
According
to
these
commenters,
benefits
transfer
is
the
second
best
approach
if
conducting
an
original
stated
preference
study
is
not
feasible.
Some
commenters
recommended
that
EPA
use
benefits
transfer
for
valuing
improved
protection
of
threatened
and
endangered
species.
EPA
notes
that
there
are
advantages
and
disadvantages
associated
with
using
stated
preference
studies
to
value
nonuse
benefits.
On
the
one
hand,
there
are
no
other
generally
accepted
methods
available
for
identifying
and
measuring
non­
use
benefits
for
a
non­
market
good
or
service.
Benefit
transfer
methods
used
for
estimating
non­
use
benefits
must
ultimately
rely
on
stated
preference
studies
that
independently
assess
non­
use
benefits.
On
the
other
hand,
there
is
evidence
that
stated
preference
methods
can
over­
estimate
or
misrepresent
values
because
of
a
number
of
difficulties
linked
to
the
hypothetical
nature
of
the
survey
instrument.
These
difficulties
include
(
1)
the
absence
of
a
real
budget
constraint
(
though
survey
respondents
are
often
requested
to
think
about
their
income
constraints
and
purchases
prior
to
stating
their
preferences),
and
(
2)
a
frequent
focus
in
the
survey
instrument
on
a
limited
number
of
resources
or
amenities
to
the
exclusion
of
others.
However,
substantial
research
has
been
conducted
to
show
that
potential
bias
associated
with
hypothetical
bids,
lack
of
income
constraint
consideration,
complex
amenities,
and
whole/
part
complications
is
often
manageable
through
careful
survey
design
and
pretesting,
and/
or
may
be
accounted
for
through
adjustments
to
utility­
theoretic
values
derived
from
stated
preference
studies
(
see,
e.
g.,
Carson,
et
al.,
1996).
In
order
to
address
some
of
the
sources
of
bias
in
stated
preference
studies,
a
number
of
``
best
practices''
for
conducting
stated
preferences
surveys
and
using
them
in
policy
analysis
have
evolved
over
the
past
decade.
In
1992,
the
National
Oceanic
and
Atmospheric
Administration
convened
a
panel
of
economic
and
survey
research
experts,
who
had
no
vested
interest
in
stated
preference
methods,
to
conduct
hearings
on
the
validity
of
the
contingent
valuation
(
CV)
method
(
form
of
stated
preference)
(
FR
58:
19,
4601
 
14,
1993).
This
panel
issued
proposed
guidelines,
consisting
of
a
number
of
recommendations
about
survey
design
and
implementation,
``
compliance
with
which
would
define
an
ideal
CV
survey.''
The
panel's
general
guidelines
address
the
following
issues:
Sample
type
and
size;
minimizing
nonresponses;
use
of
personal
interviews;
pretesting
for
interviewer
effects;
reporting;
careful
pretesting
of
a
CV
questionnaire;
conservative
design;
elicitation
format;
referendum
format;
accurate
description
of
the
program
or
policy;
pretesting
of
photographs;
reminder
of
undamaged
substitute
commodities;
adequate
time
lapse
from
the
accident;
temporal
averaging;
``
noanswer
option;
yes/
no
follow­
ups;
cross­
tabulations;
checks
on
understanding
and
acceptance;
alternative
expenditure
possibilities;
deflection
of
transaction
value;
steady
state
or
interim
losses;
present
value
calculations
of
interim
losses;
advance
approval;
burden
of
proof;
and
reliable
reference
surveys.
The
NOAA
panel
concluded
that
(
1)
non­
use
(
referred
to
by
the
panel
as
passive­
use)
losses
are
a
meaningful
component
of
environmental
damages;
(
2)
it
is
plausible
that
the
results
of
CV
surveys
may
be
variable,
sensitive
to
details
of
the
survey
instrument
used,
and
vulnerable
to
upward
bias;
(
3)
under
the
suggested
guidelines
and
conditions,
CV
studies
convey
reliable
information
 
`
`
the
more
closely
the
guidelines
are
followed,
the
more
reliable
the
result
will
be.
It
is
not
necessary,
however,
that
every
single
injunction
be
completely
obeyed;''
(
4)
``
To
the
extent
that
the
design
of
CV
instruments
makes
conservative
choices
*
*
*,
this
intrinsic
[
upward]
bias
may
be
offset
or
even
over­
corrected;''
and
(
5)
a
well­
conducted
CV
survey
``
contains
information
that
judges
will
wish
to
use,
in
combination
with
other
evidence,
including
the
testimony
of
expert
witnesses.''
In
addition
to
the
guidelines
generated
by
the
NOAA
panel,
The
Office
of
Management
and
Budget
(
OMB),
in
its
recent
Draft
2003
Report
to
Congress
on
the
Costs
and
Benefits
of
Federal
Regulations
(
68
FR
5492,
Feb.
3,
2003),
comments
on
the
use
of
stated
preference
studies
as
it
relates
to
policy/
regulatory
analysis.
OMB
notes
that
``
the
contingent
valuation
instrument
must
portray
a
realistic
choice
situation
for
respondents
 
where
the
hypothetical
choice
situation
corresponds
closely
with
the
policy
context
to
which
estimates
will
be
applied.''
(
68
Fed.
5519.)
OMB
also
provides
specific
guidelines
for
sampling,
survey
design,
transparency
and
replicability
of
results,
and
benefit
transfer.
In
response
to
comments,
EPA
made
the
following
changes
to
the
analysis:
(
1)
Developed
original
or
used
available
region­
specific
recreational
angler
behavior
models
to
estimate
recreational
fishing
benefits
from
reduced
impingement
and
entrainment;
(
2)
refined
its
commercial
fishery
analysis;
and
(
3)
developed
a
revised
benefit
transfer
approach
to
estimate
total
value
(
including
nonuse
values)
of
impingement
and
entrainment
losses
for
commercial,
recreational,
and
forage
species.
In
addition,
EPA
also
carefully
examined
available
evidence
concerning
total
benefits,
including
use
and
nonuse
values
from
the
surface
water
valuation
studies
that
are
potentially
applicable
to
the
section
316(
b)
regulation.
Section
E.
2
of
today's
notice
summarizes
EPA's
findings
from
the
review
of
the
surface
water
valuation
studies
and
outlines
further
steps
in
developing
an
approach
for
analyzing
nonuse
value
of
the
aquatic
resources
affected
by
impingement
and
entrainment
for
the
final
rule
analysis.
In
this
NODA,
EPA
presents
its
regional
methodology
and
use
benefits
estimates
for
two
regions,
Northern
California
and
the
North
Atlantic.
Regional
definitions
are
provided
in
the
following
section,
followed
by
a
summary
of
methods
and
results
for
commercial
and
recreational
fishing.
Discussion
of
a
possible
methodology
for
estimating
nonuse
benefits
and
some
preliminary
results
are
presented
in
Section
E.

2.
Study
Regions
The
Agency
identified
eight
study
regions
based
on
similarities
in
the
physical
characteristics
of
the
affected
water
bodies,
aquatic
species
present
in
the
area,
and
characteristics
of
commercial
and
recreational
fishing
activities
in
the
area.
EPA
used
NMFS
definitions
of
marine
fishery
regions
to
define
the
six
coastal
regions.
Table
X
 
1
presents
these
geographic
areas
and
the
number
of
facilities
included
in
each
marine
fishery
region.
A
total
of
124
Phase
II
facilities
are
withdrawing
water
from
the
nation's
estuaries
and
oceans.
Facilities
in
the
Great
Lakes
region
include
all
those
that
withdraw
water
from
Lakes
Ontario,
Erie,
Michigan,
Huron,
and
Superior
or
are
located
on
a
waterway
with
open
passage
of
Great
Lakes
fishery
species
to
a
Great
Lake
and
within
30
miles
of
the
lake.
There
VerDate
Jan<
31>
2003
19:
17
Mar
18,
2003
Jkt
200001
PO
00000
Frm
00024
Fmt
4701
Sfmt
4702
E:\
FR\
FM\
19MRP2.
SGM
19MRP2
13545
Federal
Register
/
Vol.
68,
No.
53
/
Wednesday,
March
19,
2003
/
Proposed
Rules
are
55
facilities
in
the
Great
Lakes
Region.
The
remaining
372
facilities
were
included
in
the
Interior
region
of
the
U.
S.

TABLE
X
 
1.
 
DEFINITION
OF
COASTAL
REGIONS
Region
Geographic
area
Number
of
estuarine
facilities
Number
of
ocean
facilities
Total
number
of
facilities
North
Atlantic
..........................
Maine,
New
Hampshire,
Massachusetts,
Rhode
Island,
Connecticut.
19
2
21
Mid
Atlantic
.............................
New
York,
New
Jersey,
Delaware,
Maryland
and
Virginia
....
43
1
44
South
Atlantic
..........................
North
Carolina,
South
Carolina,
Georgia,
East
Florida
.........
13
1
14
Gulf
of
Mexico
.........................
West
Florida,
Alabama,
Missouri,
Louisiana,
Texas
..............
20
3
23
Northern
California
..................
All
Counties
North
of
Point
Conception
.................................
6
2
8
Southern
California
.................
All
Counties
South
of
Point
Conception
.................................
2
9
11
Total
Number
of
Estuarine
and
Ocean
Facilities
a.
.................................................................................................
103
18
121
a
In
addition,
there
are
3
ocean
facilities
in
Hawaii
that
are
not
included
in
the
NMFS­
defined
regions.

The
analysis
of
direct
use
benefits
for
each
region
proceeds
in
three
steps:
(
1)
Estimating
regional
impingement
and
entrainment
losses;
(
2)
estimating
benefits
to
recreational
anglers
from
improved
fishing
opportunities
due
to
reduced
impingement
and
entrainment
based
on
a
region­
specific
valuation
function;
and
(
3)
estimating
benefits
from
improved
commercial
fishery
yield.
The
following
sections
discuss
each
of
these
steps
in
detail.

3.
Estimating
Regional
Impingement
and
Entrainment
Losses
a.
Species
Groups
For
the
case
studies
presented
at
proposal,
EPA
conducted
speciesspecific
analyses
of
impingement
and
entrainment
on
a
facility­
specific
basis.
For
the
new
regional
studies,
EPA
is
evaluating
species
groups
comprised
of
species
with
similar
life
histories.
Groups
are
based
on
family
groups
or
groups
used
by
NMFS
for
landings
data.
For
example,
bay
goby,
blackeye
goby,
yellowfin
goby,
and
other
gobies
are
grouped
together
as
``
gobies.''
For
the
regional
studies,
EPA
evaluated
impingement
and
entrainment
rates
for
such
species
groups
and
developed
a
regional
total
impingement
and
entrainment
estimate
by
summing
results
for
each
group.
An
exception
was
made
for
species
of
exceptionally
high
commercial
or
recreational
value
(
e.
g.,
striped
bass).
Such
species
were
evaluated
as
single
species.
Aggregation
of
species
into
groups
of
similar
species
facilitated
parameterization
of
the
fisheries
models
used
by
EPA
to
evaluate
facility
impingement
and
entrainment
monitoring
data.
As
noted
by
many
commenters
and
by
EPA
in
the
section
316(
b)
Phase
II
Case
Study
Document,
life
history
data
are
very
limited
for
many
of
the
species
that
are
impinged
and
entrained.
As
a
result,
there
are
many
data
gaps
for
individual
species.
To
overcome
this
limitation,
in
its
new
studies
EPA
used
the
available
life
history
data
for
closely
related
species
to
construct
a
single
representative
life
history
for
a
given
species
group.
For
previously
completed
case
studies,
EPA
used
the
species­
specific
life
history
information
that
was
previously
developed
and
then
aggregated
impingement
and
entrainment
results
for
the
species
within
a
given
group
to
obtain
a
group
estimate.
The
document,
``
Regional
Methodology
Used
in
the
section
316(
b)
Phase
II
Notice
of
Data
Availability,''
summarizes
the
regional
methodology.
The
documents,
``
Appendix
1:
Life
History
Parameter
Values
Used
to
Evaluate
I
and
E
in
the
North
Atlantic
Region,''
and
``
Appendix
2:
Life
History
Parameter
Values
Used
to
Evaluate
I
and
E
in
the
Northern
California
Region,''
provide
tables
of
all
of
the
life
history
data
and
data
sources
used
by
EPA
for
the
two
regional
analyses
presented
in
this
NODA.
EPA
believes
that
the
species
group
approach
is
appropriate
for
the
national
rulemaking
given
the
many
data
limitations
associated
with
our
lack
of
knowledge
of
specific
fish
life
histories,
particularly
the
growth
and
mortality
rates
of
early
life
stages.
At
the
individual
permit
level,
more
detailed
information
should
be
available
based
on
the
data
collected
to
support
a
permit
application
(
see,
for
example,
the
proposed
permit
application
requirements
at
§
122.21
(
r)
and
§
125.95).

b.
Impingement
and
Entrainment
Methods
EPA
evaluated
facility
impingement
and
entrainment
monitoring
data
for
all
individual
fish
species
with
losses
over
one
percent
of
the
facility
total.
EPA
converted
annual
impingement
and
entrainment
losses
for
each
species
group
into
(
1)
age
1
equivalents,
(
2)
fishery
yield,
and
(
3)
biomass
production
foregone
using
standard
fishery
modeling
techniques
(
Ricker,
1975;
Hilborn
and
Walters,
1992;
Quinn
and
Deriso,
1999).
Details
of
these
methods
are
provided
in
Chapter
A5
of
Part
A
of
the
section
316(
b)
Phase
II
Case
Study
Document,
except
for
the
corrections
given
in
the
preceding
section
``
Case
Study
Corrections
and
Clarifications''
and
the
changes
noted
below.
Section
A5
 
4
of
Chapter
A5
discusses
data
uncertainties.
For
all
analyses,
EPA
assumed
100%
entrainment
mortality
based
on
the
analysis
of
entrainment
survival
studies
presented
in
Chapter
A7
of
Part
A
of
the
section
316(
b)
Phase
II
Case
Study
Document
(
1)
Yield
Equation
As
several
commenters
pointed
out,
the
equation
for
yield
presented
in
Chapter
A5
of
the
section
316(
b)
Phase
II
Case
Study
Document,
contains
a
typographical
error.
The
correct
equation
is:
Yk
=
Dj
Da
Ljk
Sja
Wa
(
Fa
/
Za
)
(
1
¥
e
¥
Z
a
)
where:
Yk
=
foregone
yield
(
pounds)
due
to
impingement
and
entrainment
losses
in
year
k
Ljk
=
losses
of
individual
fish
of
stage
j
in
the
year
k
Sja
=
cumulative
survival
fraction
from
stage
j
to
age
a
Wa
=
average
weight
(
pounds)
of
fish
at
age
a
Fa
=
instantaneous
annual
fishing
mortality
rate
for
fish
of
age
a
VerDate
Jan<
31>
2003
20:
32
Mar
18,
2003
Jkt
200001
PO
00000
Frm
00025
Fmt
4701
Sfmt
4702
E:\
FR\
FM\
19MRP2.
SGM
19MRP2
13546
Federal
Register
/
Vol.
68,
No.
53
/
Wednesday,
March
19,
2003
/
Proposed
Rules
Za
=
instantaneous
annual
total
mortality
rate
for
fish
of
age
a
EPA
would
like
to
note
that
it
verified
that
the
correct
equation
was
used
for
the
case
study
analyses.
The
error
was
only
in
the
transcription
of
the
equation
in
Chapter
A5.

(
2)
Trophic
Transfer
Rates
Used
To
Model
Production
Foregone
For
the
case
studies
submitted
at
proposal,
EPA
used
a
simple
model
of
trophic
structure
and
trophic
transfer
efficiency
to
estimate
the
yield
of
harvested
species
that
is
lost
because
of
the
loss
of
forage
species
to
impingement
and
entrainment
(
see
Chapter
A5
of
Part
A
of
the
section
316(
b)
Phase
II
Case
Study
Document
for
details).
The
net
trophic
transfer
efficiency
in
that
model
was
2.5
percent.
Based
on
additional
review
of
the
scientific
literature,
EPA
has
modified
the
model
so
that
the
net
trophic
transfer
efficiency
is
20
percent.
This
transfer
efficiency
is
used
in
natural
resource
damage
assessments
involving
injuries
to
fish,
as
discussed
in
Reed
et
al.
(
1994).
Although
this
change
in
transfer
efficiency
increases
the
portion
of
the
total
yield
attributable
to
the
consumption
of
forage
fish,
the
net
effect
is
insignificant
because
the
trophic
transfer
pathway
accounts
for
a
very
small
portion
of
the
total
foregone
yield.

(
3)
Impingement
and
Entrainment
Extrapolation
To
obtain
regional
impingement
and
entrainment
estimates,
EPA
extrapolated
losses
from
facilities
with
impingement
and
entrainment
data
to
facilities
without
data.
These
results
were
then
summed
to
obtain
a
regional
total.
This
analysis
was
done
separately
within
each
region
for
different
water
body
types
(
estuaries/
tidal
rivers,
oceans,
Great
Lakes,
inland
freshwater
rivers
and
lakes).
Average
annual
results
for
facilities
with
impingement
and
entrainment
data
were
averaged
and
extrapolated
on
the
basis
of
operational
flow,
in
millions
of
gallons
per
day
(
MGD),
to
facilities
without
data.
The
extrapolation
method
used,
by
region,
is:

(
Total
losses
at
case
study
facilities/
Flow
at
case
study
facilities)
*
Total
flow
in
the
region
The
flow
values
used
in
this
calculation
have
been
weighted
(
weighted
flow
=
average
daily
flow
*
weight)
using
the
same
facility
weights
applied
in
the
cost
analysis.
The
purpose
of
this
weighting
is
to
calculate
costs
and
benefits
for
all
551
in­
scope
facilities,
based
on
surveys
received
from
540
facilities.
The
regional
analyses
incorporated
data
for
many
more
facilities
than
were
evaluated
for
proposal,
and
thus
improved
the
basis
for
EPA's
national
benefits
estimates.

(
4)
Impingement
In
the
case
studies
prepared
for
proposal,
EPA
determined
that
all
impinged
fish
are
age
1
because
of
a
lack
of
data
on
the
actual
ages
of
impinged
fish.
As
several
commenters
pointed
out,
this
biases
estimates
low
because
impinged
fish
may
include
older
individuals
that
are
closer
to
harvestable
age.
This
is
confirmed
by
data
on
the
ages
of
impinged
fish
presented
in
studies
conducted
at
Salem
(
PSEG,
1999)
and
Millstone
(
Northeast
Utilities
Environmental
Laboratory,
1992).
To
address
this
concern,
the
current
studies
relax
the
assumption
that
all
impinged
fish
are
age
1,
and
assume
instead
that
the
ages
of
impinged
fish
are
1
and
older,
and
follow
an
age
distribution
that
is
implied
by
the
associated
survival
rates.
This
approach
takes
into
consideration
the
common
observation
that
relatively
few
older,
larger
fish
are
impinged.
The
effect
of
this
adjustment
is
that
a
higher
proportion
of
impinged
fish
are
assumed
to
survive
until
harvest.
As
a
result
of
this
adjustment,
the
estimate
of
foregone
yield
associated
with
impingement
increases
by
a
factor
ranging
from
about
three
to
ten,
depending
on
a
species`
age­
specific
survival
rates.

4.
Recreational
Fishing
Benefits
For
the
final
rule
analysis,
EPA's
analysis
of
recreational
fishing
benefits
from
reduced
impingement
and
entrainment
will
be
based
on
regionspecific
models
of
recreational
anglers'
behavior
for
seven
of
the
eight
study
regions:
North
Atlantic,
Mid­
Atlantic,
South
Atlantic,
Gulf
of
Mexico,
Northern
California,
Southern
California,
and
Great
Lakes.
EPA's
analysis
of
benefits
for
the
interior
U.
S.
region
will
combine
an
original
random
utility
model
(
RUM)
for
the
Ohio
River
and
a
benefit
transfer
approach
for
other
rivers,
lakes,
and
reservoirs
affected
by
impingement
and
entrainment.
Additional
detail
on
the
methods
EPA
will
use
throughout
the
recreational
benefits
analysis
are
provided
in
DCN
5
 
1008
and
DCN
5
 
1009.
These
methods
are
similar
to
the
methods
used
for
the
Delaware
Bay,
Tampa
Bay,
and
Ohio
River
case
study
analyses,
but
EPA
developed
the
travel
coast
models
at
the
regional
levels.
For
the
NODA,
EPA
developed
recreational
anglers'
behavior
models
for
three
of
the
six
coastal
regions
including
Northern
and
Southern
California
and
the
Mid­
Atlantic.
Today's
notice
presents
results
only
for
the
Northern
California
Region
because
impingement
and
entrainment
data
are
not
available
for
the
Mid­
Atlantic
and
Southern
California
regions
at
this
time.
For
the
final
rule
analysis,
the
Agency
intends
to
expand
the
Tampa
Bay
case
study
used
in
the
proposed
rule
analysis
to
include
the
whole
Gulf
of
Mexico
region
and
to
develop
an
original
travel
coast
model
for
the
Great
Lakes
region.
For
the
South
Atlantic
EPA
is
considering
using
the
recreational
anglers'
behavior
models
developed
by
NMFS.
The
NMFS
model
is
appropriate
for
benefit
function
transfer
for
the
North
Atlantic
region,
because
it
estimates
region­
specific
values
for
the
most
important
species
affected
by
impingement
and
entrainment
(
e.
g.,
winter
flounder).
The
Agency
will
further
assess
the
applicability
of
the
South
Atlantic
NMFS
model
for
estimating
benefits
from
reduced
impingement
and
entrainment
in
the
South
Atlantic
region
when
impingement
and
entrainment
data
for
this
region
become
available.
If
necessary,
EPA
will
estimate
a
recreational
behavior
model
for
the
South
Atlantic
region
to
support
valuation
of
the
most
important
species
affected
by
impingement
and
entrainment
in
this
region.
The
regional
recreational
fishing
studies
use
information
on
recreational
anglers'
behavior
to
infer
anglers'
economic
value
for
the
quality
of
fishing
in
the
case
study
areas.
The
model's
main
assumption
is
that
anglers
will
get
greater
satisfaction,
and
thus
greater
economic
value,
from
sites
where
the
catch
rate
is
higher
due
to
reduced
impingement
and
entrainment,
all
else
being
equal.
This
benefit
may
occur
in
two
ways:
First,
an
angler
may
get
greater
enjoyment
from
a
given
fishing
trip
when
catch
rates
are
higher,
and
thus
get
a
greater
value
per
trip;
second,
anglers
may
take
more
fishing
trips
when
catch
rates
are
higher,
resulting
in
greater
overall
value
for
fishing
in
the
region.
EPA
will
rely
on
the
following
primary
data
sources
in
the
regional
analyses
of
recreational
fishing
benefits:
 
For
the
six
coastal
regions,
EPA
intends
to
use
the
NMFS
Marine
Recreational
Fishing
Statistics
Survey
(
MRFSS)
combined
with
the
Add­
On
MRFSS
Economic
Survey
(
AMES)
(
NMFS,
1994;
1997;
2000);
 
For
the
Great
Lakes
region
the
Agency
is
considering
using
the
1995
Michigan
Recreational
Anglers
survey
to
develop
a
RUM
model.
The
Agency
will
VerDate
Jan<
31>
2003
19:
17
Mar
18,
2003
Jkt
200001
PO
00000
Frm
00026
Fmt
4701
Sfmt
4702
E:\
FR\
FM\
19MRP2.
SGM
19MRP2
13547
Federal
Register
/
Vol.
68,
No.
53
/
Wednesday,
March
19,
2003
/
Proposed
Rules
21
The
trip
frequency
model
is
also
called
a
trip
participation
model.
apply
estimated
values
from
Michigan
sites
to
Great
Lakes
sites
in
other
affected
states.
To
transfer
values
from
the
Michigan
study
to
other
Great
Lakes
states,
EPA
is
considering
using
information
from
state­
level
anglers'
surveys
on
recreational
fishing
participation,
targeted
species,
and
sitespecific
catch
rates
at
Great
Lakes
recreational
fishing
sites.
 
For
the
interior
U.
S.
region,
the
Agency
is
also
considering
using
the
2000
National
Survey
of
Recreation
and
Environment
and
the
National
Survey
of
Fishing,
Hunting
and
Wildlife­
Associated
Recreation
(
U.
S.
Fish
and
Wildlife
Service,
1996;
2001)
to
estimate
the
value
of
recreational
fishery
losses
from
impingement
and
entrainment
at
cooling
water
intake
structures
located
on
rivers,
lakes,
and
reservoirs.
DCN
5
 
1310
and
DCN
5
 
1311
provide
further
information
on
these
data
sources.
These
data
sets
provide
information
on
where
anglers
fish,
what
fish
they
catch,
and
their
personal
characteristics.
When
anglers
choose
among
fishing
sites
they
reveal
information
about
their
preferences.
The
Agency
uses
standard
assumptions
and
specifications
of
the
RUM
model
that
are
readily
available
in
the
recreation
demand
literature.
Among
these
assumptions
are
that
anglers
choose
a
fishing
mode
and
then
the
site
at
which
to
fish;
and
that
anglers'
choice
of
target
species
is
exogenous
to
the
model.
EPA
modeled
an
angler's
decision
to
visit
a
site
as
a
function
of
site­
specific
cost,
fishing
trip
quality,
and
additional
site
attributes
such
as
presence
of
boat
launching
facilities
at
the
site.
The
Agency
uses
the
5­
year
historical
catch
rates
per
hour
of
fishing
as
a
measure
of
fishing
quality
in
the
case
studies.
Catch
rate
is
one
of
the
most
important
attributes
of
a
fishing
site
from
the
angler's
perspective.
This
attribute
is
also
a
policy
variable
of
concern
because
catch
rate
is
a
function
of
fish
abundance,
which
may
be
affected
by
fish
mortality
caused
by
impingement
and
entrainment.
The
Agency
uses
the
estimated
model
coefficients
in
conjunction
with
the
estimated
impingement
and
entrainment
losses
at
the
cooling
water
intake
structures
located
in
the
relevant
region
to
estimate
per
trip
welfare
losses
from
impingement
and
entrainment
to
recreational
anglers.
The
random
utility
models
generate
welfare
measures
for
changes
in
catch
rates
on
a
per
trip
basis.
To
capture
the
effect
of
changes
in
catch
rates
on
the
number
of
fishing
trips
taken
per
recreational
season,
EPA
will
combine
regional
RUM
models
and
a
trip
frequency
model.
21
The
trip
frequency
model
estimates
the
number
of
trips
that
an
angler
will
take
annually.
The
Agency
is
considering
developing
trip
frequency
models
for
those
regions
for
which
sufficient
data
on
anglers'
socioeconomic
characteristics
are
available.
For
the
proposed
rule
analysis,
the
Agency
developed
trip
frequency
models
for
the
three
case
studies
used
in
the
proposed
rule
analysis
 
Delaware
Estuary,
Tampa
Bay,
and
the
Ohio
River.
For
the
final
rule
analysis,
the
Agency
will
reestimate
these
models
to
include
all
recreational
anglers
in
a
given
region.
The
Agency
also
plans
to
estimate
trip
frequency
models
for
the
Great
Lakes,
North
Atlantic,
and
South
Atlantic
regions
for
the
final
rule
analysis.
EPA
will
not
estimate
trip
frequency
models
for
the
Northern
and
Southern
California
regions
due
to
the
lack
of
socioeconomic
data
for
these
regions.
The
Agency
will
use
an
average
percentage
increase
in
trip
frequency
from
other
regions
to
approximate
changes
in
trip
frequency
for
the
Northern
and
Southern
California
regions
due
to
improved
fishing
opportunities.
However,
in
the
regions
where
changes
in
trip
participation
can
be
calculated
for
the
proposed
rule,
the
increase
in
the
number
of
trips
was
very
small.
To
estimate
the
economic
value
to
recreational
anglers
of
changes
in
catch
rates
resulting
from
changes
in
impingement
and
entrainment
in
a
given
region,
EPA
combines
fishing
participation
estimates
for
a
given
region
with
the
estimated
per
trip
welfare
gain
(
loss)
under
each
policy
scenario.
The
welfare
estimates
presented
in
the
following
sections
are
based
on
the
estimates
of
baseline
recreational
fishing
participation
provided
by
NMFS.
Thus,
welfare
estimates
presented
in
today's
notice
do
not
account
for
changes
in
recreational
fishing
participation
due
to
improved
quality
of
the
fishing
sites,
but
these
changes
are
likely
to
be
small.

5.
Commercial
Fishing
Benefits
Methods
EPA
will
estimate
the
commercial
fishing
benefits
expected
under
the
final
Phase
II
regulation
for
each
region
in
the
final
analysis:
the
North
Atlantic,
Mid­
Atlantic,
South
Atlantic,
Gulf
of
Mexico,
Northern
California,
Southern
California,
and
Great
Lakes.
Additional
detail
on
the
regions
is
provided
above.
Additional
detail
on
the
methods
EPA
uses
for
this
NODA
and
additional
methods
EPA
is
considering
are
provided
in
``
Chapter
A13:
Methods
For
Estimating
Commercial
Fishing
Benefits''
that
accompanies
this
NODA.
These
methods
are
similar
to
the
methods
used
for
the
analysis
for
the
proposed
rule,
but
EPA
has
made
some
changes
and
clarification
to
these
methods
as
indicated
in
the
following
steps.
1.
Estimate
losses
to
commercial
harvest
(
in
pounds
of
fish)
attributable
to
impingement
and
entrainment
under
current
conditions.
EPA
models
these
losses
using
the
methods
presented
in
Chapter
A5
of
Part
A
of
the
section
316(
b)
Phase
II
Case
Study
Document.
Changes
in
these
methods
for
the
NODA
and
subsequent
analyses
are
provided
in
the
preceding
sections
``
Case
Study
Corrections
and
Clarifications''
and
``
Impingement
and
Entrainment
Methods.''
The
basic
approach
is
to
assume
linearity
between
stock
and
harvest,
such
that
if,
for
example,
10%
of
the
current
commercially
targeted
stock
is
harvested,
then
10%
of
any
increase
in
stock
due
to
this
rule
would
be
harvested.
2.
Estimate
gross
revenue
of
lost
commercial
catch.
The
approach
EPA
uses
to
estimate
the
value
of
the
commercial
catch
lost
due
to
impingement
and
entrainment
relies
upon
landings
and
dockside
price
($/
lb)
as
reported
by
NMFS
for
the
period
1991
 
2001.
These
data
are
used
to
estimate
the
revenue
of
the
lost
commercial
harvest
under
current
conditions
(
i.
e.,
the
increase
in
gross
revenue
that
would
be
expected
if
all
impingement
and
entrainment
impacts
were
eliminated).
Note
that
EPA
currently
assumes
current
prices
when
estimating
changes
in
gross
revenue,
however,
EPA
will
explore
options
for
predicting
new
prices
(
e.
g.,
based
on
available
elasticities),
and
solicits
comment
on
the
availability
of
information
or
data
to
assist
in
this
matter.
3.
Estimate
lost
economic
surplus.
The
conceptually
suitable
measure
of
benefits
is
the
sum
of
any
changes
in
producer
and
consumer
surplus.
As
detailed
in
``
Chapter
A13:
Methods
For
Estimating
Commercial
Fishing
Benefits''
that
accompanies
this
NODA,
the
methods
used
for
estimating
the
change
in
surplus
depends
on
whether
the
physical
impact
on
the
commercial
fishery
market
appears
sufficiently
small
such
that
it
is
reasonable
to
assume
there
will
be
no
appreciable
price
changes
in
the
markets
for
the
impacted
fisheries.
3a.
Estimate
lost
surplus
when
no
change
in
price
anticipated.
For
the
2
regions
analyzed
to
date
by
EPA,
it
is
reasonable
to
assume
no
change
in
VerDate
Jan<
31>
2003
19:
17
Mar
18,
2003
Jkt
200001
PO
00000
Frm
00027
Fmt
4701
Sfmt
4702
E:\
FR\
FM\
19MRP2.
SGM
19MRP2
13548
Federal
Register
/
Vol.
68,
No.
53
/
Wednesday,
March
19,
2003
/
Proposed
Rules
price,
which
implies
that
the
welfare
change
is
limited
to
changes
in
producer
surplus.
As
described
in
``
Chapter
A13:
Methods
For
Estimating
Commercial
Fishing
Benefits,''
this
change
in
producer
surplus
is
currently
assumed
to
be
equivalent
to
a
portion
of
the
change
in
gross
revenues,
as
developed
under
step
2.
Currently,
EPA
is
using
a
range
of
0%
to
40%
of
the
gross
revenue
losses
estimated
in
step
2
as
a
means
of
estimating
the
change
in
producer
surplus.
This
is
based
upon
a
review
of
empirical
literature
(
restricted
to
only
those
studies
that
compared
producer
surplus
to
gross
revenue)
and
is
consistent
with
recommendations
made
in
comments
on
the
EPA
analysis
at
proposal.
This
represents
a
change
from
the
analysis
for
the
proposed
rule,
which
assumed
a
range
of
40%
to
70%.
EPA
will
continue
to
review
this
approach
for
the
final
analysis.
In
particular,
EPA
believes
this
is
a
conservative
approach
to
estimating
producer
surplus
when
there
are
no
anticipated
price
changes,
because
it
does
not
account
for
shifts
in
marginal
cost
curves.
If
greater
abundance
of
fish
is
assumed
to
imply
that
the
same
quantity
of
fish
can
be
caught
(
i.
e.,
no
change
in
managed
quota)
at
a
lower
cost,
then
these
cost
savings
may
be
over
or
underestimated
using
this
method,
depending
on
the
slope
and
magnitude
of
shift
of
the
marginal
cost
curve
for
harvesters.
If
a
management
council
increases
the
optimal
quota
to
account
for
greater
stock
size
(
and
the
cost
of
harvesting
fish
again
decreases),
then
it
is
possible
that
the
corresponding
increase
in
producer
surplus
is
equal
to
or
greater
than
100%
of
gross
revenue
change.
EPA
solicits
comment
on
these
approaches
for
assessing
producer
surplus.
3b.
Estimate
economic
surplus
if
a
change
in
price
anticipated.
EPA
currently
relies
on
the
methodology
in
Step
9a
above
for
estimating
benefits
for
the
two
regional
examples
in
this
NODA,
but
EPA
will
explore
alternative
methods
if
changes
in
price
are
anticipated.
As
described
in
``
Chapter
A13:
Methods
For
Estimating
Commercial
Fishing
Benefits''
that
accompanies
this
NODA,
if
the
impact
on
commercial
fisheries
in
other
regions
analyzed
for
the
final
regulation
are
sufficiently
large
that
a
change
in
market
prices
becomes
a
likely
outcome,
then
a
more
complex
approach
may
be
considered
by
the
Agency.
This
approach
would
include
estimates
of
consumer
and
other
post
harvest
surplus,
plus
any
net
change
in
producer
surplus
(
noting
that
one
of
the
important
aspects
would
be
to
net
out
potential
transfers
of
surplus
from
producers
to
consumers,
so
as
to
avoid
potential
double­
counting).
This
analysis
would
be
conducted
primarily
to
determine
the
distribution
of
surplus
between
consumers
and
producers.
Joint
estimation
of
consumer
and
producer
surplus
can
lead
to
potential
double
counting
as
follows.
If
no
price
change
is
assumed
when
estimating
gross
revenue
in
step
2
above,
then,
theoretically,
there
is
no
consumer
surplus.
If
however,
change
in
gross
revenue
in
Step
2
is
based
on
a
predicted
price
decrease,
then
change
in
producer
surplus
is
not
capturing
changes
in
consumer
surplus,
assuming
transfers
on
infra­
marginal
production
are
netted
out.
EPA
anticipates
that
the
net
change
in
producer
surplus
result
can
be
added
to
consumer
and
post­
harvest
surplus
estimated
in
the
manner
outlined
by
Bishop
and
Holt
(
2003).
The
work
to
date
by
Dr.
Richard
Bishop
of
the
University
of
Wisconsin­
Madison
and
Dr.
Matthew
Holt
of
North
Carolina
State
University
suggests
that
for
the
fishery
markets
they
have
studied,
the
percent
change
in
consumer
and
postharvest
surplus
roughly
equals
the
percent
change
in
gross
revenue
(
as
estimated
in
step
2),
and
this
result
may
be
refined
in
light
of
their
recommendations
and
future
work
by
EPA.
EPA
recognizes,
however,
that
it
would
not
be
appropriate
to
add
this
change
to
an
independently
estimated
change
in
producer
surplus
that
already
captures
part
or
all
of
potential
consumer
surplus.
EPA
will
continue
to
review
this
approach
for
the
final
analysis,
and
in
particular
is
examining
and
soliciting
comment
on
using
empirical
information
from
the
literature
to
(
1)
estimate
price
change
for
revenue
calculations
and
netting
out
surplus
transfers,
(
2)
adjust
existing
estimates
of
normal
profit
so
that
they
might
better
reflect
the
more
suitable
measure
of
producer
surplus,
(
3)
model
changes
in
harvest
cost
that
may
result
from
increased
stock
size.
In
conjunction
with
this
NODA,
EPA
is
asking
for
comment
on
the
issues
and
approaches
discussed
above
and
as
discussed
in
further
detail
in
``
Chapter
A13:
Methods
For
Estimating
Commercial
Fishing
Benefits''
that
accompanies
this
NODA.
Specific
input
is
sought
regarding
assumptions
and
approaches
including:
(
1)
The
likelihood
that
supply
curves
will
shift,
thereby
creating
the
context
for
generating
greater
net
surplus;
(
2)
how
best
to
incorporate
fishery
management
regimes
into
the
analysis;
(
3)
estimates
of
normal
profit
and
how
to
interpret
them
to
estimate
a
more
suitable
measure
of
producer
surplus;
and
(
4)
the
likelihood
and
magnitude
of
price
changes
that
may
result
from
increased
harvest.

6.
Discounting
Future
Use
Benefits
Discounting
refers
to
the
economic
conversion
of
future
benefits
and
costs
to
their
present
values,
accounting
for
the
fact
that
individuals
tend
to
value
future
outcomes
less
than
comparable
near­
term
outcomes.
Discounting
is
important
when
benefits
and
costs
may
occur
in
different
years,
and
enables
a
comparison
of
benefits
to
costs
across
time
periods.
For
the
section
316(
b)
rulemaking,
discounting
arises
because
some
fishery
benefits
are
realized
a
year
or
more
after
costs
are
borne.
The
issue
of
time
lags
between
implementation
of
BTA
and
resulting
increased
fishery
yields
stems
from
the
fact
that
one
or
more
years
may
pass
between
the
time
an
organism
is
spared
impingement
and
entrainment,
and
the
time
of
its
ultimate
harvest.
For
example,
a
larval
fish
spared
from
entrainment
(
in
effect,
at
age
0)
may
be
caught
by
a
recreational
angler
at
age
3,
meaning
that
a
3­
year
time
lag
arises
between
the
incurred
cost
of
BTA
and
the
realization
of
the
estimated
recreational
benefit.
Likewise,
if
a
1
year
old
fish
is
spared
from
impingement
and
is
then
harvested
by
a
commercial
waterman
at
age
2,
there
is
a
1­
year
lag
between
the
incurred
BTA
cost
and
the
subsequent
commercial
fishery
benefit.
At
proposal,
EPA
did
not
apply
any
discounting
to
the
beneficial
fishery
impacts
from
the
reduced
impingement
and
entrainment
attributed
to
regulatory
options,
and
instead
assumed
a
steady
state
scenario
(
in
effect,
applying
a
discount
rate
of
zero).
The
Agency
approach
at
proposal
was
limited
by
the
lack
of
age­
specific
monitoring
data
provided
by
the
industry
and
the
complexity
of
estimating
appropriate
species­
specific
and
facility­
specific
discounting.
As
discussed
above,
the
Agency
also
assumed
at
proposal
that
all
impinged
organisms
were
age
1,
which
decreased
the
fishery
yield
impacts
estimated
at
proposal.
For
the
new
regional
analysis,
EPA
will
apply
discounting
by
species
groups
in
each
regional
study,
as
described
below.
Two
key
factors
determine
how
much
the
discounting
will
affect
the
benefitcost
results:
the
range
of
ages
at
which
different
types
of
fish
are
typically
landed
by
commercial
or
recreational
anglers,
and
the
discount
rate
applied
in
the
analysis.
EPA
uses
the
best
available
estimates
of
commercial
fishing
mortality
rates
to
estimate
the
proportion
of
each
species
group,
by
age,
that
is
caught
annually
following
VerDate
Jan<
31>
2003
19:
17
Mar
18,
2003
Jkt
200001
PO
00000
Frm
00028
Fmt
4701
Sfmt
4702
E:\
FR\
FM\
19MRP2.
SGM
19MRP2
13549
Federal
Register
/
Vol.
68,
No.
53
/
Wednesday,
March
19,
2003
/
Proposed
Rules
implementation
of
BTA.
This
provides
an
estimate
of
the
time­
path
of
increases
in
future
landings
attributable
to
the
rule.
EPA
discounts
these
future
changes
using
two
discount
rates:
a
real
rate
of
3%
and
a
real
rate
of
7%.
Additional
detail
on
EPA's
discounting
methods
is
provided
in
the
document
entitled
``
Discounting
Commercial
and
Recreational
Fishing
Benefits.''
The
Agency
notes
that
discounting
is
applied
to
recreational
and
commercial
fishing
benefits
only.
Nonuse
benefits
are
independent
of
fish
age
and
size
and,
thus,
start
as
soon
as
impingement
and
entrainment
ceases.
EPA
recognizes
that,
by
addressing
species
groups
rather
than
individual
species,
potentially
important
speciesspecific
differences
cannot
be
accounted
for.
However,
the
lack
of
life
history
data,
fishing
mortality
rates,
and
other
information
necessary
to
calculate
foregone
yield
and
other
endpoints
of
interest
at
the
regional
and
national
level
makes
it
necessary
to
group
species
in
this
way.
C.
North
Atlantic
Regional
Study
1.
Background:
Marine
Fisheries
of
the
North
Atlantic
Commercial
and
recreational
fisheries
of
the
North
Atlantic
Region
are
managed
by
the
New
England
Fisheries
Management
Council
(
NEFMC)
according
to
Fishery
Management
Plans
(
FMP's)
developed
by
NEFMC
(
NMFS,
2002).
The
NMFS
Northeast
Fisheries
Science
Center
provides
scientific
and
technical
support
for
management,
conservation,
and
fisheries
development.
The
multispecies
groundfish
fishery
is
the
most
valuable
commercial
fishery
of
the
North
Atlantic
region,
followed
by
American
lobster
(
Homarus
americanus)
(
NMFS,
1999a).
Important
groundfish
species
include
Atlantic
cod
(
Gadus
morhua),
haddock
(
Melanogrammus
aeglefinus),
yellowtail
flounder
(
Pleuronectes
ferrugineus),
windowpane
flounder
(
Scophthalmus
aquosus),
and
winter
flounder
(
Pleuronectes
americanus).
Atlantic
pelagic
fisheries
are
dominated
by
Atlantic
mackerel
(
Scomber
scombrus),
Atlantic
herring
(
Clupea
harengus),
bluefish
(
Pomatomus
saltatrix),
and
butterfish
(
Peprilus
triacanthus)
(
NMFS,
1999a).
Important
recreational
fisheries
of
the
region
include
Atlantic
cod,
winter
flounder,
Atlantic
mackerel,
striped
bass
(
Morone
saxatilis),
bluefish,
and
bluefin
tuna
(
Thunnus
thynnus)
(
NMFS,
1999a).
Fifteen
groundfish
species
making
up
25
stocks
are
managed
under
the
Northeast
Multispecies
FMP
of
the
NEFMC
(
NMFS,
2002).
Table
X
 
2
summarizes
the
stock
status
of
these
species,
indicating
which
stocks
are
subject
to
overfishing
(
the
harvest
rate
exceeds
threshold)
and
which
stocks
are
overfished
(
stock
size
is
below
threshold).
Overfishing
refers
to
a
level
of
fishing
mortality
that
jeopardizes
the
long
term
capacity
of
the
stock
to
produce
the
potential
maximum
sustainable
yield
on
a
continuing
basis.
In
some
cases,
heavy
fishing
in
the
past
may
have
reduced
a
stock
to
low
abundance,
so
that
it
is
now
considered
overfished
even
though
the
stock
is
not
currently
subject
to
overfishing.

TABLE
X
 
2.
 
SUMMARY
OF
STOCK
STATUS
FOR
HARVESTED
SPECIES
OF
THE
NORTH
ATLANTIC
REGION
INCLUDED
IN
FEDERAL
FISHERY
MANAGEMENT
PLANS
Stock
(
Species
in
bold
are
major
stocks,
with
annual
landings
over
200,000
pounds)
Overfishing?
(
Is
fishing
mortality
above
threshold?)
Overfished?
(
Is
biomass
below
threshold?)
Approaching
Overfished
Condition?

Cod:
Gulf
of
Maine
.......................................................................
Yes
...........................................
Rebuilding
................................
No.
Georges
Bank
......................................................................
No
............................................
Rebuilding
................................
No.
Haddock:
Gulf
of
Maine
.......................................................................
Yes
...........................................
Rebuilding
................................
No.
Georges
Bank
......................................................................
No
............................................
Rebuilding
................................
No.
American
Plaice
..........................................................................
Yes
...........................................
No
............................................
No.
Redfish
(
ocean
perch)
................................................................
No
............................................
Yes
...........................................
N/
A.
Witch
Flounder
............................................................................
No
............................................
No
............................................
No.
Yellowtail
Flounder:
Georges
Bank
......................................................................
No
............................................
No
............................................
No.
Southern
New
England
........................................................
No
............................................
Yes
...........................................
N/
A.
Cape
Cod
............................................................................
No
............................................
Rebuilding
................................
No.
Middle
Atlantic
.....................................................................
Yes
...........................................
Yes
...........................................
N/
A.
White
Hake
.................................................................................
Yes
...........................................
Yes
...........................................
N/
A.
Pollock
........................................................................................
Unknown
..................................
Unknown
..................................
Unknown.
Ocean
Pout
.................................................................................
No
............................................
Yes
...........................................
N/
A.
Atlantic
Halibut
............................................................................
Unknown
..................................
Yes
...........................................
N/
A.
Windowpane
Flounder:
Gulf
of
Maine/
Georges
Bank
...............................................
No
............................................
No
............................................
No.
Southern
New
England/
Middle
Atlantic
...............................
No
............................................
No
............................................
Yes.
Winter
Flounder:
Gulf
of
Maine
.......................................................................
Unknown
..................................
Undefined
................................
Unknown.
Georges
Bank
......................................................................
No
............................................
Rebuilding
................................
No.
Southern
New
England
........................................................
No
............................................
No
............................................
No.
Silver
Hake:
Gulf
of
Maine/
Northern
Georges
Bank
................................
Unknown
..................................
Rebuilding
................................
No.
Southern
Georges
Bank/
Middle
Atlantic
.............................
Unknown
..................................
Yes
...........................................
N/
A.
Offshore
Hake
.............................................................................
Unknown
..................................
Unknown
..................................
Unknown.
Red
Hake:
Gulf
of
Maine/
Northern
Georges
Bank
................................
No
............................................
No
............................................
No.
Southern
Georges
Bank/
Middle
Atlantic
.............................
No
............................................
..................................................
Unknown.

Source:
Table
4
in
NMFS
(
2002).

VerDate
Jan<
31>
2003
20:
32
Mar
18,
2003
Jkt
200001
PO
00000
Frm
00029
Fmt
4701
Sfmt
4702
E:\
FR\
FM\
19MRP2.
SGM
19MRP2
13550
Federal
Register
/
Vol.
68,
No.
53
/
Wednesday,
March
19,
2003
/
Proposed
Rules
As
indicated
in
Table
X
 
2,
seven
of
the
stocks
managed
under
the
Northeast
Multispecies
FMP
are
classified
as
overfished,
including
redfish
(
Sebastes
spp.),
the
southern
New
England
and
Middle
Atlantic
stocks
of
yellowtail
flounder,
white
hake
(
Urophycis
tenuis),
ocean
pout
(
Macrozoarces
americanus),
Atlantic
halibut
(
Hippoglossus
hippoglossus),
and
the
Southern
Georges
Bank
stock
of
silver
hake
(
Merluccius
bilinearis).
Other
stocks
are
in
the
process
of
being
rebuilt
from
levels
below
the
maximum
sustainable
yield,
including
the
Gulf
of
Maine
and
Georges
Bank
stocks
of
Atlantic
cod
and
haddock,
the
Cape
Cod
stock
of
yellowtail
flounder,
the
Georges
Bank
stock
of
winter
flounder,
and
the
Gulf
of
Maine/
Northern
Georges
Bank
stock
of
silver
hake
(
NMFS,
2002).
Stocks
of
another
12
North
Atlantic
species
are
under
the
jurisdiction
of
the
Atlantic
States
Marine
Fisheries
Commission
(
ASMFC)
and
are
not
included
in
federal
FMPs.
These
stocks
and
their
status
are
given
in
Table
X
 
3.
Offshore
fisheries
for
crustaceans
and
molluscs,
particularly
American
lobster
(
Homarus
americanus)
and
sea
scallop
(
Placopecten
magellanicus),
are
among
the
most
valuable
fisheries
in
the
Northeast
(
NMFS,
1999a).
Surfclams
(
Spisula
solidissima),
ocean
quahogs
(
Arctica
islandica),
squids
(
Loligo
pealeii
and
Illex
illecebrosus),
northern
shrimp
(
Pandalus
borealis),
and
red
crab
(
Chaceon
quinquedens)
also
provide
important
invertebrate
fisheries.

TABLE
X
 
3.
 
SUMMARY
OF
STOCK
STATUS
OF
HARVESTED
SPECIES
OF
THE
NORTH
ATLANTIC
REGION
UNDER
AFSMC
JURISDICTION
AND
NOT
INCLUDED
IN
FEDERAL
FISHERY
MANAGEMENT
PLANS
Stock
(
species
in
bold
are
major
stocks,
with
annual
landings
over
200,000
pounds)
Overfishing?
(
fishing
mortality
above
threshold)
Overfished?
(
stock
size
below
threshold)
Approaching
overfished
condition?

American
Eel
..............................................................................
Unknown
.................................
Unknown
.................................
Unknown
American
Lobster
.......................................................................
Yes
..........................................
Undefined
................................
Unknown
Atlantic
Croaker
..........................................................................
Unknown
.................................
Unknown
.................................
Unknown
Atlantic
Menhaden
......................................................................
No
............................................
No
............................................
Unknown
Atlantic
Sturgeon
........................................................................
No
............................................
Yes
..........................................
N/
A
Horseshoe
Crab
.........................................................................
Unknown
.................................
Unknown
.................................
Unknown
Northern
Shrimp
.........................................................................
Yes
..........................................
Undefined
................................
Unknown
Spot
............................................................................................
Unknown
.................................
Unknown
.................................
Unknown
Spotted
Seatrout
........................................................................
Unknown
.................................
Unknown
.................................
Unknown
Striped
Bass
...............................................................................
No
............................................
No
............................................
Unknown
Tautog
........................................................................................
Yes
..........................................
Undefined
................................
Unknown
Weakfish
.....................................................................................
Undefined
................................
No
............................................
No
Source:
Table
6
in
NMFS
(
2002).

The
Northeast
lobster
fishery
is
second
in
commercial
value
after
the
multispecies
groundfish
fishery.
The
most
recent
comprehensive
stock
assessment,
completed
in
1996,
indicated
that
lobster
fishing
mortality
rates
for
both
inshore
and
offshore
populations
greatly
exceed
the
levels
needed
to
provide
maximum
yields
(
NMFS,
1999a).
Lobster
fishing
mortality
in
the
Gulf
of
Maine
was
almost
double
the
overfishing
level.
Inshore
from
Cape
Cod
through
Long
Island
Sound
fishing
mortality
was
three
times
the
overfishing
level.
2.
Impingement
and
Entrainment
Results
Table
X
 
4
provides
a
list
of
impinged
and
entrained
species
for
the
North
Atlantic
region
that
EPA
was
able
to
evaluate
at
the
time
of
the
NODA.
The
life
history
data
used
in
EPA's
analysis
and
associated
data
sources
are
provided
in
``
Appendix
1:
Life
History
Parameter
Values
Used
to
Evaluate
I
&
E
in
the
North
Atlantic
Region.''

TABLE
X
 
4.
 
SPECIES
GROUPS
AND
ASSOCIATED
SPECIES
FOR
THE
NORTH
ATLANTIC
REGION
Species
Commercial
Recreational
Forage
Alewife
.........................................................................................................................................
X
........................
........................
American
fourspot
flounder
.........................................................................................................
........................
........................
X
American
plaice
...........................................................................................................................
X
........................
........................
American
sand
lance
...................................................................................................................
........................
........................
X
American
shad
.............................................................................................................................
X
X
........................
Atlantic
tomcod
............................................................................................................................
........................
........................
X
Atlantic
cod
..................................................................................................................................
X
X
........................
Atlantic
seasnail
...........................................................................................................................
........................
........................
X
Atlantic
silverside
.........................................................................................................................
X
........................
........................
Atlantic
menhaden
.......................................................................................................................
X
........................
........................
Atlantic
mackerel
.........................................................................................................................
X
X
........................
Atlantic
herring
.............................................................................................................................
X
........................
X
Bay
anchovy
................................................................................................................................
........................
........................
X
Blackspotted
stickleback
..............................................................................................................
........................
........................
X
Blue
mussel
.................................................................................................................................
X
X
........................
Blueback
herring
..........................................................................................................................
X
X
........................
Bluefish
........................................................................................................................................
X
X
........................
Butterfish
......................................................................................................................................
........................
........................
X
Clearnose
skate
...........................................................................................................................
X
........................
........................
Cunner
.........................................................................................................................................
X
X
........................
Cusk
.............................................................................................................................................
........................
........................
X
Fourbeard
rockling
.......................................................................................................................
........................
........................
X
VerDate
Jan<
31>
2003
19:
17
Mar
18,
2003
Jkt
200001
PO
00000
Frm
00030
Fmt
4701
Sfmt
4702
E:\
FR\
FM\
19MRP2.
SGM
19MRP2
13551
Federal
Register
/
Vol.
68,
No.
53
/
Wednesday,
March
19,
2003
/
Proposed
Rules
TABLE
X
 
4.
 
SPECIES
GROUPS
AND
ASSOCIATED
SPECIES
FOR
THE
NORTH
ATLANTIC
REGION
 
Continued
Species
Commercial
Recreational
Forage
Fourspine
stickleback
..................................................................................................................
........................
........................
X
Grubby
sculpin
.............................................................................................................................
........................
........................
X
Gulf
snailfish
................................................................................................................................
........................
........................
X
Haddock
.......................................................................................................................................
X
........................
........................
Hickory
shad
................................................................................................................................
X
........................
X
Hogchoker
....................................................................................................................................
........................
........................
X
Lined
seahorse
............................................................................................................................
........................
........................
X
Little
skate
....................................................................................................................................
X
........................
........................
Longhorn
sculpin
.........................................................................................................................
........................
........................
X
Lumpfish
......................................................................................................................................
........................
........................
X
Lumpsucker
.................................................................................................................................
........................
........................
X
Moustache
sculpin
.......................................................................................................................
........................
........................
X
Mummichog
.................................................................................................................................
........................
........................
X
Ninespine
stickleback
..................................................................................................................
........................
........................
X
Northern
kingfish
..........................................................................................................................
........................
........................
X
Northern
pipefish
.........................................................................................................................
........................
........................
X
Northern
searobin
........................................................................................................................
........................
X
........................
Pollock
.........................................................................................................................................
X
X
........................
Radiated
shanny
..........................................................................................................................
........................
........................
X
Rainbow
smelt
.............................................................................................................................
X
X
........................
Red
hake
.....................................................................................................................................
X
........................
........................
Rock
gunnel
.................................................................................................................................
........................
........................
X
Round
herring
..............................................................................................................................
X
........................
........................
Scup
.............................................................................................................................................
X
X
........................
Sea
raven
....................................................................................................................................
X
........................
........................
Seaboard
goby
............................................................................................................................
........................
........................
X
Seahorse
......................................................................................................................................
........................
........................
X
Searobin
.......................................................................................................................................
........................
X
........................
Shorthorn
sculpin
.........................................................................................................................
........................
........................
X
Silver
hake
...................................................................................................................................
X
........................
........................
Smallmouth
flounder
....................................................................................................................
........................
........................
X
Smooth
flounder
..........................................................................................................................
........................
........................
X
Spot
..............................................................................................................................................
........................
........................
X
Spotted
hake
................................................................................................................................
X
........................
X
Striped
bass
.................................................................................................................................
X
X
........................
Striped
killifish
..............................................................................................................................
........................
........................
X
Striped
searobin
...........................................................................................................................
........................
X
........................
Summer
flounder
.........................................................................................................................
........................
........................
X
Tautog
..........................................................................................................................................
X
X
........................
Threespine
stickleback
................................................................................................................
........................
........................
X
Weakfish
......................................................................................................................................
X
X
........................
White
hake
...................................................................................................................................
X
........................
........................
White
perch
..................................................................................................................................
X
X
........................
Windowpane
................................................................................................................................
X
X
........................
Winter
flounder
............................................................................................................................
X
X
........................
Witch
flounder
..............................................................................................................................
X
........................
........................
Yellowtail
flounder
........................................................................................................................
X
X
........................

Sixteen
of
a
total
of
67
distinct
species
(
24%)
that
are
known
to
be
impinged
and
entrained
by
facilities
of
the
North
Atlantic
region
are
harvested
species
for
which
some
stock
assessment
has
been
conducted.
These
include
several
stocks
that
are
currently
overfished,
stocks
that
have
been
overfished
and
are
rebuilding,
or
stocks
that
are
approaching
an
overfished
condition
(
Atlantic
cod,
haddock,
silver
hake,
windowpane
flounder,
and
winter
flounder)
and
stocks
for
which
stock
size
is
uncertain
(
American
lobster,
spot,
and
tautog).
Table
X
 
5
summarizes
the
stock
status
of
the
16
impinged
and
entrained
species
of
the
North
Atlantic
that
are
harvested.
Note
that
status
is
uncertain
for
nearly
half
of
the
stocks
listed.

TABLE
X
 
5.
 
SUMMARY
OF
STOCK
STATUS
OF
HARVESTED
SPECIES
OF
THE
NORTH
ATLANTIC
REGION
THAT
ARE
IMPINGED
AND
ENTRAINED
Stock
(
All
are
major
stocks,
with
annual
landings
over
200,000
pounds)
Overfishing?
(
Is
fishing
mortality
above
threshold?)
Overfished?
(
Is
stock
size
below
threshold?)
Approaching
overfished
condition?

American
lobster
........................................................................
Yes
..........................................
Undefined
................................
Unknown.
American
plaice
..........................................................................
Yes
..........................................
No
............................................
No.
Atlantic
cod­
Gulf
of
Maine
..........................................................
Yes
..........................................
Rebuilding
...............................
No.
Atlantic
cod­
Georges
Bank
........................................................
No
............................................
Rebuilding
...............................
No.
Atlantic
croaker
...........................................................................
Unknown
.................................
Unknown
.................................
Unknown.
Atlantic
haddock­
Gulf
of
Maine
..................................................
Yes
..........................................
Rebuilding
...............................
No.

VerDate
Jan<
31>
2003
19:
17
Mar
18,
2003
Jkt
200001
PO
00000
Frm
00031
Fmt
4701
Sfmt
4702
E:\
FR\
FM\
19MRP2.
SGM
19MRP2
13552
Federal
Register
/
Vol.
68,
No.
53
/
Wednesday,
March
19,
2003
/
Proposed
Rules
TABLE
X
 
5.
 
SUMMARY
OF
STOCK
STATUS
OF
HARVESTED
SPECIES
OF
THE
NORTH
ATLANTIC
REGION
THAT
ARE
IMPINGED
AND
ENTRAINED
 
Continued
Stock
(
All
are
major
stocks,
with
annual
landings
over
200,000
pounds)
Overfishing?
(
Is
fishing
mortality
above
threshold?)
Overfished?
(
Is
stock
size
below
threshold?)
Approaching
overfished
condition?

Atlantic
haddock­
Georges
Bank
.................................................
No
............................................
Rebuilding
...............................
No.
Atlantic
herring
...........................................................................
No
............................................
No
............................................
No.
Atlantic
menhaden
......................................................................
No
............................................
No
............................................
Unknown.
Pollock
........................................................................................
Unknown
.................................
Unknown
.................................
Unknown.
Red
hake­
Gulf
of
Maine/
Northern
Georges
Bank
......................
No
............................................
No
............................................
No.
Red
hake­
Southern
Georges
Bank/
Middle
Atlantic
...................
No
............................................
..................................................
Unknown.
Silver
hake­
Gulf
of
Maine/
Northern
Georges
Bank
...................
Unknown
.................................
Rebuilding
...............................
No.
Silver
hake­
Southern
Georges
Bank/
Middle
Atlantic
.................
Unknown
.................................
Yes
..........................................
N/
A.
Spot
............................................................................................
Unknown
.................................
Unknown
.................................
Unknown.
Striped
bass
...............................................................................
No
............................................
No
............................................
Unknown.
Tautog
........................................................................................
Yes
..........................................
Undefined
................................
Unknown.
Weakfish
.....................................................................................
Undefined
................................
No
............................................
No.
Windowpane
flounder­
Gulf
of
Maine/
Georges
Bank
.................
No
............................................
No
............................................
No.
Windowpane
flounder­
Southern
New
England/
Middle
Atlantic
No
............................................
No
............................................
Yes.
Winter
flounder­
Gulf
of
Maine
....................................................
Unknown
.................................
Undefined
................................
Unknown.
Winter
flounder­
Georges
Bank
...................................................
No
............................................
Rebuilding
...............................
No.
Winter
flounder­
Southern
New
England
....................................
No
............................................
No
............................................
No.

Source:
Table
3
in
NMFS
(
2002).

3.
Impingement
and
Entrainment
Losses
Expressed
as
Age
1
Equivalents,
Foregone
Yield,
and
Production
Foregone
At
the
outset,
it
should
be
noted
that
many
of
the
species
for
which
impingement
and
entrainment
estimates
are
provided
are
presently
at
or
near
historic
low
levels
of
abundance.
As
a
result,
EPA's
estimates
of
impingement
and
entrainment
may
reflect
lower
totals
than
would
be
produced
by
healthy
populations.
With
ongoing
fisheries
management
efforts
by
federal
and
state
government
and
fisheries
management
councils
designed
to
increase
fish
populations,
impingement
and
entrainment
numbers
may
increase
in
the
future.
For
example,
NMFS
has
spent
approximately
$
150
million
in
the
New
England
fishing
vessel
buy­
back
program
to
reduce
fishing
pressure
on
groundfish
stocks.
In
addition,
extensive
fishing
restrictions,
habitat
restoration
projects,
and
other
efforts
are
also
being
carried
out
to
help
rebuild
groundfish
stocks.
Table
X
 
6
provides
EPA's
estimate
of
the
annual
age
1
equivalents,
foregone
fishery
yield,
and
production
foregone
resulting
from
the
impingement
of
aquatic
species
at
facilities
located
on
estuaries/
tidal
rivers
in
the
North
Atlantic
Region.
Table
X
 
7
displays
this
information
for
entrainment.
Table
X
 
8
provides
EPA's
estimate
of
the
annual
age
1
equivalents,
foregone
fishery
yield,
and
biological
production
foregone
resulting
from
the
impingement
of
aquatic
species
at
ocean
facilities
in
the
North
Atlantic
Region.

TABLE
X
 
6.
 
TOTAL
ANNUAL
IMPINGEMENT
LOSSES
FOR
ALL
ESTUARY/
TIDAL
RIVER
FACILITIES
IN
THE
NORTH
ATLANTIC
REGION
EXPRESSED
AS
AGE
1
EQUIVALENTS,
FOREGONE
FISHERY
YIELD,
AND
PRODUCTION
FOREGONE
Species
Age
1
equivalents
(#
s)
Total
yield
(
lbs)
Production
foregone
(
lbs)

Alewife
.........................................................................................................................................
164,315
0
15,240
American
sand
lance
...................................................................................................................
3,288,738
0
9,226
Atlantic
cod
..................................................................................................................................
19,771
6,506
20,031
Atlantic
herring
.............................................................................................................................
619
138
161
Atlantic
mackerel
.........................................................................................................................
121
30
33
Atlantic
menhaden
.......................................................................................................................
25,320
3,239
6,078
Atlantic
silverside
.........................................................................................................................
33,187
0
134
Bay
anchovy
................................................................................................................................
58,826
0
90
Bluefish
........................................................................................................................................
1,118
706
954
Butterfish
......................................................................................................................................
9,915
401
900
Cunner
.........................................................................................................................................
14,593
73
954
Fourbeard
rockling
.......................................................................................................................
18
0
2
Grubby
.........................................................................................................................................
48,273
0
11,756
Hogchoker
....................................................................................................................................
790,907
0
7,293
Northern
pipefish
.........................................................................................................................
13,040
0
71
Pollock
.........................................................................................................................................
525
817
1,601
Radiated
shanny
..........................................................................................................................
35
0
0
Rainbow
smelt
.............................................................................................................................
22,041
46
655
Red
hake
.....................................................................................................................................
1,414
306
488
Rock
gunnel
.................................................................................................................................
435
0
9
Scup
.............................................................................................................................................
1,030
129
541
Searobin
.......................................................................................................................................
1,683
99
559
Silver
hake
...................................................................................................................................
81,196
31,094
81,393
Skate
species
..............................................................................................................................
4,575
1,000
1,844
VerDate
Jan<
31>
2003
19:
17
Mar
18,
2003
Jkt
200001
PO
00000
Frm
00032
Fmt
4701
Sfmt
4702
E:\
FR\
FM\
19MRP2.
SGM
19MRP2
13553
Federal
Register
/
Vol.
68,
No.
53
/
Wednesday,
March
19,
2003
/
Proposed
Rules
TABLE
X
 
6.
 
TOTAL
ANNUAL
IMPINGEMENT
LOSSES
FOR
ALL
ESTUARY/
TIDAL
RIVER
FACILITIES
IN
THE
NORTH
ATLANTIC
REGION
EXPRESSED
AS
AGE
1
EQUIVALENTS,
FOREGONE
FISHERY
YIELD,
AND
PRODUCTION
FOREGONE
 
Continued
Species
Age
1
equivalents
(#
s)
Total
yield
(
lbs)
Production
foregone
(
lbs)

Striped
bass
.................................................................................................................................
81
128
234
Striped
killifish
..............................................................................................................................
7,767
0
202
Tautog
..........................................................................................................................................
12,435
5,679
22,039
Threespine
stickleback
................................................................................................................
78,481
0
92
Weakfish
......................................................................................................................................
10,829
7,882
13,033
White
perch
..................................................................................................................................
31,126
389
4,079
Windowpane
................................................................................................................................
16,074
1,774
2,881
Winter
flounder
............................................................................................................................
572,714
61,802
283,550
Total
......................................................................................................................................
5,311,206
122,238
486,124
TABLE
X
 
7.
 
TOTAL
ANNUAL
ENTRAINMENT
LOSSES
FOR
ALL
ESTUARY/
TIDAL
RIVER
FACILITIES
IN
THE
NORTH
ATLANTIC
REGION
EXPRESSED
AS
AGE
1
EQUIVALENTS,
FOREGONE
FISHERY
YIELD,
AND
PRODUCTION
FOREGONE
Species
Age
1
equivalents
(#
s)
Total
yield
(
lbs)
Production
foregone
(
lbs)

Alewife
.........................................................................................................................................
1,643
0
2,032
American
sand
lance
...................................................................................................................
2,538,069
0
225,821
Atlantic
menhaden
.......................................................................................................................
46,389
6,886
429,124
Atlantic
silverside
.........................................................................................................................
28,589
0
32,912
Bay
anchovy
................................................................................................................................
4,399,749
0
5,163,216
Cunner
.........................................................................................................................................
1,892,973
8,981
153,386
Grubby
.........................................................................................................................................
3,197,585
0
899,274
Hogchoker
....................................................................................................................................
122,044
0
280,069
Rainbow
smelt
.............................................................................................................................
176,933
1,255
20,408
Scup
.............................................................................................................................................
1,820
777
16,903
Seaboard
goby
............................................................................................................................
5,410,421
0
191,385
Silver
hake
...................................................................................................................................
6
190
396
Tautog
..........................................................................................................................................
152,431
67,949
243,253,891
Threespine
stickleback
................................................................................................................
2,332
0
128
Weakfish
......................................................................................................................................
1,757
1,265
8,420,351
White
perch
..................................................................................................................................
0
0
638
Windowpane
................................................................................................................................
26,337
2,705
1,088,284
Winter
flounder
............................................................................................................................
8,114,448
876,449
22,039,724
Total
......................................................................................................................................
26,113,529
966,457
282,217,941
TABLE
X
 
8.
 
TOTAL
ANNUAL
IMPINGEMENT
LOSSES
FOR
ALL
OCEAN
FACILITIES
IN
THE
NORTH
ATLANTIC
REGION
EXPRESSED
AS
AGE
1
EQUIVALENTS,
FOREGONE
FISHERY
YIELD,
AND
PRODUCTION
FOREGONE
Species
Age
1
equivalents
(#
s)
Total
yield
(
lbs)
Production
foregone
(
lbs)

Alewife
.........................................................................................................................................
19,507
100
3,179
American
plaice
...........................................................................................................................
0
0
0
American
sand
lance
...................................................................................................................
4,134
0
111
Atlantic
cod
..................................................................................................................................
893
311
905
Atlantic
herring
.............................................................................................................................
36,716
5,119
9,538
Atlantic
mackerel
.........................................................................................................................
27
13
7
Atlantic
menhaden
.......................................................................................................................
16,581
5,718
6,611
Atlantic
silverside
.........................................................................................................................
39,296
22
123
Bay
anchovy
................................................................................................................................
147
0
0
Blueback
herring
..........................................................................................................................
1,457
13
317
Bluefish
........................................................................................................................................
98
56
84
Butterfish
......................................................................................................................................
775
48
192
Cunner
.........................................................................................................................................
2,464
15
161
Fourbeard
rockling
.......................................................................................................................
22
0
2
Grubby
.........................................................................................................................................
7,745
0
1,886
Hogchoker
....................................................................................................................................
33
0
8
Little
skate
....................................................................................................................................
870
209
351
Lumpfish
......................................................................................................................................
910
0
941
Northern
pipefish
.........................................................................................................................
1,402
0
8
Pollock
.........................................................................................................................................
2,356
3,485
7,186
Radiated
shanny
..........................................................................................................................
283
0
3
VerDate
Jan<
31>
2003
19:
17
Mar
18,
2003
Jkt
200001
PO
00000
Frm
00033
Fmt
4701
Sfmt
4702
E:\
FR\
FM\
19MRP2.
SGM
19MRP2
13554
Federal
Register
/
Vol.
68,
No.
53
/
Wednesday,
March
19,
2003
/
Proposed
Rules
TABLE
X
 
8.
 
TOTAL
ANNUAL
IMPINGEMENT
LOSSES
FOR
ALL
OCEAN
FACILITIES
IN
THE
NORTH
ATLANTIC
REGION
EXPRESSED
AS
AGE
1
EQUIVALENTS,
FOREGONE
FISHERY
YIELD,
AND
PRODUCTION
FOREGONE
 
Continued
Species
Age
1
equivalents
(#
s)
Total
yield
(
lbs)
Production
foregone
(
lbs)

Rainbow
smelt
.............................................................................................................................
25,005
190
4,854
Red
hake
.....................................................................................................................................
7,054
1,287
2,434
Rock
gunnel
.................................................................................................................................
1,883
0
38
Sculpin
species
............................................................................................................................
1,704
0
415
Scup
.............................................................................................................................................
764
154
500
Searobin
.......................................................................................................................................
234
17
78
Striped
bass
.................................................................................................................................
581
815
1,679
Striped
killifish
..............................................................................................................................
458
0
12
Tautog
..........................................................................................................................................
370
429
1,003
Threespine
stickleback
................................................................................................................
880
0
0
White
perch
..................................................................................................................................
310
0
12
Windowpane
................................................................................................................................
2,063
181
299
Winter
flounder
............................................................................................................................
6,981
2,224
5,375
Total
......................................................................................................................................
184,004
20,406
48,312
Table
X
 
9
displays
this
information
for
entrainment.
In
these
tables,
``
total
yield''
includes
direct
losses
of
harvested
species
as
well
as
the
yield
of
harvested
species
that
is
lost
due
to
losses
of
forage
species.
As
discussed
in
detail
in
Chapter
A5
of
Part
A
of
the
section
316(
b)
Phase
II
Case
Study
Document,
EPA
used
a
simple
model
of
trophic
structure
and
trophic
transfer
efficiency
to
estimate
the
yield
of
harvested
species
that
is
lost
because
of
the
loss
of
forage
to
impingement
and
entrainment.
The
conversion
of
forage
to
yield
contributes
only
a
very
small
fraction
to
total
yield.

TABLE
X
 
9.
 
TOTAL
ANNUAL
ENTRAINMENT
LOSSES
FOR
ALL
OCEAN
FACILITIES
IN
THE
NORTH
ATLANTIC
REGION
EXPRESSED
AS
AGE
1
EQUIVALENTS,
FOREGONE
FISHERY
YIELD,
AND
PRODUCTION
FOREGONE
Species
Age
1
equivalents
(#
s)
Total
yield
(
lbs)
Production
foregone
(
lbs)

Alewife
.........................................................................................................................................
0
0
1,119
American
plaice
...........................................................................................................................
1,388
952
859
American
sand
lance
...................................................................................................................
4,513,770
0
267,006
Atlantic
cod
..................................................................................................................................
4,468
2,887
4,827
Atlantic
herring
.............................................................................................................................
34,143
5,837
20,037
Atlantic
mackerel
.........................................................................................................................
7,716
1,441
13,253
Atlantic
menhaden
.......................................................................................................................
8,124
3,729
14,845
Atlantic
silverside
.........................................................................................................................
5,087
3
600
Bluefish
........................................................................................................................................
5
62
13
Butterfish
......................................................................................................................................
27
81
10
Cunner
.........................................................................................................................................
1,177,927
5,584
92,933
Fourbeard
rockling
.......................................................................................................................
576,339
0
69,754
Grubby
.........................................................................................................................................
252,098
0
70,899
Lumpfish
......................................................................................................................................
6,094
0
36,035
Northern
pipefish
.........................................................................................................................
782
0
33
Pollock
.........................................................................................................................................
499
1,050
6,617
Radiated
shanny
..........................................................................................................................
1,789,347
0
20,033
Rainbow
smelt
.............................................................................................................................
1,330,867
9,997
386,647
Red
hake
.....................................................................................................................................
2,539
1,005
3,379
Rock
gunnel
.................................................................................................................................
8,080,717
0
214,957
Sculpin
species
............................................................................................................................
764,165
0
214,910
Searobin
.......................................................................................................................................
3,925
527
1,563
Tautog
..........................................................................................................................................
882
2,417
2,537
Windowpane
................................................................................................................................
27,575
3,788
5,418
Winter
flounder
............................................................................................................................
287,616
92,710
227,283
Total
......................................................................................................................................
18,876,100
132,070
1,675,567
4.
Recreational
Fishing
Valuation
As
noted
above,
anglers
will
get
greater
satisfaction,
and
thus
greater
economic
value,
from
sites
where
the
catch
rate
is
higher,
all
else
being
equal.
Recreational
fishery
losses
due
to
impingement
and
entrainment
may
reduce
recreational
catch
rates
and
thus
negatively
impact
angler
welfare.
To
estimate
welfare
losses
to
recreational
anglers
in
the
North
Atlantic
region
from
impingement
and
entrainment
at
cooling
water
intake
structures
in
North
Atlantic,
the
Agency
used
a
model
developed
by
R.
Hicks
et
al.
(
NMFS,
August
1999).
For
details
see
``
The
Economic
Value
of
New
England
and
VerDate
Jan<
31>
2003
19:
17
Mar
18,
2003
Jkt
200001
PO
00000
Frm
00034
Fmt
4701
Sfmt
4702
E:\
FR\
FM\
19MRP2.
SGM
19MRP2
13555
Federal
Register
/
Vol.
68,
No.
53
/
Wednesday,
March
19,
2003
/
Proposed
Rules
Mid­
Atlantic
Sportfishing
in
1994''
provided
in
DCN
5
 
1271.
To
estimate
per
trip
welfare
losses
to
recreational
anglers
from
impingement
and
entrainment
in
the
North
Atlantic
region,
the
Agency
combined
the
Hicks'
model
coefficients
with
the
estimated
impingement
and
entrainment
losses
at
cooling
water
intake
structures
located
in
the
North
Atlantic
and
NMFS
data
on
recreational
landings.
The
Hicks'
model
includes
three
fishing
modes
 
boat,
shore,
and
charter
boat
 
and
five
species
groups
 
big
game,
small
game,
flatfish,
bottom
fish,
and
``
no
target
catch''.
The
``
no
target
catch''
group
includes
all
species
caught
by
anglers
not
targeting
any
specific
fish
species.
For
details
on
species
groupings,
see
Table
1.3
in
the
``
The
Economic
value
of
New
England
and
Mid­
Atlantic
Sportfishing
in
1994''
report
provided
in
DCN
5
 
1271.
EPA
used
Hicks'
definition
of
species
groups
to
estimate
changes
in
the
average
historical
catch
rate
from
eliminating
impingement
and
entrainment.
Table
X
 
10
shows
the
total
average
recreational
landings
for
each
species
group,
the
number
of
fish
impinged
and
entrained,
and
the
estimated
percent
change
in
recreational
landings
if
impingement
and
entrainment
effects
are
eliminated.
Eliminating
impingement
and
entrainment
would
increase
flatfish
catch
rates
by
12.5%;
small
game
catch
rates
by
0.01%;
bottom
fish
catch
rates
by
1.05%;
and
no
target
catch
rates
by
1.45%.
Table
X
 
10
also
shows
the
reductions
in
impingement
and
entrainment
losses
that
would
result
from
installation
of
the
preferred
option
at
each
facility
in
the
North
Atlantic
region,
as
well
as
the
resulting
increases
in
catch
rates.
Reductions
in
baseline
impingement
and
entrainment
losses
due
to
the
preferred
option
will
result
in
a
3.64%
increase
in
catch
rates
for
flounders;
a
0.23%
increase
in
bottom
fish
catch
rate;
and
a
0.4%
increase
in
catch
rate
for
no
target
anglers.

TABLE
X
 
10.
 
ESTIMATED
CHANGE
IN
THE
TOTAL
RECREATIONAL
CATCH
FOR
NORTH
ATLANTIC
UNDER
THE
BASELINE
AND
POST­
COMPLIANCE
SCENARIOS
Species
Avg.
total
catch
1997
 
2001
Baseline
Preferred
option
Total
recreational
losses
from
impingement
and
entrainment
Impingement
and
entrainment
as
%
of
total
catch
Change
in
recreational
losses
from
reduced
impingement
and
entrainment
Reduced
impingement
and
entrainment
as
%
of
total
catch
Flatfish
..................................................................................
2,525,530
315,703
12.50
91,995
3.64
Small
Game
.........................................................................
15,678,352
1,020
0.01
105
0.00
Bottom
Fish
..........................................................................
8,869,064
93,111
1.05
20,535
0.23
No
Target
Catch
..................................................................
28,280,214
409,960
1.45
112,652
0.40
Table
X
 
11
presents
the
willingness
to
pay
(
WTP)
values
for
anglers,
regardless
of
fishing
mode,
for
catching
an
additional
fish
per
trip.
Table
X
 
11
also
presents
the
estimated
per
trip
welfare
losses
from
the
baseline
impingement
and
entrainment
levels
at
cooling
water
intake
structures
in
the
North
Atlantic
region,
and
the
estimated
welfare
gain
from
the
post­
compliance
impingement
and
entrainment
reduction.
The
estimated
per
trip
welfare
losses
from
baseline
impingement
and
entrainment
at
the
cooling
water
intake
structures
are
$
0.34,
$
0.02,
and
$
0.02
for
flatfish,
bottom
fish,
and
no
target
catch,
respectively
(
all
in
2002$).
Per
trip
welfare
gains
from
the
preferred
option
are
$
0.10,
$
0.005,
and
$
0.004
for
flatfish,
bottom
fish,
and
no
target
catch,
respectively
(
all
in
2002$).
As
shown
in
Table
X
 
11,
the
greatest
welfare
gain
from
reducing
impingement
and
entrainment
losses
at
cooling
water
intake
structures
in
the
North
Atlantic
region
results
from
improved
opportunity
for
catching
flatfish
(
i.
e.,
flounders).

TABLE
X
 
11.
 
PER
TRIP
WELFARE
GAIN
FROM
VARIOUS
IMPROVEMENTS
IN
FISHING
QUALITY
AT
ALL
SITES
IN
NORTH
ATLANTIC
(
2002$)

Species
group
All
Fishing
Modes/
All
Anglers
Eliminating
baseline
impingement
and
entrainment
losses
Reducing
impingement
and
entrainment
under
the
preferred
option
+
1
Fish
Big
Game
.....................................................................................................................................
NA
NA
5.90
Small
Game
.................................................................................................................................
$
0.0003
$
0.00003
2.53
Flatfish
.........................................................................................................................................
$
0.34
$
0.10
3.57
Bottom
Fish
..................................................................................................................................
$
0.02
$
0.005
1.06
No
Target
Catch
..........................................................................................................................
$
0.02
$
0.004
1.66
EPA
combined
these
estimates
of
per
trip
welfare
change
with
fishing
participation
estimates
from
NMFS
to
estimate
the
annual
value
to
recreational
anglers
of
improved
catch
rates
resulting
from
post­
compliance
reductions
in
impingement
and
entrainment
at
cooling
water
intake
structures
in
the
North
Atlantic.
Table
X
 
12
provides
the
total
number
of
angler
days
in
the
North
Atlantic.
GPOTABLE
VerDate
Jan<
31>
2003
19:
17
Mar
18,
2003
Jkt
200001
PO
00000
Frm
00035
Fmt
4701
Sfmt
4702
E:\
FR\
FM\
19MRP2.
SGM
19MRP2
13556
Federal
Register
/
Vol.
68,
No.
53
/
Wednesday,
March
19,
2003
/
Proposed
Rules
TABLE
X
 
12.
 
TOTAL
NORTH
ATLANTIC
FISHING
TRIPS
IN
2001
All
fishing
modes
Total
North
Atlantic
Trips,
2001
...........................................................................................................................................................
8,084,261
Source:
Marine
Recreational
Fishery
Statistics
Survey,
NMFS,
2001.

EPA
calculated
total
recreational
losses
to
North
Atlantic
anglers
by
multiplying
the
estimated
per
trip
welfare
loss
from
baseline
impingement
and
entrainment
for
a
given
species
group
by
the
number
of
recreational
fishing
trips
in
2001.
Table
X
 
13
summarizes
the
results
of
this
calculation.
The
total
value
of
recreational
losses
for
all
species
impinged
and
entrained
at
the
cooling
water
intake
structures
in
the
North
Atlantic
is
$
3.1
million
per
year
(
2002$),
for
all
anglers
before
discounting.
Discounting
the
baseline
losses
at
three
percent
and
seven
percent
yields
total
recreational
losses
of
$
2.6
million,
and
$
2.3
million,
respectively,
for
all
anglers
(
2002$).
Table
X
 
13
also
presents
estimates
of
the
total
welfare
gain
to
recreational
anglers
from
the
postcompliance
impingement
and
entrainment
reduction.
The
estimated
welfare
gain
from
reduction
in
baseline
losses
resulting
from
the
preferred
option
is
$
0.88
million,
before
discounting,
for
all
anglers
(
2002$).
Applying
the
discount
factors
for
three
and
seven
percent
yield
total
losses
of
$
0.76
million
and
$
0.65
million,
respectively
(
2002$).

TABLE
X
 
13.
 
ESTIMATED
ANNUAL
WELFARE
CHANGE
TO
RECREATIONAL
ANGLERS
IN
THE
NORTH
ATLANTIC
REGION
UNDER
THE
BASELINE
AND
POST­
COMPLIANCE
SCENARIOS
(
2002$)

Species
groups
Total
baseline
welfare
losses
Welfare
gain
from
reduction
in
baseline
impingement
and
entrainment
losses
Before
discount
Discounted
using
3%
Discounted
using
7%
Before
discounting
Discounted
using
3%
Discounted
using
7%

Big
Game
.......................
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
Small
Game
...................
$
2,425.28
$
1,527.93
$
1,358.16
$
242.53
$
184.32
$
169.77
Flat
Fish
.........................
2,748,648.74
2,418,810.89
2,061,486.56
808,426.10
711,414.97
606,319.58
Bottom
Fish
....................
161,685.22
88,926.87
77.608.91
40,421.31
21,019.08
18,189.59
No
Target
Catch
............
151,685.22
129,348.18
111,562.80
32,337.04
26,193.01
22,312.56
All
Species
..............
3,074,444.46
2,638,613.86
2,252,016.42
881,426.98
758,811.37
646,991.49
5.
Commercial
Fishing
Valuation
Table
X
 
14
provides
EPA's
estimate
of
the
value
of
gross
revenues
lost
in
commercial
fisheries
resulting
from
the
impingement
of
aquatic
species
in
the
North
Atlantic
region.
Table
X
 
15
displays
this
information
for
entrainment.
As
described
above,
EPA
estimates
that
0
to
40%
of
these
revenue
losses
represent
surplus
losses
to
producers,
assuming
no
change
in
prices
or
fishing
costs.
EPA
will
refine
these
assumptions
for
the
final
rule.

TABLE
X
 
14A.
 
ANNUAL
COMMERCIAL
FISHING
GROSS
REVENUES
LOST
DUE
TO
IMPINGEMENT
AT
ESTUARY
FACILITIES
IN
THE
NORTH
ATLANTIC
REGION
Species
Estimated
pounds
of
harvest
lost
Estimated
value
of
harvest
lost
(
in
dollars)

Undiscounted
Discounted
using
3%
discount
rate
Discounted
using
7%
discount
rate
Atlantic
cod
......................................................................................................
3,253
$
2,928
$
2,657
$
2,349
Atlantic
herring
.................................................................................................
138
8
7
7
Atlantic
mackerel
.............................................................................................
23
7
6
5
Atlantic
menhaden
...........................................................................................
3,236
153
145
135
Bluefish
............................................................................................................
77
19
18
16
Butterfish
..........................................................................................................
401
249
244
237
Pollock
.............................................................................................................
409
286
245
203
Rainbow
smelt
.................................................................................................
46
24
23
22
Red
hake
.........................................................................................................
305
64
60
56
Scup
.................................................................................................................
64
53
46
40
Searobin
...........................................................................................................
16
33
30
27
Silver
hake
.......................................................................................................
31,094
10,496
9,281
7,952
Skate
species
..................................................................................................
1,000
140
131
122
Tautog
..............................................................................................................
443
331
240
159
Weakfish
..........................................................................................................
6,729
5,474
4,926
4,324
White
perch
......................................................................................................
82
92
84
75
Windowpane
....................................................................................................
1,774
993
925
845
Winter
flounder
................................................................................................
30,901
39,524
34,738
29,657
VerDate
Jan<
31>
2003
20:
32
Mar
18,
2003
Jkt
200001
PO
00000
Frm
00036
Fmt
4701
Sfmt
4702
E:\
FR\
FM\
19MRP2.
SGM
19MRP2
13557
Federal
Register
/
Vol.
68,
No.
53
/
Wednesday,
March
19,
2003
/
Proposed
Rules
TABLE
X
 
14A.
 
ANNUAL
COMMERCIAL
FISHING
GROSS
REVENUES
LOST
DUE
TO
IMPINGEMENT
AT
ESTUARY
FACILITIES
IN
THE
NORTH
ATLANTIC
REGION
 
Continued
Species
Estimated
pounds
of
harvest
lost
Estimated
value
of
harvest
lost
(
in
dollars)

Undiscounted
Discounted
using
3%
discount
rate
Discounted
using
7%
discount
rate
Total
..........................................................................................................
79,991
60,874
53,806
46,231
TABLE
X
 
14B.
 
ANNUAL
COMMERCIAL
FISHING
GROSS
REVENUES
LOST
DUE
TO
IMPINGEMENT
AT
OCEAN
FACILITIES
IN
THE
NORTH
ATLANTIC
REGION
Species
Estimated
pounds
of
harvest
lost
Estimated
value
of
harvest
lost
(
in
dollars)

Undiscounted
Discounted
using
3%
discount
rate
Discounted
using
7%
discount
rate
American
plaice
...............................................................................................
0
$
0
$
0
$
0
Atlantic
cod
......................................................................................................
156
129
117
104
Atlantic
herring
.................................................................................................
5,113
256
231
204
Atlantic
mackerel
.............................................................................................
10
3
2
2
Atlantic
menhaden
...........................................................................................
5,712
228
216
200
Atlantic
silverside
.............................................................................................
22
12
12
12
Blueback
herring
..............................................................................................
13
1
1
1
Bluefish
............................................................................................................
6
2
1
1
Butterfish
..........................................................................................................
48
23
22
21
Little
skate
........................................................................................................
208
40
37
34
Pollock
.............................................................................................................
1,743
1,202
1,031
854
Rainbow
smelt
.................................................................................................
189
38
35
32
Red
hake
.........................................................................................................
1,285
283
267
248
Scup
.................................................................................................................
77
80
70
60
Searobin
...........................................................................................................
3
6
5
5
Tautog
..............................................................................................................
33
21
19
17
White
perch
......................................................................................................
0
0
0
0
Windowpane
....................................................................................................
181
103
96
87
Winter
flounder
................................................................................................
1,112
1,535
1,330
1,114
Total
..........................................................................................................
15,910
3,962
3,492
2,995
TABLE
X
 
15A.
 
ANNUAL
COMMERCIAL
FISHING
GROSS
REVENUES
LOST
DUE
TO
ENTRAINMENT
AT
ESTUARY
FACILITIES
IN
THE
NORTH
ATLANTIC
REGION
Species
Estimated
pounds
of
harvest
lost
Estimated
value
of
harvest
lost
(
in
dollars)

Undiscounted
Discounted
using
3%
discount
rate
Discounted
using
7%
discount
rate
Atlantic
menhaden
...........................................................................................
6,878
$
326
$
299
$
267
Rainbow
smelt
.................................................................................................
1,253
244
226
206
Scup
.................................................................................................................
389
315
269
221
Silver
hake
.......................................................................................................
190
62
53
44
Tautog
..............................................................................................................
5,299
3,966
2,786
1,779
Weakfish
..........................................................................................................
1,080
806
705
595
White
perch
......................................................................................................
0
0
0
0
Windowpane
....................................................................................................
2,705
1,514
1,369
1,204
Winter
flounder
................................................................................................
438,225
560,512
478,280
393,062
Total
..........................................................................................................
456,019
567,746
483,987
397,377
TABLE
X
 
15B.
 
ANNUAL
COMMERCIAL
FISHING
GROSS
REVENUES
LOST
DUE
TO
ENTRAINMENT
AT
OCEAN
FACILITIES
IN
THE
NORTH
ATLANTIC
REGION
Species
Estimated
pounds
of
harvest
lost
Estimated
value
of
harvest
lost
(
in
dollars)

Undiscounted
Discounted
Using
3%
discount
rate
Discounted
using
7%
discount
rate
American
plaice
...............................................................................................
951
$
1,142
$
957
$
770
Atlantic
cod
......................................................................................................
1,444
1,198
1,056
899
VerDate
Jan<
31>
2003
19:
17
Mar
18,
2003
Jkt
200001
PO
00000
Frm
00037
Fmt
4701
Sfmt
4702
E:\
FR\
FM\
19MRP2.
SGM
19MRP2
13558
Federal
Register
/
Vol.
68,
No.
53
/
Wednesday,
March
19,
2003
/
Proposed
Rules
TABLE
X
 
15B.
 
ANNUAL
COMMERCIAL
FISHING
GROSS
REVENUES
LOST
DUE
TO
ENTRAINMENT
AT
OCEAN
FACILITIES
IN
THE
NORTH
ATLANTIC
REGION
 
Continued
Species
Estimated
pounds
of
harvest
lost
Estimated
value
of
harvest
lost
(
in
dollars)

Undiscounted
Discounted
using
3%
discount
rate
Discounted
using
7%
discount
rate
Atlantic
herring
.................................................................................................
5,831
292
255
217
Atlantic
mackerel
.............................................................................................
1,121
314
280
242
Atlantic
menhaden
...........................................................................................
3,725
149
137
122
Atlantic
silverside
.............................................................................................
3
2
2
2
Bluefish
............................................................................................................
7
2
2
1
Butterfish
..........................................................................................................
80
38
35
32
Pollock
.............................................................................................................
525
362
302
241
Rainbow
smelt
.................................................................................................
9,987
1,997
1,810
1,599
Red
hake
.........................................................................................................
1,004
221
202
181
Searobin
...........................................................................................................
85
174
155
133
Tautog
..............................................................................................................
188
121
106
90
Windowpane
....................................................................................................
3,788
2,159
1,940
1,692
Winter
flounder
................................................................................................
46,355
63,970
53,829
43,393
Total
..........................................................................................................
75,094
72,142
61,067
49,613
6.
Total
Recreational
and
Commercial
Losses
From
Baseline
Impingement
and
Entrainment
in
the
North
Atlantic
Region
Table
X
 
16
presents
EPA's
estimates
of
total
baseline
recreational
and
commercial
fishing
losses
from
impingement
and
entrainment
at
cooling
water
intake
structures
in
the
North
Atlantic
region.
Total
commercial
and
recreational
fishing
losses
are
$
3.3
million
per
year
for
all
species
and
fishing
modes,
before
discounting.
Discounting
these
total
baseline
welfare
losses
by
three
and
seven
percent
yield
total
losses
of
$
2.8
million
and
$
2.4
million,
respectively.

TABLE
X
 
16.
 
ESTIMATED
DISCOUNTED
COMMERCIAL
AND
RECREATIONAL
BASELINE
WELFARE
LOSSES
IN
THE
NORTH
ATLANTIC
REGION
FROM
IMPINGEMENT
AND
ENTRAINMENT
(
2002$)
a
Benefit
type
Before
discounting
Discounted
using
3%
discount
rate
Discounted
using
7%
discount
rate
Recreational
.................................................................................................................................
$
3,074,444
$
2,638,614
$
2,252,016
Commercial
b
................................................................................................................................
281,889
240,941
198,487
Total
......................................................................................................................................
3,356,333
2,879,555
2,450,503
a
Welfare
losses
represent
losses
due
to
both
impingement
and
entrainment
because
recreational
estimates
cannot
be
presented
separately
for
these
categories.
b
Based
on
40
percent
of
gross
revenues,
or
upper
bound
of
0
 
40
percent
range
assumed
to
represent
producer
surplus.

7.
Estimated
Use
Benefits
of
Proposed
Regulatory
Option
in
the
North
Atlantic
Region
Table
X
 
17
presents
EPA's
estimates
of
the
gain
from
the
post­
compliance
reduction
in
impingement
and
entrainment
at
cooling
water
intake
structures
in
the
North
Atlantic
region.
The
total
reduction
in
commercial
and
recreational
fishing
is
$
0.96
million
per
year
for
all
species
and
fishing
modes,
before
discounting.
Discounting
these
total
reduced
welfare
losses
by
three
and
seven
percent
yields
total
losses
of
$
0.83
million
and
$
0.70
million,
respectively.
These
numbers
may
change
for
final
if
additional
impingement
and
entrainment
data
become
available.

TABLE
X
 
17.
 
ESTIMATED
DISCOUNTED
COMMERCIAL
AND
RECREATIONAL
REDUCED
WELFARE
LOSSES
IN
THE
NORTH
ATLANTIC
REGION
FROM
IMPINGEMENT
AND
ENTRAINMENT
(
2002$)
a
Benefit
type
Expected
%
reduction
Before
discounting
Discounted
using
3%
discount
rate
Discounted
using
7%
discount
rate
Recreational
.....................................................................................................
28.7%
$
881,426
$
758,811
$
646,991
Commercial
b
....................................................................................................
29.2
82,222
70,256
57,860
Total
..........................................................................................................
28.7
963,648
829,067
704,851
a
Welfare
losses
represent
losses
due
to
both
impingement
and
entrainment
because
recreational
estimates
cannot
be
presented
separately
for
these
categories.
b
Based
on
40
percent
of
gross
revenues,
or
upper
bound
of
0
 
40
percent
range
assumed
to
represent
producer
surplus.

VerDate
Jan<
31>
2003
20:
32
Mar
18,
2003
Jkt
200001
PO
00000
Frm
00038
Fmt
4701
Sfmt
4702
E:\
FR\
FM\
19MRP2.
SGM
19MRP2
13559
Federal
Register
/
Vol.
68,
No.
53
/
Wednesday,
March
19,
2003
/
Proposed
Rules
22
An
Evolutionarily
Significant
Unit
(
ESU)
is
a
term
introduced
by
NMFS
in
1991
to
refer
to
the
Endangered
Species
Act
(
ESA)
interpretation
of
``
distinct
population
segment.''
A
stock
must
satisfy
two
criteria
to
be
considered
an
ESU:
(
1)
``
it
must
be
substantially
reproductively
isolated
from
other
conspecific
population
units,''
and
(
2)
``
it
must
represent
an
important
component
in
the
evolutionary
legacy
of
the
species.''
D.
Northern
California
Regional
Study
1.
Background:
Marine
Fisheries
of
Northern
California
The
Northern
California
NMFS
region
extends
from
Point
Conception
north
to
the
Oregon
border.
The
oceanic
transition
zone
off
Point
Conception
creates
a
natural
ecological
separation
between
northern
and
southern
California.
North
of
Point
Conception,
coastal
waters
are
cold
and
oceanic
conditions
are
harsh,
whereas
to
the
south
waters
are
warmer
and
conditions
are
moderate.
As
a
result,
the
fish
species
composition
differs
between
the
two
regions
(
Leet
et
al.,
2001).
Fisheries
of
the
Northern
California
Region
are
managed
by
the
Pacific
Fishery
Management
Council
(
PFMC),
which
governs
commercial
and
recreational
fisheries
in
federal
waters
from
3
 
200
nautical
miles
off
the
coasts
of
Washington,
Oregon
and
California.
The
NMFS
Northwest
Fisheries
Science
Center
provides
scientific
and
technical
support
for
management,
conservation
and
fisheries
development.
There
are
83
species
of
groundfish
included
under
PFMC's
Groundfish
FMP,
including
nearly
50
species
of
rockfish
(
Sebastes
spp.)
(
Table
3
in
NMFS,
2002).
Pacific
whiting
(
Merluccius
productus)
dominates
the
commercial
catch,
accounting
for
78%
of
Pacific
Coast
landings
(
NMFS,
1999a).
During
the
1990'
s
a
major
fishery
developed
for
nearshore
species,
including
rockfishes,
cabezon,
and
sheephead
(
Leet
et
al.,
2001).
Rockfishes
are
important
for
both
commercial
and
recreational
fisheries
(
NMFS,
1999a).
In
1994,
a
limited
entry
program
was
implemented
for
the
groundfish
fishery
due
to
concerns
about
overfishing
(
NMFS,
1999a).
There
are
five
species
of
anadromous
Pacific
salmon
supporting
coastal
and
freshwater
commercial
and
recreational
fisheries
along
the
Pacific
Coast,
including
chinook
(
Oncorhynchus
tshawytscha),
coho
(
O.
kisutch),
sockeye
(
O.
nerka),
pink
(
O.
gorbuscha),
and
chum
(
O.
keta)
salmon
(
NMFS,
1999a).
Since
1991,
NMFS
has
listed
20
Evolutionary
Significant
Units
(
ESU's)
22
of
Pacific
Coast
salmon
and
steelhead
trout
(
O.
mykiss)
under
the
federal
Endangered
Species
Act
(
ESA)
(
NMFS,
1999b).
In
NMF's
Northern
California
region,
listed
species
include
steelhead,
coho
salmon,
and
chinook
salmon
of
the
central
California
Coast
and
steelhead
and
chinook
salmon
of
California's
Central
Valley.
Ocean
fisheries
for
chinook
and
coho
salmon
are
managed
by
the
PFMC
under
the
Pacific
Coast
Salmon
FMP.
In
Puget
Sound
and
the
Columbia
River,
chinook
and
coho
fisheries
are
managed
by
the
states
and
tribal
fishery
agencies.
Declines
in
chinook
and
coho
salmon
coast­
wide
have
led
to
reductions
and
closures
of
ocean
fisheries
in
recent
years
(
NMFS,
1999a).
The
Pacific
Salmon
FMP
contains
no
fishery
management
objectives
for
sockeye,
chum,
even­
year
pink,
and
steelhead
stocks
because
fishery
impacts
are
considered
inconsequential
(
Table
3
in
NMFS,
2002).
Pink,
chum,
and
sockeye
salmon
are
managed
jointly
by
the
Pacific
Salmon
Commission,
Washington
state,
and
tribal
agencies
(
NMFS,
1999a).
Pacific
Coast
pelagic
species
managed
by
the
PFMC
include
Pacific
mackerel
(
Scomber
japonicus),
jack
mackerel
(
Trachurus
symmetricus),
Pacific
sardine
(
Sardinops
sagax),
northern
anchovy
(
Engraulis
mordax),
and
California
market
squid
(
Loligo
opalescens)
(
NMFS,
2002).
These
species
typically
fluctuate
widely
in
abundance,
and
currently
most
stocks
are
low
relative
to
historical
levels
(
NMFS,
1999a).
Pacific
mackerel
and
Pacific
sardine
are
not
overfished,
but
the
stock
size
of
the
other
species
governed
by
the
Coastal
Pelagic
FMP
is
unknown
(
Table
3
in
NMFS,
2002).
Due
to
increases
in
abundance
in
recent
years,
Pacific
mackerel
now
accounts
for
over
half
of
recent
landings
of
Pacific
Coast
pelagic
species
(
NMFS,
1999a).
Pacific
Coast
shellfish
resources
are
important
both
commercially
and
recreationally
(
NMFS,
1999a).
Shrimps,
crabs,
abalones,
and
clams
command
high
prices
and
contribute
substantially
to
the
value
of
Pacific
Coast
fisheries,
even
though
landings
are
small.

2.
Impingement
and
Entrainment
Results
Table
X
 
18
provides
a
list
of
impingement
and
entrainment
species
in
the
Northern
California
region
and
the
species
groups
that
were
evaluated
in
EPA's
analysis
of
regional
impingement
and
entrainment.
The
life
history
data
used
in
EPA's
analysis
and
associated
data
sources
are
provided
in
``
Appendix
2:
Life
History
Parameter
Values
Used
to
Evaluate
I
&
E
in
the
Northern
California
Region.''

TABLE
X
 
18.
 
SPECIES
GROUPS
AND
ASSOCIATED
SPECIES
FOR
THE
NORTHERN
CALIFORNIA
REGIONAL
STUDY
Group
evaluated
Species
Commercial
Recreational
Forage
Special
status
Anchovies
..........................
Northern
anchovy
..............
X
X
........................................
Bay
shrimps
......................
Bay
shrimp
........................
......................
X
........................................
Other
bay
shrimp
a
............
......................
X
........................................
Cabezon
............................
Cabezon
............................
X
X
........................................
California
halibut
...............
California
halibut
...............
X
X
........................................
Drums/
croakers
.................
Queenfish
..........................
X
X
........................................
White
croaker
....................
X
X
........................................
Other
croakers
..................
......................
X
........................................
Dungeness
crab
................
Dungeness
crab
................
X
X
........................................
Flounders
..........................
Dover
sole
.........................
X
X
........................................
English
sole
...................
X
X
........................................
Pacific
sanddab
.................
X
X
........................................
Rock
sole
..........................
X
X
........................................
Sand
sole
..........................
X
X
........................................
Starry
flounder
..................
X
X
........................................
Other
flounders
B
...............
X
X
........................................
Gobies
...............................
Bay
goby
...........................
......................
........................................
X
Blackeye
goby
...................
......................
........................................
X
Blind
goby
.........................
......................
........................................
X
Longjaw
mudsucker
..........
......................
........................................
X
VerDate
Jan<
31>
2003
19:
17
Mar
18,
2003
Jkt
200001
PO
00000
Frm
00039
Fmt
4701
Sfmt
4702
E:\
FR\
FM\
19MRP2.
SGM
19MRP2
13560
Federal
Register
/
Vol.
68,
No.
53
/
Wednesday,
March
19,
2003
/
Proposed
Rules
TABLE
X
 
18.
 
SPECIES
GROUPS
AND
ASSOCIATED
SPECIES
FOR
THE
NORTHERN
CALIFORNIA
REGIONAL
STUDY
 
Continued
Group
evaluated
Species
Commercial
Recreational
Forage
Special
status
Shadow
goby
....................
......................
........................................
X
Yellowfin
goby
...................
......................
........................................
X
Herrings
.............................
Pacific
herring
...................
X
X
........................................
Pacific
sardine
...................
X
X
........................................
Other
herrings
...................
......................
X
........................................
Rock
crabs
........................
Slender
crab
......................
......................
........................................
X
Brown
rock
crab
................
......................
X
........................................
Hairy
rock
crab
..................
......................
........................................
X
Red
rock
crab
...................
X
X
........................................
Slender
rock
crab
..............
......................
........................................
X
Yellow
crab
.......................
......................
X
........................................
Rockfishes
.........................
Aurora
rockfish
..................
X
X
........................................
Black
and
yellow
rockfish
X
X
........................................
Black
rockfish
....................
X
X
Blue
rockfish
.....................
X
X
........................................
Boccacio
............................
X
X
........................................
Brown
rockfish
..................
X
X
........................................
California
scorpionfish
.......
X
X
........................................
Chilipepper
........................
X
X
........................................
Copper
rockfish
.................
X
X
........................................
Gopher
rockfish
.................
X
X
........................................
Grass
rockfish
...................
X
X
........................................
Kelp
rockfish
.....................
X
X
........................................
Olive
rockfish
....................
X
X
........................................
Shortbelly
rockfish
.............
X
X
........................................
Yellowtail
rockfish
.............
X
X
........................................
Other
rockfish
....................
X
X
........................................
Sculpins
.............................
Other
sculpinsc
..................
X
X
........................................
Silversides
.........................
Jacksmelt
..........................
......................
X
........................................
Other
silversidesd
.............
......................
X
........................................
Smelts
...............................
Surf
smelt
..........................
X
X
........................................
Other
smelts
e
...................
X
X
........................................
Surfperches
.......................
Barred
surfperch
...............
X
X
Black
surfperch
.................
X
X
Pile
surfperch
....................
X
X
Shiner
perch
......................
X
X
Striped
surfperch
...............
X
X
Walleye
surfperch
.............
X
X
White
surfperch
.................
X
X
Other
surfperch
f
................
X
X
Chinook
salmon
................
Chinook
salmon
................
......................
........................................
........................................
X
(
FT,
ST,
FE,
SE,
FCT)
Delta
smelt
........................
Delta
smelt
........................
......................
........................................
........................................
X
(
FT,
ST)
Green
sturgeon
.................
Green
sturgeon
.................
......................
........................................
........................................
X
(
SOC)
Longfin
smelt
.....................
Longfin
smelt
.....................
......................
........................................
........................................
X
(
SOC)
Sacramento
splittail
...........
Sacramento
splittail
...........
......................
........................................
........................................
X
(
FT)
Steelhead
..........................
Steelhead
..........................
......................
........................................
........................................
X
(
FT)
Striped
bass
......................
Striped
bass
......................
......................
X
........................................
Herrings
.............................
American
shad
..................
......................
X
........................................

a
Other
bay
shrimp
includes
Alaskan
bay
shrimp,
black
tailed
bay
shrimp,
blackspotted
bay
shrimp,
Franciscan
bay
shrimp,
smooth
bay
shrimp,
and
spotted
bay
shrimp.
b
Other
flounders
includes
CO
Turbot,
curlfin
turbot,
diamond
turbot,
fantail
sole,
horneyhead
turbot,
slender
turbot,
and
speckled
turbot.
c
Other
sculpin
includes
bonyhead
sculpin,
brown
Irish
lord,
buffalo
sculpin,
coralline
sculpin,
fluffy
sculpin,
manacled
sculpin,
pacific
staghorn
sculpin,
prickly
sculpin,
rosy
sculpin,
roughcheek
sculpin,
smoothhead
sculpin,
snubnose
sculpin,
staghorn
sculpin,
tidepool
sculpin,
and
wooly
sculpin.
d
Other
silversides
includes
topsmelt.
e
Other
smelts
includes
night
smelt
and
popeye
blacksmelt.
f
Other
surfperch
includes
dwarf
surfperch,
kelp
surfperch,
rainbow
surfperch,
and
spotfin
surfperch.
FT
=
federally
listed
as
threatened
ST
=
state
listed
as
threatened
FE
=
federally
listed
as
endangered
SE
=
state
listed
as
endangered
FCT
=
federal
candidate
for
listing
as
threatened
SOC
=
species
of
concern
Available
impingement
and
entrainment
data
indicate
that
20
of
a
total
of
92
distinct
species
that
are
impinged
and
entrained
by
northern
California
facilities
are
harvested
species
subject
to
FMP's
developed
by
the
PFMC.
Table
X
 
19
summarizes
information
on
the
stock
status
of
these
species.
Note
that
stock
status
is
known
for
only
4
of
these
species.
Most
of
the
species
listed
are
rockfish
species.
Northern
anchovy
falls
under
the
VerDate
Jan<
31>
2003
19:
17
Mar
18,
2003
Jkt
200001
PO
00000
Frm
00040
Fmt
4701
Sfmt
4702
E:\
FR\
FM\
19MRP2.
SGM
19MRP2
13561
Federal
Register
/
Vol.
68,
No.
53
/
Wednesday,
March
19,
2003
/
Proposed
Rules
Coastal
Pelagic
FMP
and
the
other
species
in
the
table
are
included
in
the
Groundfish
FMP.
Although
under
the
jurisdiction
of
the
PFMC,
there
are
no
fishery
management
objectives
for
Central
Valley
chinook
salmon
and
Central
California
Coast
coho
salmon
because
of
their
ESA
listing
(
NMFS,
2002).
There
are
also
no
fishery
management
goals
for
steelhead
because
fishery
impacts
are
considered
inconsequential
(
NMFS,
2002).

TABLE
X
 
19.
 
SUMMARY
OF
STOCK
STATUS
OF
HARVESTED
SPECIES
OF
THE
NORTHERN
CALIFORNIA
REGION
THAT
ARE
IMPINGED
AND
ENTRAINED
AND
ARE
INCLUDED
IN
FEDERAL
FMP'S
Stock
(
species
in
bold
are
major
stocks,
with
annual
landings
over
200,000
pounds)
Overfishing?
Is
fishing
mortality
above
threshold?)
Overfished?
(
Is
stock
size
below
threshold?)
Approaching
overfished
condition?

Aurora
rockfish
............................................................................
Unknown
..................................
Unknown
..................................
Unknown
Black
rockfish
..............................................................................
No
............................................
No
............................................
No
Black­
and­
yellow
rockfish
...........................................................
Unknown
..................................
Unknown
..................................
Unknown
Blue
rockfish
...............................................................................
Unknown
..................................
Unknown
..................................
Unknown
Bocaccio
.....................................................................................
No
............................................
Yes
...........................................
N/
A
Cabezon
......................................................................................
Unknown
..................................
Unknown
..................................
Unknown
California
scorpionfish
.................................................................
Unknown
..................................
Unknown
..................................
Unknown
Central
California
Coast
coho
salmona
......................................
N/
A
...........................................
N/
A
...........................................
N/
A
Central
Valley
chinook
salmona
..................................................
N/
A
...........................................
N/
A
...........................................
N/
A
Chilipepper
rockfish
....................................................................
No
............................................
No
............................................
No
Copper
rockfish
...........................................................................
Unknown
..................................
Unknown
..................................
Unknown
Gopher
rockfish
..........................................................................
Unknown
..................................
Unknown
..................................
Unknown
Grass
rockfish
.............................................................................
Unknown
..................................
Unknown
..................................
Unknown
Kelp
rockfish
...............................................................................
Unknown
..................................
Unknown
..................................
Unknown
Northern
anchovy­
central
subpopulation
....................................
..................................................
Undefined
................................
Unknown
Olive
rockfish
..............................................................................
Unknown
..................................
Unknown
..................................
Unknown
Shortbelly
rockfish
.......................................................................
No
............................................
No
............................................
No
Starry
flounder
............................................................................
Unknown
..................................
Unknown
..................................
Unknown
Steelheadb
..................................................................................
N/
A
...........................................
N/
A
...........................................
N/
A
Yellowtail
rockfish
.......................................................................
No
............................................
No
............................................
No
Source:
Table
4
in
NMFS
(
2002).
a
There
are
no
fishery
management
goals
for
Central
Valley
chinook
salmon
and
Central
California
Coast
coho
salmon
because
of
their
ESA
listing
(
NMFS,
2002).
b
There
are
no
fishery
management
goals
for
steelhead
because
fishery
impacts
are
considered
inconsequential
(
NMFS,
2002).

3.
Impingement
and
Entrainment
Losses
Expressed
as
Age
1
Equivalents,
Foregone
Yield,
and
Production
Foregone
Table
X
 
20
provides
EPA's
estimate
of
the
annual
age
1
equivalents,
foregone
fishery
yield,
and
production
foregone
resulting
from
the
impingement
of
aquatic
species
at
facilities
located
on
estuaries/
tidal
rivers
in
the
Northern
California
Region.
Table
X
 
21
displays
this
information
for
entrainment.
Table
X
 
22
provides
EPA's
estimate
of
the
annual
age
1
equivalents,
foregone
fishery
yield,
and
production
foregone
resulting
from
the
impingement
of
aquatic
species
at
ocean
facilities
in
the
Northern
California
Region.
Table
X
 
23
displays
this
information
for
entrainment.

TABLE
X
 
20.
 
TOTAL
ANNUAL
IMPINGEMENT
LOSSES
FOR
ALL
ESTUARY/
TIDAL
RIVER
FACILITIES
IN
THE
NORTHERN
CALIFORNIA
REGION
EXPRESSED
AS
AGE
1
EQUIVALENTS,
FOREGONE
FISHERY
YIELD,
AND
PRODUCTION
FOREGONE
Species
group
Age
1
equivalents
(#
s)
Total
yield
(
lbs)
Production
foregone
Anchovies
....................................................................................................................................
6,483,908
10,156
86,487
Bay
shrimps
.................................................................................................................................
310,400
22
169
Cabezon
.......................................................................................................................................
968
1,882
4,569
Chinook
salmon
...........................................................................................................................
1,880
0
50,674
Croakers
......................................................................................................................................
6,737
390
710
Delta
smelt
...................................................................................................................................
18,454
0
25
Dungeness
crab
...........................................................................................................................
1,028
404
995
Flounders
.....................................................................................................................................
56,767
4,652
16,970
Gobies
..........................................................................................................................................
10,819
0
47
Herrings
.......................................................................................................................................
545,982
25,560
65,791
Longfin
smelt
...............................................................................................................................
189,940
0
6,553
Rock
crabs
...................................................................................................................................
840,492
165
115,125
Rockfishes
...................................................................................................................................
257,596
62,420
164,021
Sacramento
splittail
.....................................................................................................................
24,188
0
11,166
Sculpins
.......................................................................................................................................
128,009
1,304
9,151
Silversides
....................................................................................................................................
888,074
39,672
202,453
Smelts
..........................................................................................................................................
71,279
1,620
13,400
Striped
bass
.................................................................................................................................
762,529
277,119
1,270,930
Surfperches
..................................................................................................................................
725,358
45,156
109,915
Total
......................................................................................................................................
11,324,407
470,522
2,129,153
VerDate
Jan<
31>
2003
19:
17
Mar
18,
2003
Jkt
200001
PO
00000
Frm
00041
Fmt
4701
Sfmt
4702
E:\
FR\
FM\
19MRP2.
SGM
19MRP2
13562
Federal
Register
/
Vol.
68,
No.
53
/
Wednesday,
March
19,
2003
/
Proposed
Rules
TABLE
X
 
21.
 
TOTAL
ANNUAL
ENTRAINMENT
LOSSES
FOR
ALL
ESTUARY/
TIDAL
RIVER
FACILITIES
IN
THE
NORTHERN
CALIFORNIA
REGION
EXPRESSED
AS
AGE
1
EQUIVALENTS,
FOREGONE
FISHERY
YIELD,
AND
PRODUCTION
FOREGONE
Species
group
Age
1
equivalents
(#
s)
Total
yield
(
lbs)
Production
foregone
(
lbs)

Anchovies
....................................................................................................................................
332,963
525
47,178
Bay
shrimps
.................................................................................................................................
5,820,260
419
4,164
Cabezon
.......................................................................................................................................
20
46
2,868
California
halibut
..........................................................................................................................
717
2,686
5,476
Chinook
salmon
...........................................................................................................................
88
0
3,033
Croakers
......................................................................................................................................
0
0
476
Delta
smelt
...................................................................................................................................
268,874
0
3,894
Dungeness
crab
...........................................................................................................................
80,574
37,273
184,655
Flounders
.....................................................................................................................................
1,984
193
2,602
Gobies
..........................................................................................................................................
2,874,204
0
44,209
Herrings
.......................................................................................................................................
1,495,230
69,974
257,242
Longfin
smelt
...............................................................................................................................
333
0
19
Rock
crabs
...................................................................................................................................
2,491,669
490
1,406,358
Rockfishes
...................................................................................................................................
63
17
5,512
Sacramento
splittail
.....................................................................................................................
39
0
87
Sculpins
.......................................................................................................................................
78,819
4,731
32,034
Silversides
....................................................................................................................................
5,744
321
1,948
Smelts
..........................................................................................................................................
386
16
565
Striped
bass
.................................................................................................................................
1,950,593
708,904
3,383,949
Total
......................................................................................................................................
15,402,559
825,595
5,386,270
TABLE
X
 
22.
 
TOTAL
ANNUAL
IMPINGEMENT
LOSSES
FOR
ALL
OCEAN
FACILITIES
IN
THE
NORTHERN
CALIFORNIA
REGION
EXPRESSED
AS
AGE
1
EQUIVALENTS,
FOREGONE
FISHERY
YIELD,
AND
PRODUCTION
FOREGONE
Species
group
Age
1
equivalents
(#
s)
Total
yield
(
lbs)
Production
foregone
(
lbs)

Anchovies
....................................................................................................................................
63
0
1
Bay
shrimps
.................................................................................................................................
17,240
1
9
Cabezon
.......................................................................................................................................
20
39
94
Croakers
......................................................................................................................................
581
34
61
Dungeness
crab
...........................................................................................................................
3,431
1,583
3,322
Flounders
.....................................................................................................................................
2,583
212
772
Rock
crabs
...................................................................................................................................
3,841
1
526
Rockfishes
...................................................................................................................................
3,938
949
2,497
Sculpins
.......................................................................................................................................
935
10
67
Silversides
....................................................................................................................................
841
30
192
Surfperches
..................................................................................................................................
2,802
122
425
Total
......................................................................................................................................
36,275
2,981
7,965
TABLE
X
 
23.
 
TOTAL
ANNUAL
ENTRAINMENT
LOSSES
FOR
ALL
OCEAN
FACILITIES
IN
THE
NORTHERN
CALIFORNIA
REGION
EXPRESSED
AS
AGE
1
EQUIVALENTS,
FOREGONE
FISHERY
YIELD,
AND
PRODUCTION
FOREGONE
Species
group
Age
1
equivalents
(#
s)
Total
yield
(
lbs)
Production
foregone
(
lbs)

Anchovies
....................................................................................................................................
5,382
8
87,011
Bay
shrimps
.................................................................................................................................
1,410,174
101
3,721
Cabezon
.......................................................................................................................................
170
331
24,314
California
halibut
..........................................................................................................................
5,413
19,617
42,161
Croakers
......................................................................................................................................
1
0
1,892
Flounders
.....................................................................................................................................
5,198
431
6,817
Gobies
..........................................................................................................................................
415,594
0
6,392
Herrings
.......................................................................................................................................
847,884
39,634
215,090
Rock
crabs
...................................................................................................................................
63,433,607
12,467
38,249,035
Rockfishes
...................................................................................................................................
1,620
390
142,462
Sculpins
.......................................................................................................................................
539,868
5,523
38,624
Silversides
....................................................................................................................................
19
13
6
Smelts
..........................................................................................................................................
778
19
1,140
Total
......................................................................................................................................
66,665,707
78,534
38,818,665
VerDate
Jan<
31>
2003
19:
17
Mar
18,
2003
Jkt
200001
PO
00000
Frm
00042
Fmt
4701
Sfmt
4702
E:\
FR\
FM\
19MRP2.
SGM
19MRP2
13563
Federal
Register
/
Vol.
68,
No.
53
/
Wednesday,
March
19,
2003
/
Proposed
Rules
In
these
tables,
``
total
yield''
includes
direct
losses
of
harvested
species
as
well
as
the
yield
of
harvested
species
that
is
lost
due
to
losses
of
forage
species.
As
discussed
in
detail
in
Chapter
A5
of
Part
A
of
the
section
316(
b)
Phase
II
Case
Study
Document,
EPA
used
a
simple
model
of
trophic
structure
and
trophic
transfer
efficiency
to
estimate
the
yield
of
harvested
species
that
is
lost
because
of
the
loss
of
forage
to
impingement
and
entrainment.
The
conversion
of
forage
to
yield
contributes
only
a
very
small
fraction
to
total
yield.

4.
Recreational
Fishing
Valuation
This
notice
presents
results
for
the
Northern
California
regional
analysis,
including
benefits
calculations
for
this
region.
Details
of
the
Northern
California
study
are
presented
in
DCN
5
 
1009.
As
noted
above,
the
Northern
California
region
is
defined
based
on
NMFS
regional
boundaries.
Northern
California
includes
all
northern
counties
to,
and
including,
San
Luis
Obispo
County.
EPA
included
anglers
and
sites
from
the
counties
on
each
regional
border
in
the
model,
to
allow
anglers
to
travel
to
substitute
sites
in
the
bordering
region.
For
example,
EPA
added
Santa
Barbara
County
from
the
Southern
California
region
to
allow
anglers
from
Northern
California
to
travel
to
all
substitute
sites
located
within
a
one
day
travel
distance
limit.
The
Northern
California
model
focuses
on
the
following
species
and
species
groups:
salmon,
sturgeon,
flounders,
small
game
fish,
big
game
fish,
bottom
fish,
and
other
species.
The
flounder
category
includes
flounders
and
halibut;
the
small
game
group
includes
striped
bass
and
small
tuna
and
mackerel;
the
big
game
category
includes
large
tuna,
sharks,
marlin,
and
dolphin
fish;
the
bottom
fish
category
includes
greenlings,
sculpins,
surfperches,
croakers,
rockfishes
and
other
bottom
species;
and
the
other
species
category
includes
only
anchovies,
smelts,
silversides
and
herrings.
Approximately
20
percent
of
anglers
fishing
from
boats
and
47
percent
of
anglers
fishing
from
shore
target
no
particular
species.
These
anglers
(
hereafter,
no­
target
anglers)
caught
fish
in
all
species
groups.
Therefore,
EPA
used
average
catch
rates
for
all
species
caught
by
no­
target
anglers
to
define
fishing
site
quality
for
no­
target
anglers.
The
methodology
used
in
the
Northern
California
study
follows
closely
that
of
McConnell
and
Strand
(
1994)
and
Hicks
(
1999)
work
for
NMFS.
EPA
maintained
most
important
aspects
of
the
methodologies
used
in
the
previous
recreational
NMFS
studies.
The
Agency,
however,
estimated
separate
models
for
boat
and
shore
anglers
for
the
Northern
California
region.
The
Agency
attempted
to
estimate
a
nested
RUM
model
for
Northern
California,
including
both
boat
and
shore
anglers.
However,
preliminary
model
results
indicated
that
nesting
was
not
appropriate
for
the
data.
The
Agency
did
not
estimate
a
model
for
the
charter
boat
mode
for
the
NODA,
however,
because
charter
boat
trips
represent
only
thirteen
percent
of
the
total
angling
trips
in
this
region.
For
the
NODA
analysis,
the
welfare
gain
from
improved
catch
rates
to
charter
boat
anglers
is
approximated
based
on
the
regression
coefficients
developed
for
boat
anglers.
The
Agency
combined
the
estimated
model
coefficients
with
the
estimated
impingement
and
entrainment
losses
at
the
cooling
water
intake
structures
in
the
Northern
California
Region
to
estimate
per
trip
welfare
losses
from
impingement
and
entrainment.
Table
X
 
24
shows
the
total
average
recreational
landings
for
each
species
group,
the
number
of
fish
impinged
and
entrained,
and
the
estimated
percent
change
in
recreational
landings
from
impingement
and
entrainment
elimination.
Eliminating
impingement
and
entrainment
is
expected
to
increase
flounders
catch
rates
by
0.58%;
small
game
catch
rates
by
56.02%;
bottom
fish
catch
rates
by
6.6%;
and
other
species
catch
rates
by
5.5%.

TABLE
X
 
24.
 
IMPINGEMENT
AND
ENTRAINMENT
AS
PERCENT
OF
TOTAL
CATCH
FOR
NORTHERN
CALIFORNIA
Species
Avg.
total
catch
1996
 
2000
Change
in
recreational
losses
from
reduced
impingement
and
entrainment
Reduced
impingement
and
entrainment
as
%
of
total
catch
Flounders
...............................................................................................................................
238,394
1,377
0.578
Small
Game
...........................................................................................................................
459,563
257,431
56.016
Bottom
Fish
............................................................................................................................
3,665,520
241,089
6.595
Other
......................................................................................................................................
1,442,356
79,047
5.480
All
Species
.............................................................................................................................
5,795,833
578,944
9.989
Table
X
 
25
shows
the
impingement
and
entrainment
reductions
that
would
result
from
installation
of
the
preferred
option
at
each
facility
in
Northern
California,
as
well
as
the
resulting
increases
in
catch
rates.
The
preferred
option
will
result
in
a
0.32%
reduction
in
impingement
and
entrainment
losses
for
flounders;
a
14.9%
reduction
in
losses
for
small
game
fish;
a
5%
reduction
in
losses
for
bottom
fish;
and
a
4.4%
reduction
in
losses
for
other
species.

TABLE
X
 
25.
 
ESTIMATED
CHANGE
IN
CATCH
RATES
RESULTING
FROM
THE
PREFERRED
OPTION
FOR
NORTHERN
CALIFORNIA
Species
Avg.
total
catch
1996
 
2000
Total
recreational
losses
from
impingement
and
entrainment
Change
in
recreational
losses
from
impingement
and
entrainment
as
%
of
total
catch
Flounders
...............................................................................................................................
238,394
762
0.320
Small
Game
...........................................................................................................................
459,563
68,615
14.931
Bottom
Fish
............................................................................................................................
3,665,520
183,651
5.024
VerDate
Jan<
31>
2003
20:
32
Mar
18,
2003
Jkt
200001
PO
00000
Frm
00043
Fmt
4701
Sfmt
4702
E:\
FR\
FM\
19MRP2.
SGM
19MRP2
13564
Federal
Register
/
Vol.
68,
No.
53
/
Wednesday,
March
19,
2003
/
Proposed
Rules
TABLE
X
 
25.
 
ESTIMATED
CHANGE
IN
CATCH
RATES
RESULTING
FROM
THE
PREFERRED
OPTION
FOR
NORTHERN
CALIFORNIA
 
Continued
Species
Avg.
total
catch
1996
 
2000
Total
recreational
losses
from
impingement
and
entrainment
Change
in
recreational
losses
from
impingement
and
entrainment
as
%
of
total
catch
Other
......................................................................................................................................
1,442,356
62,760
4.351
All
Species
.............................................................................................................................
5,795,833
315,788
5.449
The
willingness
to
pay
values
for
boat
and
shore
anglers
for
an
additional
fish
per
trip,
and
for
the
expected
benefits
from
reducing
impingement
and
entrainment
at
cooling
water
intake
structures
in
the
Northern
California
region
are
shown
in
Table
X
 
26.
Table
X
 
26
shows
that
boat
anglers
value
most
highly
the
improvements
in
catch
rates
for
sturgeon
and
salmon,
followed
by
flounder
and
big
game
fish.
Boat
and
shore
anglers
show
a
few
notable
differences
in
values.
For
example,
the
value
for
flounders
is
higher
for
boat
anglers.
This
can
be
explained
by
the
fact
that
most
boat
anglers
target
and
catch
halibut,
a
larger
species;
most
shore
anglers
catch
the
smaller
flounders.
The
value
for
flounders
is
also
higher
for
boat
anglers.
This
can
be
explained
by
the
fact
that
most
boat
anglers
target
and
catch
halibut,
a
larger
species;
most
shore
anglers
catch
the
smaller
flounders.

TABLE
X
 
26.
 
PER
TRIP
WELFARE
GAIN
FROM
IMPROVEMENTS
IN
FISHING
QUALITY
AT
ALL
SITES
IN
NORTHERN
CALIFORNIA
(
2002$)

Targeted
species
group
Per
trip
welfare
gain
(
2002$)
WTP
for
an
additional
fish
per
trip
(
2002$)

Eliminating
impingement
and
entrainment
Reducing
impingement
and
entrainment
with
preferred
technology
Boat
anglers
Shore
anglers
Boat
anglers
Shore
anglers
Boat
anglers
Shore
anglers
Flounders
................................................
$
0.32
$
0.96
$
0.02
$
0.01
$
2.97
$
0.99
Small
Game
fish
.....................................
1.19
3.37
0.32
0.96
0.76
3.55
Bottom
fish
..............................................
0.24
0.11
0.18
0.08
0.75
0.54
Other
fish
................................................
NA
0.58
NA
0.46
NA
1.10
No
Target
................................................
2.66
0.02
2.48
0.00
8.53
0.76
Salmon
....................................................
NA
NA
NA
NA
9.40
10.66
Sturgeon
.................................................
NA
NA
NA
NA
33.5
NA
Big
Game
fish
.........................................
NA
NA
NA
NA
4.05
NA
As
shown
in
Table
X
 
26,
the
estimated
welfare
gains
from
impingement
and
entrainment
reduction
are
$
0.02,
$
0.32,
and
$
0.24
per
trip
for
boat
anglers
targeting
flounders,
small
game
and
bottom
fish,
respectively;
and
$
0.01,
$
0.96,
$
0.08,
and
$
0.46
per
trip
for
shore
anglers
targeting
flounders,
small
game,
bottom
fish
and
other
specie,
respectively
(
all
in
2002$).
Anglers
targeting
small
game
are
expected
to
experience
the
greatest
welfare
gain
from
reducing
impingement
and
entrainment
at
cooling
water
intake
structures
in
Northern
California.
EPA
then
combined
the
estimated
per
trip
welfare
gain
from
eliminating
impingement
and
entrainment
at
Northern
California
cooling
water
intake
structures
with
NMFS
fishing
participation
estimates
to
estimate
the
annual
value
to
recreational
anglers
of
improved
catch
rates
resulting
from
reduced
impingement
and
entrainment
in
the
Northern
California
region.
Table
X
 
27
provides
the
total
number
of
angler
days
in
Northern
California
by
fishing
mode
and
targeted
species.

TABLE
X
 
27.
 
TOTAL
NORTHERN
CALIFORNIA
FISHING
TRIPS
BY
MODE,
2001
AND
PERCENT
OF
ANGLERS
TARGETING
EACH
SPECIES
Total
Northern
California
trips,
2001
Boat
mode
Shore
mode
Charter
mode
920,196
864,178
193,007
Percent
of
Anglers
Targeting
Each
Species
by
Mode
and
Number
of
Trips
by
Mode
and
Species
Salmon
.....................................................
34.93%
321,424
1.41%
12,185
27.54%
53,154
Sturgeon
...................................................
8.73%
80,333
1.41%
NA
0.00%
0
Flounders
.................................................
13.86%
127,539
1.86%
16,074
0.00%
0
Small
Game
.............................................
7.28%
66,990
22.2%
191,848
1.32%
2,548
Big
Game
.................................................
2.12%
19,508
0.83%
NA
0.00%
0
Bottom
Fish
..............................................
13.27%
122,110
23.1%
199,625
57.97%
111,886
Other
Fish
................................................
0.03%
NA
1.86%
16,074
0.00%
0
No
Target
.................................................
19.77%
181,923
47.34%
409,102
13.18%
25,438
VerDate
Jan<
31>
2003
19:
17
Mar
18,
2003
Jkt
200001
PO
00000
Frm
00044
Fmt
4701
Sfmt
4702
E:\
FR\
FM\
19MRP2.
SGM
19MRP2
13565
Federal
Register
/
Vol.
68,
No.
53
/
Wednesday,
March
19,
2003
/
Proposed
Rules
EPA
calculated
total
baseline
recreational
losses
to
Northern
California
anglers
by
multiplying
the
estimated
per
trip
welfare
gain
from
impingement
and
entrainment
elimination
for
a
given
species
group
by
the
relevant
number
of
recreational
fishing
trips
in
2001.
Similarly,
EPA
calculated
the
total
gains
resulting
from
the
preferred
technology.
Table
X
 
28
summarizes
results
of
these
calculations.
The
total
value
of
baseline
recreational
losses
for
all
species
impinged
and
entrained
is
$
1,432,645
per
year
(
2002$),
for
boat,
shore,
and
charter
anglers.
The
total
annual
value
of
reduced
recreational
losses
with
the
preferred
option
is
$
790,560
per
year
(
2002$),
for
boat,
shore,
and
charter
anglers.
Table
X
 
28
also
presents
the
discounted
values,
using
EPA's
preferred
3%
discount
rate
and
OMB's
7%
discount
rate.

TABLE
X
 
28.
 
ESTIMATED
ANNUAL
WELFARE
CHANGE
TO
RECREATIONAL
ANGLERS
IN
NORTHERN
CALIFORNIA
UNDER
THE
BASELINE
AND
POST­
COMPLIANCE
SCENARIOS
(
2002$)
 
Species
Total
baseline
welfare
losses
Total
welfare
gain
from
reductions
in
impingement
and
entrainment
baseline
losses
under
the
preferred
option
Before
discounting
3%
Discount
rate
7%
discount
rate
Before
discounting
3%
discount
rate
7%
discount
rate
Salmon
a
..................................................
N/
A
N/
A
N/
A
N/
A
N/
A
N/
A
Sturgeon
a
................................................
N/
A
N/
A
N/
A
N/
A
N/
A
N/
A
Flounders
.................................................
$
56,634
$
45,307
$
35,679
$
2,702
$
2,189
$
1,729
Small
Game
.............................................
728,909
634,151
532,104
206,584
183,860
157,004
Big
Game
................................................
N/
A
N/
A
N/
A
N/
A
N/
A
N/
A
Bottom
Fish
.............................................
77,312
71,900
67,261
59,041
54,908
51,366
Other
Fish
................................................
9,276
7,699
6,772
7,376
5,975
5,458
No
Target
................................................
560,514
465,227
409,175
514,857
471,034
390,994
Totals
................................................
1,432,645
1,224,284
1,050,991
790,560
663,965
596,551
a
Impingement
and
entrainment
data
are
not
available
for
these
species.

5.
Commercial
Fishing
Valuation
Table
X
 
29
provides
EPA's
estimate
of
the
value
of
gross
revenues
lost
in
commercial
fisheries
resulting
from
the
impingement
of
aquatic
species
in
the
Northern
California
region.
Table
X
 
30
displays
this
information
for
entrainment.
As
described
above,
EPA
estimates
that
0
to
40%
of
these
revenue
losses
represent
surplus
losses
to
producers,
assuming
no
change
in
prices
or
fishing
costs.
EPA
will
refine
these
assumptions
for
the
final
rule.

TABLE
X
 
29A.
 
ANNUAL
COMMERCIAL
FISHING
GROSS
REVENUES
LOST
DUE
TO
IMPINGEMENT
AT
ESTUARY
FACILITIES
IN
THE
NORTHERN
CALIFORNIA
REGION
Species
Estimated
pounds
of
harvest
lost
Estimated
Value
of
Harvest
Lost
(
in
dollars)

Undiscounted
Discounted
using
3%
discount
rate
Discounted
using
7%
discount
rate
Anchovies
........................................................................................................
10,156
$
812
$
781
$
744
Cabezon
...........................................................................................................
1,019
3,383
2,899
2,401
Croakers
..........................................................................................................
97
55
48
40
Dungeness
.......................................................................................................
404
623
588
546
Flounders
.........................................................................................................
4,606
1,428
1,368
1,294
Herrings
...........................................................................................................
25,560
5,368
4,840
4,257
Rock
crabs
.......................................................................................................
165
188
171
151
Rockfishes
.......................................................................................................
38,955
21,425
16,863
12,547
Sculpins
...........................................................................................................
147
384
367
345
Smelts
..............................................................................................................
1,520
395
375
352
Surfperches
......................................................................................................
3,198
5,020
4,650
4,219
Total
..........................................................................................................
85,826
39,082
32,949
26,897
TABLE
X
 
29B.
 
ANNUAL
COMMERCIAL
FISHING
GROSS
REVENUES
LOST
DUE
TO
IMPINGEMENT
AT
OCEAN
FACILITIES
IN
THE
NORTHERN
CALIFORNIA
REGION
Species
Estimated
pounds
of
harvest
lost
Estimated
Value
of
Harvest
Lost
(
in
dollars)

Undiscounted
Discounted
using
3%
discount
rate
Discounted
using
7%
discount
rate
Anchovies
........................................................................................................
0
$
0
$
0
$
0
Cabezon
...........................................................................................................
21
69
59
49
Croakers
..........................................................................................................
8
5
4
3
Dungeness
.......................................................................................................
1,583
2,438
2,301
2,137
VerDate
Jan<
31>
2003
19:
17
Mar
18,
2003
Jkt
200001
PO
00000
Frm
00045
Fmt
4701
Sfmt
4702
E:\
FR\
FM\
19MRP2.
SGM
19MRP2
13566
Federal
Register
/
Vol.
68,
No.
53
/
Wednesday,
March
19,
2003
/
Proposed
Rules
TABLE
X
 
29B.
 
ANNUAL
COMMERCIAL
FISHING
GROSS
REVENUES
LOST
DUE
TO
IMPINGEMENT
AT
OCEAN
FACILITIES
IN
THE
NORTHERN
CALIFORNIA
REGION
 
Continued
Species
Estimated
pounds
of
harvest
lost
Estimated
Value
of
Harvest
Lost
(
in
dollars)

Undiscounted
Discounted
using
3%
discount
rate
Discounted
using
7%
discount
rate
Flounders
.........................................................................................................
210
65
62
59
Rock
crabs
.......................................................................................................
1
1
1
1
Rockfishes
.......................................................................................................
592
325
256
191
Sculpins
...........................................................................................................
1
3
3
3
Surfperches
......................................................................................................
9
13
12
11
Total
..........................................................................................................
2,424
2,920
2,699
2,454
TABLE
X
 
30A.
 
ANNUAL
COMMERCIAL
FISHING
GROSS
REVENUES
LOST
DUE
TO
ENTRAINMENT
AT
ESTUARY
FACILITIES
IN
THE
NORTHERN
CALIFORNIA
REGION
Species
Estimated
pounds
of
harvest
lost
Estimated
value
of
harvest
lost
(
in
dollars)

Undiscounted
Discounted
using
3%
discount
rate
Discounted
using
7%
discount
rate
Anchovies
............................................................................................................
525
$
42
$
39
$
36
Cabezon
...............................................................................................................
25
82
69
55
California
halibut
..................................................................................................
1,076
2,701
2,145
1,600
Croakers
..............................................................................................................
0
0
0
0
Dungeness
...........................................................................................................
37,273
57,400
52,594
47,024
Flounders
.............................................................................................................
192
59
55
50
Herrings
...............................................................................................................
69,974
14,695
12,864
10,893
Rock
crabs
...........................................................................................................
490
558
492
419
Rockfishes
...........................................................................................................
10
6
4
3
Sculpins
...............................................................................................................
2,096
5,490
5,087
4,612
Smelts
..................................................................................................................
15
4
4
3
Total
..............................................................................................................
111,675
81,039
73,353
64,696
TABLE
X
 
30B.
 
ANNUAL
COMMERCIAL
FISHING
GROSS
REVENUES
LOST
DUE
TO
ENTRAINMENT
AT
OCEAN
FACILITIES
IN
THE
NORTHERN
CALIFORNIA
REGION
Species
Estimated
pounds
of
harvest
lost
Estimated
value
of
harvest
lost
(
in
dollars)

Undiscounted
Discounted
using
3%
discount
rate
Discounted
using
7%
discount
rate
Anchovies
............................................................................................................
8
$
1
$
1
$
1
Cabezon
...............................................................................................................
179
595
495
394
California
halibut
..................................................................................................
2,816
7,067
5,604
4,177
Croakers
..............................................................................................................
0
0
0
0
Flounders
.............................................................................................................
427
132
123
112
Herrings
...............................................................................................................
39,634
8,323
7,286
6,170
Rock
crabs
...........................................................................................................
12,467
14,212
12,532
10,659
Rockfishes
...........................................................................................................
243
134
102
73
Sculpins
...............................................................................................................
621
1,627
1,507
1,366
Smelts
..................................................................................................................
18
5
4
4
Total
..............................................................................................................
56,413
32,096
27,655
22,956
6.
Total
Recreational
and
Commercial
Losses
from
Baseline
Impingement
and
Entrainment
in
the
Northern
California
Region
Table
X
 
31
presents
EPA's
estimates
of
total
baseline
welfare
losses
from
impingement
and
entrainment
at
cooling
water
intake
structures
in
the
Northern
California
region.
Total
commercial
and
recreational
fishing
losses
are
1.5
million
per
year
for
all
species
and
fishing
modes,
before
discounting.
Discounting
these
total
baseline
welfare
losses
by
3%
and
7%
yields
total
losses
of
$
1.3
million
and
$
1.1
million,
respectively.

VerDate
Jan<
31>
2003
19:
17
Mar
18,
2003
Jkt
200001
PO
00000
Frm
00046
Fmt
4701
Sfmt
4702
E:\
FR\
FM\
19MRP2.
SGM
19MRP2
13567
Federal
Register
/
Vol.
68,
No.
53
/
Wednesday,
March
19,
2003
/
Proposed
Rules
23
The
estuary/
tidal
river
facilities
incorporated
in
this
estimate
include
Salem,
Big
Bend,
and
Brayton
Point.
The
ocean
facilities
are
Seabrook
and
Pilgrim.
24
Although
the
percentages
vary
by
case
study,
the
same
trend
occurs
in
the
other
case
studies.
For
example,
the
total
percentage
unvalued
in
the
Great
Lake
case
study
(
J.
R.
Whiting
and
Monroe)
was
99.92
percent.
For
example,
the
total
percentage
unvalued
in
the
Great
Lake
case
study
(
J.
R.
Whiting
and
Monroe)
was
99.92
percent.
Note
that
some
use
value
for
forage
fish
is
accounted
for
in
the
commercial
and
recreational
fishing
benefits
through
trophic
transfer.
However,
trophic
transfer
accounts
for
a
small
percentage
of
total
recreational
and
commercial
yield.
TABLE
X
 
31.
 
ESTIMATED
COMMERCIAL
AND
RECREATIONAL
BASELINE
WELFARE
LOSSES
IN
NORTHERN
CALIFORNIA
FROM
IMPINGEMENT
AND
ENTRAINMENT
(
2002$)
a
Benefit
type
Before
discounting
Discounting
using
3%
discount
rate
Discounted
using
7%
discount
rate
Recreational
.................................................................................................................................
$
1,432,645
$
1,224,284
$
1,050,991
Commercial
b
................................................................................................................................
62,055
54,662
46,801
Total
......................................................................................................................................
1,494,700
1,278,946
1,097,792
a
Welfare
losses
represent
losses
due
to
both
impingement
and
entrainment
because
recreational
estimates
cannot
be
presented
separately
for
these
categories.
b
Based
on
40
percent
of
gross
revenues,
or
upper
bound
of
0
 
40
percent
range
assumed
to
represent
producer
surplus.

7.
Estimated
Use
Benefits
of
Proposed
Regulatory
Options
for
the
Northern
California
Region
Table
X
 
32
presents
EPA's
estimates
of
total
welfare
gain
from
postcompliance
impingement
and
entrainment
reduction
at
cooling
water
intake
structures
in
the
Northern
California
region.
Total
commercial
and
recreational
fishing
gains
are
$
0.85
million
per
year
for
all
species
and
fishing
modes,
before
discounting.
Discounting
the
estimated
welfare
gain
by
3%
and
7%
yields
total
losses
of
$
0.71
million
and
$
0.64
million,
respectively.

TABLE
X
 
32.
 
ESTIMATED
DISCOUNTED
COMMERCIAL
AND
RECREATIONAL
REDUCED
WELFARE
LOSSES
IN
NORTHERN
CALIFORNIA
FROM
IMPINGEMENT
AND
ENTRAINMENT
(
2002$)
A
Benefit
type
Expected
%
reduction
Before
discounting
Discounted
using
3%
discount
rate
Discounted
using
7%
discount
rate
Recreational
.........................................................................................................
55.2%
$
790,560
$
663,965
$
596,551
Commercial
b
........................................................................................................
36.7
22,755
19,514
16,208
Total
..............................................................................................................
54.4
847,448
712,749
637,080
a
Welfare
losses
represent
losses
due
to
both
impingement
and
entrainment
because
recreational
estimates
cannot
be
presented
separately
for
these
categories.
b
Based
on
40
percent
of
gross
revenues,
or
upper
bound
of
0
 
40
percent
range
assumed
to
represent
producer
surplus.

E.
Nonuse
Benefits
Reducing
impingement
and
entrainment
losses
of
fish
and
shellfish
results
in
both
use
and
nonuse
benefits.
Impingement
and
entrainment
losses
to
commercial
and
recreational
fish
that
are
harvested
by
fishermen
can
be
valued
as
direct
use
benefits.
Methodologies
for
estimating
use
values
for
recreational
and
commercial
species
are
well
developed,
and
some
of
these
species
have
been
extensively
studied.
As
a
result,
these
values
are
relatively
easy
to
estimate.
The
portion
of
impingement
and
entrainment
losses
consisting
of
fish
that
are
recreationally
and
commercially
landed,
however,
represented
only
approximately
0.15
percent
of
the
total
age
one
equivalent
impingement
and
entrainment
losses
at
five
estuary/
tidal
river
and
ocean
case
study
facilities
evaluated
for
the
section
316(
b)
Phase
II
proposal
(
See
Appendix
4
of
Estimating
Total
and
Nonuse
Values
for
Fish,
Based
on
Habitat
Values
for
Coastal
Wetlands
and
Eelgrass
(
SAV)
DCN
5
 
1010.)
23
The
remaining
impingement
and
entrainment
losses
at
these
five
facilities
are
distributed
as
follows:
 
Unharvested
recreational
and
commercial
fish
represent
0.77
percent
of
the
total
age
one
equivalent
impingement
and
entrainment
losses,
 
Forage
fish
represent
99.08
percent
of
the
total
age
one
equivalent
loss.
Neither
forage
species
nor
the
unlanded
portion
of
recreational
and
commercial
species
have
direct
uses;
therefore,
they
do
not
have
direct
use
values.
The
lack
of
use
values
for
the
unlanded
fish
means
that
EPA
did
not
directly
value
approximately
99.85
percent
of
the
total
age
one
equivalent
impingement
and
entrainment
losses
at
the
five
cooling
water
intake
structures
discussed
above.
24
Although
individuals
do
not
use
these
resources
directly,
they
may
nevertheless
care
about
and
be
affected
by
changes
in
their
status
or
quality.
Monetary
expression
of
individuals'
preferences
for
these
resources
is
known
as
nonuse
value.
Both
commercial
and
recreational
fishermen,
as
well
as
those
who
do
not
use
the
resource,
may
have
nonuse
values
for
these
species.
Given
that
aquatic
species
without
any
direct
uses
account
for
the
majority
of
cooling
water
intake
structure
losses,
it
is
important
to
try
to
account
for
nonuse
values
in
the
benefits
analysis.
Stated
preference
methods,
or
benefit
transfers
based
on
stated
preference
studies,
are
the
only
generally
accepted
techniques
for
estimating
nonuse
values.
Stated
preference
methods
rely
on
surveys,
which
ask
people
to
state
their
willingness
to
pay
for
particular
ecological
improvements,
such
as
increased
protection
of
aquatic
species
or
habitats
with
particular
attributes.
Benefits
transfer
involves
adapting
research
conducted
for
another
purpose,
from
the
available
literature,
to
address
the
policy
questions
at
hand.
It
is
not
feasible
to
conduct
a
primary
statedpreference
study
for
the
section
316(
b)
rule,
because
of
the
regulatory
schedule
and
the
time
and
significant
resources
VerDate
Jan<
31>
2003
19:
17
Mar
18,
2003
Jkt
200001
PO
00000
Frm
00047
Fmt
4701
Sfmt
4702
E:\
FR\
FM\
19MRP2.
SGM
19MRP2
13568
Federal
Register
/
Vol.
68,
No.
53
/
Wednesday,
March
19,
2003
/
Proposed
Rules
necessary
to
properly
perform
such
a
study.
Thus,
EPA's
analysis
of
nonuse
benefits
of
the
section
316(
b)
regulation
relies
on
benefits
transfer.
As
noted
above,
however,
stated
preference
methods
have
several
limitations
that
must
be
considered
when
conducting
benefits
transfer.
EPA
recognizes
that
benefits
transfer
of
stated
preferencebased
WTP
estimates
to
a
policy
context
that
differs
from
the
study
context
can
be
problematic,
given
the
significant
influence
of
context
on
statedpreference
values.
EPA
is
still
considering
whether
the
underlying
studies
in
the
current
analysis
are
close
enough
to
the
policy
context
to
warrant
benefits
transfer
and
requests
comment
on
this
issue.
For
the
proposed
rule
analysis,
EPA
used
a
``
50
percent''
rule
to
estimate
nonuse
benefits
from
reducing
impingement
and
entrainment
losses
(
see
the
proposed
rule
Case
Study
Analysis
for
detail,
available
at
http://
www.
epa.
gov/
waterscience/
316b/).
The
Agency
received
numerous
comments
on
this
approach.
Specifically,
commenters
argued
that
the
``
50
percent
rule''
is
outdated
and
that
EPA
needs
to
revise
this
approach
based
on
more
recent
studies
of
use
and
nonuse
benefits
associated
with
environmental
quality
improvements.
In
response
to
public
comments,
EPA
has
developed
a
revised
analysis
of
nonuse
benefits
and
is
requesting
comment
in
the
NODA
on
this
revised
methodology.
First,
the
Agency
developed
a
benefit
transfer
approach
that
combines
an
estimate
of
the
amount
of
habitat
required
to
offset
impingement
and
entrainment
losses
(
including
forage
species
and
the
unlanded
portion
of
commercial
and
recreational
species)
by
means
of
wild
fish
production
with
a
benefits
transfer
estimate
of
WTP
for
aquatic
habitat
preservation/
restoration.
The
following
section
briefly
summarizes
this
approach.
Second,
EPA
reviewed
available
evidence
concerning
total
benefits
(
including
use
and
nonuse
values)
from
the
surface
water
valuation
studies
that
are
potentially
applicable
to
the
section
316(
b)
regulation.
Section
E.
2
below
discusses
EPA's
review
of
these
studies
and
outlines
further
steps
in
analyzing
nonuse
and
use
benefits
from
available
economic
literature.

1.
Benefit
Transfer
Approach
The
methodology
used
in
this
analysis
uses
values
that
survey
respondents
indicated
for
preservation/
restoration
of
eelgrass
(
submerged
aquatic
vegetation,
SAV),
and
wetlands
to
evaluate
losses
of
fishery
resources.
Because
one
of
the
results
of
aquatic
habitat
preservation/
restoration
is
increased
production
of
fish
and
shellfish,
it
may
be
appropriate
to
use
valuation
of
habitat
restoration
as
a
proxy
for
the
value
of
the
fish
and
shellfish
lost
due
to
impingement
and
entrainment.
The
method
used
by
EPA
in
this
NODA
for
such
indirect
valuation
first
assesses
respondents'
values
for
habitats
that
play
a
significant
role
in
the
production
of
fish
or
shellfish,
and
then
estimates
the
quantity
of
such
habitat
required
to
replace
fish
and
shellfish
lost
to
impingement
and
entrainment.
These
data
are
then
combined
to
yield
an
indirect
estimate
of
household
values
for
fish
and
shellfish.
Survey
respondents
were
asked
to
value
acres
of
habitat
(
e.
g.,
eelgrass
or
wetlands)
without
knowing
the
exact
quantities
of
each
species
produced
by
the
habitat.
These
values
per
acre
were
then
translated,
using
estimates
of
fish
abundance
in
these
habitats,
into
values
for
specific
species
and
quantities
of
fish
or
shellfish.
The
habitat
valuation
study
used
in
this
analysis
specifically
described
eelgrass
as
``
habitat
for
fish
and
shellfish.''
The
authors
of
this
study
concluded,
based
on
comments
made
by
participants
in
focus
groups,
that
the
survey
population
was
familiar
with
both
eelgrass
and
wetlands,
and
that
they
associated
both
of
these
habitats
with
production
of
and
habitat
for
fish
and
shellfish.
Another
study
(
Johnston
et
al.,
2002)
found
that
ecological
improvements
to
statewide
fish
and
shellfish
populations
were
among
the
attributes
that
affected
respondents'
relative
valuation
of
various
wetlands
restoration
projects.
This
suggests
that
respondents
in
the
habitat
valuation
study
were
aware
of
the
fish
production
``
services''
provided
by
SAV
(
eelgrass),
and
may
have
been
aware
of
the
fish
production
``
services''
provided
by
wetlands.
EPA's
approach
to
estimating
values
for
fish
and
shellfish
habitats
needed
to
offset
impingement
and
entrainment
losses
of
fish
involves
three
general
steps:
 
Estimate
the
amount
of
wetland
and
eelgrass
habitat
needed
to
produce
organisms
to
the
level
necessary
to
offset
impingement
and
entrainment
losses
for
the
subset
of
species
for
which
production
information
is
available;
 
Develop
willingness
to
pay
(
WTP)
values
for
the
fish
production
services
of
the
relevant
habitat
types;
and
 
Estimate
the
value
of
impingement
and
entrainment
losses,
based
on
values
for
the
restored
habitat
required
to
offset
impingement
and
entrainment
losses,
by
multiplying
the
WTP
values
for
the
fish
and
shellfish
production
services
per
acre
of
restored
eelgrass
and
wetland
habitat
by
the
required
number
of
restored
acres
of
each
habitat
type.
The
Agency
solicits
comments
on
whether
this
approach
provides
a
more
comprehensive
value
that
addresses
all
impingement
and
entrainment
losses.
The
following
NODA
sections
briefly
summarize
this
benefits
transfer
approach
and
its
application
to
estimating
the
value
of
the
fish
habitat
required
to
offset
impingement
and
entrainment
losses
in
the
North
Atlantic
Region.
Additional
detail
on
the
methods
and
data
EPA
will
use
throughout
this
analysis
are
provided
in
``
Estimating
Total
and
Nonuse
Values
for
Fish,
Based
on
Habitat
Values
for
Coastal
Wetlands
and
Eelgrass''
(
DCN
5
 
1010)
that
accompanies
this
NODA.

a.
Estimating
the
Amount
of
Different
Habitat
Types
Needed
To
Offset
Impingement
and
Entrainment
Losses
for
Specific
Species
The
first
step
in
the
analysis
involves
calculating
the
area
of
SAV
or
wetland
habitat
needed
to
offset
impingement
and
entrainment
losses,
for
the
subset
of
species
for
which
restoration
of
these
habitats
was
identified
by
local
experts
as
the
preferred
restoration
alternative,
and
for
which
production
information
is
available;
i.
e.,
the
habitat
that
will
produce
the
equivalent
quantity
of
fish
impinged
and
entrained.
Details
on
this
analysis
are
provided
in
Estimating
Total
and
Nonuse
Values
for
Fish,
Based
on
Habitat
Values
for
Coastal
Wetlands
and
Eelgrass,
DCN
5
 
1010,
that
accompanies
this
NODA.
Table
X
 
33
presents
lower
and
upper
bound
estimates
of
the
total
wetland
and
SAV
restoration
required
to
offset
North
Atlantic
impingement
and
entrainment.
These
estimates
reflect
the
acreage
needed
for
the
species
requiring
the
maximum
quantity
of
habitat
restoration
to
offset
its
impingement
and
entrainment
losses.
The
amount
of
tidal
wetland
restoration
in
the
North
Atlantic
region
is
based
on
the
acreage
required
for
winter
flounder.
The
lower
bound
estimate
is
winter
flounder
restoration
estimate
derived
for
Brayton
Point
and
the
upper
bound
estimate
is
the
estimate
for
Pilgrim.
The
lower
bound
estimate
for
regional
SAV
restoration
is
based
on
the
acreage
needed
for
northern
pipefish
at
Pilgrim
and
the
upper
bound
estimate
is
based
on
the
acreage
needed
for
scup
at
Brayton
Point.

VerDate
Jan<
31>
2003
19:
17
Mar
18,
2003
Jkt
200001
PO
00000
Frm
00048
Fmt
4701
Sfmt
4702
E:\
FR\
FM\
19MRP2.
SGM
19MRP2
13569
Federal
Register
/
Vol.
68,
No.
53
/
Wednesday,
March
19,
2003
/
Proposed
Rules
25
Further
detail
on
fish
SAV
in
the
North
and
mid­
Atlantic
can
be
found
in
Wyda,
et
al,
2002
``
The
response
of
fishes
to
submerged
aquatic
vegetation
complexity
in
two
ecoregions
of
the
Mid­
Atlantic
Bight:
Buzzards
Bay
and
Chesapeake
Bay''
(
see
DCN
5
 
1318).
26
Note
that
this
is
not
strictly
true
for
wetlands,
because
other
services
exist
that
allow
for
use
values
such
as
birdwatching.
The
value
of
wetlands
is
adjusted
to
reflect
fish
production
services
only
in
the
section
on
wetlands
below.
TABLE
X
 
33.
 
LOWER
AND
UPPER
BOUND
ESTIMATES
OF
TOTAL
WETLAND
AND
SAV
RESTORATION
REQUIRED
TO
OFFSET
NORTH
ATLANTIC
IMPINGEMENT
AND
ENTRAINMENT
Habitat
restoration
category
Lower
bound
on
required
number
of
acres
Upper
bound
on
required
number
of
acres
Tidal
wetland
restoration
.....
25,589
43,813
SAV
restoration
151
1,205
These
estimates
are
derived
from
abundance
data
for
these
species
in
wetland
and
SAV
habitats.
Abundance
data
were
used
because
estimates
of
production
rates
in
these
habitats
are
not
available
for
the
species
of
interest.
Individuals
were
counted
within
subsampling
areas
of
the
habitats
(
e.
g.,
100
square
meters),
and
the
resulting
counts
were
scaled
up
to
derive
per
acre
density
estimates
by
species.
Usable
data
were
available
for
three
species
for
which
impingement
and
entrainment
data
were
also
available
that
were
found
in
wetlands
(
winter
flounder,
Atlantic
silverside,
and
striped
killifish)
and
for
three
species
that
were
found
in
SAV
(
threespine
stickleback,
northern
pipefish,
and
scup).
The
amount
of
wetlands
acreage
needed
to
restore
impingement
and
entrainment
losses
ranged
from
11
 
12
acres
for
killifish
to
25,589
 
48,813
acres
for
winter
flounder.
While
it
is
not
known
how
many
acres
would
be
needed
for
the
many
other
species
found
in
wetlands,
it
appears
from
the
available
data
that
the
acreage
needed
for
winter
flounder
significantly
overstates
the
acreage
needed
for
other
species,
and
restoring
this
many
acres
would
lead
to
more
than
offsetting
increases
in
these
other
species.
For
SAV,
the
acreage
estimated
ranged
from
105
 
180
acres
for
threespine
stickleback,
to
1205
acres
for
scup.
EPA
requests
comment
on
using
abundance
data
for
these
analyses.
EPA
also
requests
comment
on
using
the
species
that
require
the
maximum
quantity
of
habitat
to
offset
impingement
and
entrainment
losses
as
the
basis
for
estimating
the
total
habitat
required
to
offset
regional
losses.
Finally,
EPA
requests
comment
on
using
estimates
of
fish
production
per
acre
as
the
basis
for
benefits
transfer,
given
that
respondents
were
likely
not
aware
of
the
quantitative
relationship
between
habitat
and
fish
production
when
they
provided
valuation
information.

b.
Developing
WTP
Values
for
Fish
Production
Services
Provided
by
Submerged
Aquatic
Vegetation
and
Wetlands
for
the
North
Atlantic
Region
For
the
North
Atlantic
Region,
EPA
based
the
benefit
transfer
of
both
total
and
nonuse
values
for
fish
habitat
provided
by
eelgrass
and
wetlands
on
a
site­
specific
study
of
the
Peconic
Estuary,
located
on
the
East
End
of
Long
Island,
New
York
(
Johnston
et
al.,
2001a,
Opaluch
et
al.,
1995,
1998;
Mazzotta,
1996).
For
detail
on
the
Peconic
Estuary
study
used
in
this
analysis
see
DCN's
5
 
1275,
5
 
1292,
5
 
1293,
and
5
 
1284.
Conducted
in
1995,
the
study
provides
information
for
the
Peconic
Estuary
Program's
Comprehensive
Conservation
and
Management
Plan
(
see
http://
www.
savethepeconicbays.
org/
ccmp/).
Both
eelgrass
and
wetlands
located
in
the
Peconic
Estuary
support
aquatic
species
that
are
found
throughout
the
North
Atlantic
region
and
that
are
likely
to
be
affected
by
impingement
and
entrainment
(
e.
g.,
bay
anchovy,
Atlantic
silverside,
scup,
summer
flounder,
winter
flounder,
windowpane
flounder,
weakfish,
tautog,
bay
scallops,
and
hard
clams).
25
The
Peconic
Estuary
study
thus
provides
values
for
eelgrass
and
wetlands
that
may
be
representative
of
habitat
needed
to
produce
many
of
the
species
affected
by
impingement
and
entrainment
at
power
plants.
EPA
will
further
evaluate
applicability
of
the
habitat
in
the
Peconic
study
to
other
study
regions
such
as
the
mid­
Atlantic.
EPA
will
also
evaluate
other
aquatic
habitat
valuation
studies
for
their
applicability
to
the
analysis
of
benefits
of
the
section
316(
b)
rule
in
other
regions.
EPA
re­
estimated
the
Peconic
model
with
separate
coefficients
for
users
and
nonusers
of
fishery
resources
in
order
to
separate
out
nonuse
values.
The
Agency
defined
users
as
those
who
stated
that
they
either
fish
or
shellfish.
These
individuals
have
both
nonuse
and
indirect
use
values
from
the
fish
habitat
services
of
eelgrass
and
wetlands.
EPA
estimated
nonuse
values
only
for
those
who
do
not
fish
or
shellfish.
26
Table
X
 
34
presents
the
Peconic
model
results.
For
eelgrass,
the
value
for
nonusers
is
77.7
percent
of
the
total
value
for
users.
For
wetlands,
the
value
for
nonusers
is
94.4
percent
of
the
total
value
for
users.
Nonuse
values,
defined
here
as
total
values
for
nonusers
of
the
fishery
resources,
represent
a
large
portion
of
the
total
value
estimated
in
the
study.
Nonusers
assigned
similar
values
to
both
types
of
habitat,
while
users
assigned
a
slightly
higher
value
to
eelgrass,
perhaps
because
it
was
explicitly
identified
on
the
survey
as
fish
and
shellfish
habitat.
It
is
difficult
to
determine
ex
post
why
the
values
for
eelgrass
and
wetlands
are
similar
for
nonusers.
However,
the
fact
that
nonusers
assigned
similar
values
to
both
types
of
habitat
may
indicate
that
they
did
not
significantly
differentiate
the
two
habitat
types
on
dimensions
affecting
valuation
or,
alternatively,
they
differentiated
among
habitat
types,
but
assigned
similar
values.
Since
SAV
was
explicitly
identified
as
fish
and
shellfish
habitat
and
wetlands
was
not,
this
may
mean
that
fish
and
shellfish
services
were
not
a
significant
attribute
affecting
respondents'
valuation,
or,
alternatively
that
they
were
aware
that
wetlands
also
provide
habitat
for
fish
and
shellfish
based
on
knowledge
external
to
the
survey.

TABLE
X
 
34.
 
ESTIMATED
WTP
VALUES
PER
HOUSEHOLD
FROM
THE
PECONIC
STUDY
(
2002$)
a
Wetlands
b
Eelgrass
(
SAV)

$/
HH/
Acre/
Year
c
Nonuse
value
%
$/
HH/
Acre/
Year
c
Nonuse
value
%

All
Residents
................................................................................................................................................
0.056
95.80
0.063
82.40
Users
............................................................................................................................................................
0.057
94.40
0.067
77.70
Nonusers
d
....................................................................................................................................................
0.054
100.0
0.052
100.0
a
EPA
made
dollar
value
adjustments
using
the
Consumer
Price
Index
for
all
urban
consumers
for
the
first
half
of
2002.

VerDate
Jan<
31>
2003
19:
17
Mar
18,
2003
Jkt
200001
PO
00000
Frm
00049
Fmt
4701
Sfmt
4702
E:\
FR\
FM\
19MRP2.
SGM
19MRP2
13570
Federal
Register
/
Vol.
68,
No.
53
/
Wednesday,
March
19,
2003
/
Proposed
Rules
b
Note
that
wetlands
values
presented
here
are
WTP
for
all
wetland
services,
not
just
fish
habitat
services.
The
adjustment
for
fish
habitat
values
appears
below.
c
Values
shown
are
WTP
per
household
per
additional
(
i.
e,
marginal)
acre
per
year.
d
Nonusers
are
defined
as
respondents
who
neither
fish
nor
shellfish.

Because
coastal
wetlands
provide
a
number
of
services
(
e.
g.,
habitat,
water
purification,
storm
buffering,
and
aesthetics),
EPA
attempted
to
separate
values
for
fish
habitat
from
values
for
other
wetland
services.
Given
survey
data
available
from
the
Peconic
Study,
however,
there
is
no
direct
means
to
estimate
the
proportion
of
total
wetland
value
associated
with
fish
and
shellfish
habitat
services
alone.
EPA
therefore
used
a
stated
preference
study
from
Narragansett
Bay,
Rhode
Island
to
adjust
wetland
values
to
reflect
fish
and
shellfish
habitat
services
(
Johnston
et
al.,
2002,
(
DCN
5
 
1273
).
Based
on
the
Johnston
et
al.
(
2002)
study,
the
proportion
of
saltwater
wetland
value
associated
with
fish
habitat
is
0.2564;
and
the
proportion
of
value
associated
with
shellfish
habitat
is
0.2778.
For
detail
on
estimating
the
proportion
of
wetland
value
associated
with
fish
and
shellfish
habitat
services
see
Estimating
Nonuse
Values
for
Fish
Based
on
Habitat
Values
for
Coastal
Wetlands
and
Eelgrass
(
SAV),
provided
in
DCN
5
 
1010.
Briefly,
the
Johnston
et
al.
study
asked
survey
respondents
to
choose
among
different
hypothetical
restoration
projects
based
on
attributes
of
these
projects.
Attributes
of
hypothetical
restoration
plans
characterized
relative
statewide
improvement
in
bird
populations,
fish
populations,
shellfish
populations,
and
mosquito
control.
On
average
these
attributes
received
roughly
equal
weight
in
the
valuations
(
with
bird
populations
being
weighted
a
little
less
heavily,
and
mosquito
control
a
little
more
heavily
than
the
other
two).
Based
on
model
results,
the
authors
concluded
that
roughly
one­
fourth
of
the
value
derived
from
each
project
was
attributable
to
each
type
of
services.
The
Peconic
survey
described
eelgrass
specifically
as
fish
and
shellfish
habitat.
EPA
is
not
aware
of
other
direct
uses
of
eelgrass.
Based
on
focus
groups
during
survey
development
and
pretesting,
the
authors
concluded
that
individuals
were
aware
of
eelgrass
and
its
importance
for
fish
and
shellfish
production.
Thus,
EPA
assigned
all
of
the
estimated
WTP
for
SAV
restoration
to
fish
and
shellfish
production
services.
Based
on
these
same
focus
groups
and
pretests
the
authors
also
concluded
that,
individuals
were
aware
of
and
valued
a
number
of
functions
of
wetlands,
including
fish
and
other
wildlife
habitat,
storm
buffering,
and
aesthetics.
Therefore,
EPA
assigned
only
a
portion
of
the
estimated
WTP
for
wetlands
restoration
to
fish
habitat
services,
based
on
results
from
the
Johnston
et
al.
study
described
above.
EPA
requests
comment
on
its
methodology
for
assigning
a
share
of
WTP
to
``
fish
production
services''
for
each
habitat
type.
EPA
estimated
the
value
of
saltwater
wetlands
associated
with
fish
and
shellfish
habitat
services
by
multiplying
the
proportions
presented
above
by
the
total
wetland
values
from
the
Peconic
Estuary
study.
Table
X
 
35
presents
the
final
per
household
values
for
an
acre
of
wetlands
that
were
ascribed
to
fish
and
shellfish
habitat
services.
Because
the
overall
values
of
Peconic
Estuary
residents
for
eelgrass
and
wetlands
are
similar,
once
adjustments
are
made
to
wetlands
values
to
ascribe
a
portion
to
fish
habitat
services,
the
values
for
fish
and
shellfish
habitat
of
eelgrass
are
estimated
as
four
times
higher
than
those
for
fish
habitat
only
for
wetlands.
EPA
requests
comments
on
whether
such
adjustments
are
appropriate
and
whether
further
adjustments
are
needed
for
eelgrass
values.

TABLE
X
 
35.
 
ESTIMATED
WTP
VALUES
PER
HOUSEHOLD
FOR
FISH
AND
SHELLFISH
HABITAT
SERVICES
OF
WETLANDS
(
2002$)
FROM
THE
PECONIC
STUDY
$/
HH/
Acre/
Year
a
Fish
habitat
%
$/
HH/
Acre/
Yearfor
fish
habitat
b
Shellfish
habitat
%
$/
HH/
Acre/
Year
for
shellfish
habitat
c
All
Residents
................................................................................................................
0.056
25.64
0.014
27.78
0.016
Users
............................................................................................................................
0.057
25.64
0.015
27.78
0.016
Nonusers
d
....................................................................................................................
0.054
25.64
0.014
27.78
0.015
a
Values
shown
are
WTP
per
household
per
additional
(
i.
e,
marginal)
acre
per
year.
b
Total
value
per
acre
per
year
times
25.64
percent.
c
Total
value
per
acre
per
year
times
27.78
percent.
d
Note
that
wetland
values
for
fish
and
shellfish
services
are
not
linearly
additive
within
the
same
acreage,
due
to
the
functional
form
use
in
Johnston
et
al
(
2002).

c.
Estimating
Total
and
Nonuse
Values
for
Fish
Production
Services
Provided
by
Submerged
Aquatic
Vegetation
and
Wetlands
in
the
North
Atlantic
Region
The
SAV
and
wetland
values
from
the
Peconic
study
presented
in
Table
X
 
34
and
Table
X
 
35
are
per
household
values
for
individuals
residing
in
towns
bordering
the
Peconic
Estuary.
Estimating
the
total
value
per
acre
of
SAV
and
wetlands
requires
defining
and
using
the
affected
population
for
the
study
area.
The
Peconic
study
defined
the
affected
population
as
the
total
number
of
households
(
both
year­
round
and
seasonal)
in
the
towns
bordering
the
Peconic
Estuary.
Similarly,
EPA
defines
the
affected
population
as
households
residing
in
the
counties
that
abut
the
water
bodies
in
the
North
Atlantic
Region.
These
households
are
likely
to
value
gains
of
fish
or
shellfish
in
the
nearby
water
body
due
to
their
close
proximity
to
the
affected
resource.
Analysis
of
data
from
the
Rhode
Island
Salt
Marsh
Restoration
Survey
(
Johnston
et
al.
2002)
reveals
that
values
were
ascribed
to
even
relatively
smallscale
salt
marsh
restoration
actions
(
i.
e.,
3
 
12
acres)
were
stated
by
respondents
from
various
parts
of
the
state.
EPA
thus
assumed
for
the
current
analysis
that
residents
within
a
similar
distance
from
the
coast
as
residents
in
the
Johnston
et
al.
(
2002)
study
would
have
positive
values
for
improving
fish
habitat.
EPA
calculated
the
average
distance
from
Johnston's
studied
locations
to
the
farthest
edges
of
Rhode
Island,
which
totaled
32.43
miles.
The
Agency
then
assumed
that
all
households
living
within
the
same
distance
of
the
affected
VerDate
Jan<
31>
2003
19:
17
Mar
18,
2003
Jkt
200001
PO
00000
Frm
00050
Fmt
4701
Sfmt
4702
E:\
FR\
FM\
19MRP2.
SGM
19MRP2
13571
Federal
Register
/
Vol.
68,
No.
53
/
Wednesday,
March
19,
2003
/
Proposed
Rules
resource
as
Rhode
Island
residents
from
the
studied
resource
would
also
value
fish
habitat
improvements
in
their
affected
water
body.
Additionally,
EPA
notes
that
a
study
by
Pate
and
Loomis
(
1997)
found
that
respondents
outside
the
political
jurisdiction
in
which
a
study
site
is
located
were
also
willing
to
ascribe
stated
preference
values
to
the
amenity
being
studied.
The
study
was
designed
to
determine
the
effect
of
distance
on
WTP
for
public
goods
with
large
nonuse
values.
Specifically,
the
study
evaluated
environmental
programs
designed
to
improve
wetlands
habitat
and
wildlife
in
the
San
Joaquin
Valley.
It
compared
WTP
values
for
households
residing
in
the
San
Joaquin
Valley,
California,
to
values
for
California
households
outside
the
Valley,
and
to
households
in
Washington
State,
Oregon,
and
Nevada.
The
study
found
that
WTP
values
for
California
residents
outside
the
Valley
were
97.7
percent
of
the
WTP
of
the
Valley
residents.
WTP
values
for
Oregon
residents
were
approximately
27
percent
of
the
WTP
of
the
Valley
residents.
As
with
the
Rhode
Island
study,
care
should
be
taken
in
interpreting
these
results.
In
this
analysis,
EPA
calculated
per
acre
WTP
values
using
two
different
definitions
of
affected
populations:
(
1)
The
average
number
of
households
residing
in
counties
abutting
the
affected
water
body
and
(
2)
the
average
number
of
households
living
within
the
32.4
mile
radius
of
each
affected
water
body
in
the
region.
Average
per
acre
values
for
SAV
and
wetlands
were
calculated
based
on
these
estimates
of
the
average
affected
population
for
each
facility.
The
average
number
of
affected
households
in
counties
abutting
affected
water
bodies
is
210,357
and
the
average
number
of
households
within
a
32.4
mile
radius
of
each
facility
is
737,711.
Detailed
information
used
in
calculating
the
average
number
of
affected
households
in
counties
abutting
affected
water
bodies
and
the
average
number
of
households
within
a
32.4
mile
radius
of
each
facility
is
provided
in
DCN
5
 
1008.
Table
X
 
36
presents
an
average
value
per
acre
per
year
for
restored
SAV
for
households
in
the
counties
abutting
the
affected
water
bodies
and
for
households
within
the
larger
radius
(
32.4
miles),
for
the
North
Atlantic
Region.
The
total
annual
value
per
acre
for
eelgrass
(
SAV)
for
households
living
in
counties
abutting
the
region's
affected
water
bodies
is
$
13,341
for
all
residents;
and
the
total
nonuse
only
value
is
$
10,993.
The
table
also
shows
two
estimates
of
the
values
for
households
living
within
the
larger
area.
EPA
calculated
these
values
based
on
the
findings
of
Pate
and
Loomis
(
1997),
as
shown
below.
EPA
assigned
the
value
per
household
from
the
Peconic
study
to
the
average
number
of
households
residing
in
the
counties
abutting
the
affected
water
bodies
in
the
North
Atlantic
Region
(
210,357
households).
For
households
beyond
these
coastal
counties
(
an
additional
527,354
households),
EPA
multiplied
the
Peconic
values
by
97.7
percent
and
27
percent
to
provide
a
range
of
WTP
values.

TABLE
X
 
36.
 
HOUSEHOLD
WTP
VALUES
FOR
SAV
FOR
THE
NORTH
ATLANTIC
REGION
(
2002$)

Value
category
$/
HH/
Acre/
Year
a
Total
WTP/
Acre/
Year
for
HH
in
Counties
abutting
affected
water
bodies
b
Total
WTP/
Acre/
Year
for
HH
within
32.4
mile
radius
of
affected
water
body
c
97.7%
27.0%

Total
Value
.......................................................................................................................................
$
0.063
$
13,341
$
45,949
$
22,371
Nonuse
Value
d
................................................................................................................................
0.052
10,993
37,863
18,434
a
Values
shown
are
WTP
per
household
per
additional
(
i.
e,
marginal)
acre
per
year
from
the
Peconic
study.
b
Total
WTP
per
acre
is
calculated
as
household
WTP
per
acre
times
the
average
of
210,357
households
in
the
counties
abutting
affected
water
bodies.
c
Total
WTP
per
acre
is
calculated
as
household
WTP
per
acre
times
737,711,
the
average
number
of
households
within
a
32.43­
mile
radius
of
affected
water
bodies.
Adjustments
to
WTP
values
are
described
in
the
text.
d
Total
nonuse
value
is
calculated
as
value
per
acre
for
nonusers
only
times
all
households
in
the
study
area.

Table
X
 
37
presents
the
values
per
acre
per
year
for
the
fish
and
shellfish
habitat
services
of
wetlands
for
the
total
affected
population
for
the
regional
study
area.
For
the
counties
abutting
the
affected
water
bodies,
the
total
annual
value
per
acre
for
fish
habitat
services
provided
by
wetlands
is
$
3,017
for
all
households,
whereas
the
total
nonuse
only
value
is
$
2,891.
For
the
larger
area,
the
total
annual
value
per
acre
for
fish
habitat
services
provided
by
wetlands
ranges
from
$
5,059
to
$
10,390
for
all
households,
whereas
the
total
nonuse
only
value
ranges
from
$
4,848
to
$
9,958.
The
table
also
shows
the
corresponding
values
if
the
estimated
WTP
share
for
``
shellfish
production
services''
rather
than
the
WTP
for
``
fish
production
services''
is
used.

TABLE
X
 
37.
 
ESTIMATED
WTP
VALUES
FOR
FISH
AND
SHELLFISH
IN
WETLANDS
FOR
THE
NORTH
ATLANTIC
REGION
(
2002$)

$/
HH/
Acre/
Year
a
Total
WTP/
Acre/
Year
for
HH
in
Counties
abutting
affected
waterbody
b
Total
WTP/
Acre/
Year
for
HH
within
32.4
mile
radius
of
affected
water
body
c
97.7%
27%

Fish
Total
Value
.......................................................................................................................................
$
0.014
$
3,017
$
10,390
$
5,059
Nonuse
Value
c
................................................................................................................................
0.014
2,891
9,958
4,848
VerDate
Jan<
31>
2003
19:
17
Mar
18,
2003
Jkt
200001
PO
00000
Frm
00051
Fmt
4701
Sfmt
4702
E:\
FR\
FM\
19MRP2.
SGM
19MRP2
13572
Federal
Register
/
Vol.
68,
No.
53
/
Wednesday,
March
19,
2003
/
Proposed
Rules
TABLE
X
 
37.
 
ESTIMATED
WTP
VALUES
FOR
FISH
AND
SHELLFISH
IN
WETLANDS
FOR
THE
NORTH
ATLANTIC
REGION
(
2002$)
 
Continued
$/
HH/
Acre/
Year
a
Total
WTP/
Acre/
Year
for
HH
in
Counties
abutting
affected
waterbody
b
Total
WTP/
Acre/
Year
for
HH
within
32.4
mile
radius
of
affected
water
body
c
97.7%
27%

Shellfish
Total
Value
.......................................................................................................................................
$
0.016
$
3,268
$
11,258
$
5,481
Nonuse
Value
d
................................................................................................................................
0.015
3,132
10,789
5,253
a
Values
shown
are
WTP
per
household
per
additional
(
i.
e,
marginal)
acre
per
year
from
the
Peconic
study.
b
Total
WTP
per
acre
is
calculated
as
household
WTP
per
acre
times
the
average
of
210,357
households
in
the
counties
abutting
affected
water
bodies.
c
Total
WTP
per
acre
is
calculated
as
household
WTP
per
acre
times
737,711,
the
average
number
of
households
within
a
32.43­
mile
radius
of
affected
water
bodies.
d
Total
nonuse
value
is
calculated
as
value
per
acre
for
nonusers
only
times
all
households
in
the
region.

d.
Estimates
of
the
Value
of
Baseline
Impingement
and
Entrainment
Losses
for
the
North
Atlantic
Region
EPA
multiplied
the
estimated
number
of
acres
of
SAV
and
wetlands
needed
to
offset
impingement
and
entrainment
losses
for
the
North
Atlantic
region
by
the
estimated
per
acre
values
of
SAV
and
wetlands
to
assess
the
value
of
baseline
impingement
and
entrainment
losses.
As
discussed
above,
EPA
performed
this
analysis
on
the
SAV
 
and
wetlands­
dependent
species
requiring
the
maximum
restoration
acres
among
these
for
which
productivity
estimates
are
available.
Table
X
 
38
presents
the
estimated
values
for
SAV
restoration
for
the
North
Atlantic
Region.
EPA
estimated
that
between
151
and
1,204
acres
of
revegetated
SAV
(
eelgrass)
is
required
to
offset
average
annual
impingement
and
entrainment
losses
of
scup
and
northern
pipefish,
depending
on
whether
Brayton
Point
or
Pilgrim
is
used
for
the
productivity
estimates.
Based
on
the
estimated
value
per
acre
to
residents
of
counties
abutting
the
affected
water
bodies,
the
total
value
of
restoring
151
acres
of
eelgrass
is
$
2,014,450.
Nonuse
only
value
is
$
1,659,930.
The
estimated
total
value
to
all
households
residing
within
32.43
miles
from
the
affected
water
bodies,
ranges
from
$
3,377,982
to
$
6,938,316
per
year.
Nonuse
only
value
ranges
from
$
2,783,496
to
$
5,717,253.
Figures
are
given
in
2002
dollars.

TABLE
X
 
38.
 
WTP
VALUES
FOR
SAV
RESTORATION
OF
FISH
FOR
THE
NORTH
ATLANTIC
REGION
(
2002$)

Species
benefitting
from
SAV
restoration
Acres
of
required
SAV
restoration
Total
willingness
to
pay
per
acre
per
year
Counties
Abutting
Affected
Water
Bodies
Scup
Total
Value
....................................................................................................................
$
2,014,450
Threespine
stickleback
151
acres
Nonuse
Value
................................................................................................................
1,659,243
Northern
pipefish
Total
Value
....................................................................................................................
16,075,574
1,205
acres
Nonuse
Value
................................................................................................................
13,246,458
All
Households
Residing
Within
32.43
Miles
of
Affected
(
High
Estimate)

Scup
Total
Value
....................................................................................................................
$
6,938,316
Threespine
stickleback
151
acres
Nonuse
Value
................................................................................................................
5,717,253
Northern
pipefish
Total
Value
....................................................................................................................
55,368,683
1,205
acres
Nonuse
Value
................................................................................................................
45,624,433
All
Households
Residing
Within
32.43
Miles
of
Affected
Water
Bodies
(
Low
Estimate)

Scup
Total
Value
....................................................................................................................
$
3,377,982
Threespine
stickleback
151
acres
Nonuse
Value
................................................................................................................
2,783,496
Northern
pipefish
Total
Value
....................................................................................................................
26,956,743
1,205
acres
Nonuse
Value
................................................................................................................
22,212,667
VerDate
Jan<
31>
2003
19:
17
Mar
18,
2003
Jkt
200001
PO
00000
Frm
00052
Fmt
4701
Sfmt
4702
E:\
FR\
FM\
19MRP2.
SGM
19MRP2
13573
Federal
Register
/
Vol.
68,
No.
53
/
Wednesday,
March
19,
2003
/
Proposed
Rules
Table
X
 
39
presents
the
estimated
values
for
wetlands
restoration
for
the
North
Atlantic
Region.
EPA
estimated
that
between
25,589
and
43,813
acres
of
restored
tidal
wetlands
is
required
to
offset
average
annual
impingement
and
entrainment
losses
to
winter
flounder.
Based
on
the
estimated
value
per
acre
to
residents
of
counties
abutting
affected
water
bodies,
the
total
value
of
restoring
25,589
acres
of
coastal
wetlands
(
after
adjusting
for
the
estimated
portion
attributable
to
fish
production
services)
is
$
77
million
per
year,
whereas
nonuse
only
value
is
$
74
million.
For
all
households
residing
within
32.43
miles
of
affected
water
bodies,
the
total
value
of
restoring
25,589
acres
of
coastal
wetlands
ranges
from
$
129
million
to
$
266
million
per
year,
whereas
the
nonuse
only
value
ranges
from
$
124
million
to
$
254
million
for
fish
habitat
only.
Figures
are
given
in
2002
dollars.
Based
on
the
estimated
value
per
acre
to
residents
of
counties
abutting
affected
water
bodies,
the
total
value
of
restoring
43,813
acres
of
coastal
wetlands
is
$
132
million
per
year,
whereas
nonuse
only
value
is
$
127
million,
adjusted
to
fish
production
services
only.
For
all
households
residing
within
32.43
miles
of
affected
water
bodies,
the
total
value
of
restoring
43,813
acres
of
coastal
wetlands
ranges
from
$
222
to
$
455
million
per
year,
whereas
the
nonuse
only
value
ranges
from
$
212
to
$
436
million,
adjusted
to
fish
production
services
only.
Figures
are
given
in
2002
dollars.
This
analysis
does
not
include
fish
or
shellfish
losses
caused
by
thermal
discharges
which
are
covered
under
section
316(
a).
EPA
estimated
the
total
WTP
value
for
the
amount
of
habitat
required
to
offset
baseline
impingement
and
entrainment
losses
in
the
North
Atlantic
region
by
adding
the
SAV
and
wetland
values
presented
in
Table
X
 
38
and
Table
X
 
39.
Based
on
the
estimated
value
per
acre
to
residents
of
counties
abutting
the
affected
water
bodies,
the
total
value
of
habitat
required
to
offset
impingement
and
entrainment
losses
in
the
North
Atlantic
region
ranges
from
$
79
million
to
$
511
million
per
year,
whereas
nonuse
only
value
ranges
from
$
76
million
to
$
482
million.

TABLE
X
 
39.
 
WTP
VALUES
FOR
WETLANDS
RESTORATION
OF
FISH
FOR
THE
NORTH
ATLANTIC
REGION
(
2002$)

Species
Benefitting
from
tidal
wetlands
restoration
Acres
of
required
wetlands
restoration
Total
willingness
to
pay
per
acre
per
year
Counties
Abutting
Affected
Water
Bodies
Winter
flounder
Total
Value
....................................................................................................................
$
77,194,196
Atlantic
silverside
25,589
acres
Nonuse
Value
................................................................................................................
73,982,015
Striped
killifish
Total
Value
....................................................................................................................
132,170,436
43,813
acres
Nonuse
Value
................................................................................................................
126,670,601
All
Households
Residing
Within
32.43
Miles
of
Affected
(
Low
Estimate)

Winter
flounder
Total
Value
....................................................................................................................
$
265,877,962
Atlantic
silverside
25,589
acres
Nonuse
Value
................................................................................................................
254,814,331
Striped
killifish
Total
Value
....................................................................................................................
455,231,200
43,813
acres
Nonuse
Value
................................................................................................................
436,288,260
All
Households
Residing
Within
32.43
Miles
of
Affected
Water
Bodies
(
Low
Estimate)

Winter
flounder
Total
Value
....................................................................................................................
$
129,445,085
Atlantic
silverside
25,589
acres
Nonuse
..........................................................................................................................
124,058,656
Striped
killifish
Total
Value
....................................................................................................................
221,633,417
43,813
acres
Nonuse
Value
................................................................................................................
212,410,876
The
values
in
Table
X
 
39
do
not
account
for
all
species
lost
to
impingement
and
entrainment
in
the
North
Atlantic
Region
(
e.
g.,
tautog)
and
include
benefits
for
species
not
affected
by
impingement
and
entrainment.
EPA
continues
to
evaluate
this
approach
as
an
alternative
for
estimating
comprehensive
non­
use
benefits
associated
with
this
regulation.

e.
Estimates
of
the
Value
of
the
Preferred
Option
for
the
North
Atlantic
Region
Table
X
 
40
shows
the
percent
reduction
in
impingement
and
entrainment
losses
for
each
of
the
affected
species
included
in
this
analysis.
The
preferred
option
is
expected
to
reduce
impingement
and
entrainment
losses
by
18.4
to
23.8
percent,
depending
on
species.
EPA
applied
the
percent
reduction
for
the
species
that
determined
the
number
of
acres
of
restoration
required.
For
tidal
wetlands,
winter
flounder
required
the
largest
number
of
acres
of
restoration.
Accordingly,
EPA
used
the
18.73%
reduction
in
impingement
and
entrainment
for
winter
flounder
to
calculate
the
benefits
of
the
preferred
technology.
Similarly,
EPA
used
the
18.97%
reduction
for
northern
pipefish
to
estimate
benefits
of
the
lower
bound
estimate
of
SAV
restoration,
and
the
23.75%
reduction
for
scup
to
estimate
upper
bound
benefits
for
SAV.

TABLE
X
 
40.
 
REDUCTIONS
IN
IMPINGEMENT
AND
ENTRAINMENT
LOSSES
WITH
THE
PREFERRED
OPTION
Species
Percent
reduction
Winter
flounder
.........................
18.73
Atlantic
silverside
......................
21.78
VerDate
Jan<
31>
2003
20:
32
Mar
18,
2003
Jkt
200001
PO
00000
Frm
00053
Fmt
4701
Sfmt
4702
E:\
FR\
FM\
19MRP2.
SGM
19MRP2
13574
Federal
Register
/
Vol.
68,
No.
53
/
Wednesday,
March
19,
2003
/
Proposed
Rules
TABLE
X
 
40.
 
REDUCTIONS
IN
IMPINGEMENT
AND
ENTRAINMENT
LOSSES
WITH
THE
PREFERRED
OPTION
 
Continued
Species
Percent
reduction
Striped
killifish
...........................
18.43
Threespine
stickleback
.............
31.17
TABLE
X
 
40.
 
REDUCTIONS
IN
IMPINGEMENT
AND
ENTRAINMENT
LOSSES
WITH
THE
PREFERRED
OPTION
 
Continued
Species
Percent
reduction
Northern
pipefish
......................
18.97
Scup
..........................................
23.75
Table
X
 
41
gives
the
range
of
WTP
values
for
the
preferred
option
for
the
North
Atlantic
region.
Summing
the
values
for
wetlands
and
SAV
restoration,
the
total
benefits
of
the
preferred
option
for
the
six
species
identified
above
range
from
$
15
to
$
98
million
(
2002$).
Nonuse
value
only
ranges
from
$
14
to
$
92
million
(
2002$).

TABLE
X
 
41.
 
WTP
VALUES
FOR
WETLANDS
AND
SAV
RESTORATION
OF
FISH
FOR
THE
NORTH
ATLANTIC
REGION,
BASED
ON
THE
PREFERRED
OPTION
(
2002$)

Lower
bound
Upper
bound
Counties
Abutting
Affected
Water
Bodies
Total
Value
...............................................................................................................................................................
$
14,840,614
$
28,573,472
Nonuse
Value
..........................................................................................................................................................
14,171,720
26,871,437
All
Households
Residing
Within
32.43
Miles
of
Affected
Water
Bodies
(
High
Estimate)

Total
Value
...............................................................................................................................................................
$
51,115,141
$
98,414,866
Nonuse
Value
..........................................................................................................................................................
48,811,287
92,552,594
All
Households
Residing
Within
32.43
Miles
of
Affected
Water
Bodies
(
Low
Estimate)

Total
Value
...............................................................................................................................................................
$
24,885,868
$
47,914,165
Nonuse
Value
..........................................................................................................................................................
23,764,215
45,060,065
f.
Per
Household
Values
of
Changes
in
Impingement
and
Entrainment
Losses
for
the
North
Atlantic
Region
Another
way
of
presenting
these
results
is
to
calculate
the
implied
per
household
WTP
for
households
residing
in
the
two
different
definitions
of
the
study
area.
Table
X
 
42
presents
results
of
these
calculations.
A
total
of
3.65
million
households
live
in
the
counties
abutting
affected
water
bodies
while
4.2
million
households
live
within
a
32.4
mile
radius
of
affected
water
bodies.
This
implies
a
total
WTP
to
eliminate
all
I&
E
losses
of
$
21.70
to
$
40.62
and
nonuse
WTP
of
$
20.73
to
$
33.97
per
household
residing
in
the
counties
abutting
affected
water
bodies.
If
a
32.4
mile
radius
is
used
in
these
calculations,
the
implied
WTP
values
to
reduce
all
I&
E
losses
range
from
$
31.62
to
$
121.57
and
non­
use
WTP
range
$
29.92
to
$
113.68
per
household
residing
in
the
32.4
mile­
radius
area.
All
values
are
given
in
2002$.

TABLE
X
 
42.
 
VALUES
PER
HOUSEHOLD
FOR
TOTAL
AFFECTED
POPULATION
OF
THE
NORTH
ATLANTIC,
FOR
SAV
AND
WETLANDS
RESTORATION
Baseline
losses
Preferred
option
Lower
bound
Upper
bound
Lower
bound
Upper
bound
Households
in
Bordering
Counties
Total
Value
(
nonuse
+
use)
.............................................................................
$
79,208,646
$
148,246,010
$
14,840,614
$
28,573,472
Total
value/
hh
..................................................................................................
21.70
40.62
4.07
7.83
Total
non­
use
value
.........................................................................................
75,641,944
139,917,060
14,171,720
26,871,437
Non­
use
value/
hh
.............................................................................................
20.73
33.97
3.44
6.52
Households
Within
32.4
Mile
Radius
(
high
estimate)

Total
Value
(
nonuse
+
use)
.............................................................................
$
272,816,278
$
510,599,883
$
51,115,141
$
98,414,866
Total
value/
hh
..................................................................................................
64.96
121.57
12.17
23.43
Total
non­
use
value
.........................................................................................
260,531,584
481,912,693
48,811,287
92,552,594
Non­
use
value/
hh
.............................................................................................
61.46
113.68
11.51
21.83
Households
Within
32.4
Mile
Radius
(
low
estimate)

Total
Value
(
nonuse
+
use)
.............................................................................
$
132,823,067
$
248,590,160
$
24,885,868
$
47,914,165
Total
value/
hh
..................................................................................................
31.62
59.19
5.93
11.41
Total
non­
use
value
.........................................................................................
126,842,152
234,623,543
23,764,215
45,060,065
Non­
use
value/
hh
.............................................................................................
29.92
55.35
5.61
10.63
VerDate
Jan<
31>
2003
20:
32
Mar
18,
2003
Jkt
200001
PO
00000
Frm
00054
Fmt
4701
Sfmt
4702
E:\
FR\
FM\
19MRP2.
SGM
19MRP2
13575
Federal
Register
/
Vol.
68,
No.
53
/
Wednesday,
March
19,
2003
/
Proposed
Rules
This
calculation
implies
a
total
WTP
to
reduce
impingement
and
entrainment
losses
of
$
4.07
to
$
7.83
and
non­
use
WTP
of
$
3.44
to
$
6.52
per
household
residing
in
the
counties
abutting
affected
water
bodies.
If
a
32.4
mile
radius
is
used
in
these
calculations,
the
implied
WTP
values
to
reduce
all
I&
E
losses
range
from
$
5.63
to
$
23.43
and
non­
use
WTP
range
from
$
5.61
to
$
21.83
per
household
residing
in
the
32.4
mile­
radius
area.
All
values
are
provided
in
2002$.

2.
Future
Steps
in
Analyzing
Nonuse
Values
In
addition
to
the
nonuse
valuation
approach
summarized
in
the
preceding
sections,
EPA
is
also
exploring
and
soliciting
comment
on
alternative
methodologies
for
estimating
nonuse
benefits
for
the
Final
rule.

a.
Nonuse
and
Use
Values:
Literature
Review
In
response
to
public
comments
regarding
the
analysis
of
non­
use
values
in
the
proposed
rule,
the
Agency
continues
to
review
and
summarize
surface
water
valuation
studies
that
estimate
non­
use
and
total
use
values
for
water
resources.
The
purpose
of
this
review
is
to
report
on
the
range
of
nonuse
values
for
water
resources
in
the
economic
literature,
to
compare
estimates
of
use
and
nonuse
values
for
users
and
nonusers,
and
explore
the
feasibility
of
deriving
nonuse
values
based
on
these
comparisons.
Based
on
comments
received,
EPA
is
re­
evaluating
past
studies
and
their
applicability
to
this
rule.
These
studies
summarized
and
compared
nonuse
and
use
values
(
e.
g.,
Fisher
and
Raucher's
(
1984)
and
Brown's
(
1993)).
The
Fisher
and
Raucher's
(
1984)
comparison
of
nonuse
and
use
values
relies
on
eight
contingent
valuation
studies
of
benefits
of
improved
water
quality
published
from
1974
to
1983.
This
analysis
served
as
a
basis
for
developing
the
50
percent
rule
used
for
estimating
non­
use
benefits
in
the
proposed
rule
analysis.
Brown
(
1993)
conducts
a
similar
assessment
of
nonuse
and
use
values
that
relies
on
31
contingent
valuation
studies
published
from
1980
to
1992.
EPA
is
also
identifying
a
set
of
new
studies
that
may
contain
information
about
the
relative
magnitude
of
use
and
nonuse
values
for
aquatic
resources
affected
by
this
rule.
As
of
the
publication
of
this
NODA,
EPA
is
reviewing
18
surface
water
valuation
studies
that
meet
a
set
of
criteria
for
suitability
and
reliability
(
e.
g.,
the
resource
amenities
valued
in
the
study
must
be
water
bodies
that
provide
recreational
fishing,
U.
S.
populations
are
surveyed
in
the
study,
research
methods
in
the
study
are
supported
by
literature).
As
a
consequence
of
these
criteria,
EPA
has
identified
fewer
applicable
studies
than
Brown
(
1993).
These
studies
use
either
stated
preference
or
a
combination
of
stated
and
revealed
preference
techniques
to
elicit
nonuse
and
use
values
associated
with
aquatic
habitat
improvements
(
see
document
``
Comparison
of
Nonuse
and
Use
Values
from
Surface
Water
Valuation
Studies''
(
See
DCN
5
 
1011)).
These
studies
vary
in
several
respects,
including
the
specific
environmental
change
valued,
the
types
of
values
estimated,
the
magnitude
of
the
change,
the
geographic
region
affected
by
environmental
changes
and
survey
administration
methods.
EPA
is
qualitatively
analyzing
these
studies
and
interpreting
relevant
characteristics
to
determine
their
relevance
for
the
analysis
of
nonuse
values
resulting
from
this
rule.
These
18
valuation
studies
provide
27
observations
of
use
and
non­
use
values
associated
with
various
aquatic
habitat
improvements,
because
six
studies
generated
more
than
one
nonuse
value
estimate.
A
list
of
the
studies
being
considered
by
EPA
is
provided
in
Table
X
 
43;
Appendix
A
in
the
document
``
Comparison
of
Nonuse
and
Use
Values
from
Surface
Water
Valuation
Studies''
(
See
DCN
5
 
1011)''
that
accompanies
this
NODA
presents
key
information
from
each
study
compiled
by
EPA.

TABLE
X
 
43.
 
EXAMPLES
OF
STUDIES
THAT
PROVIDE
INFORMATION
ABOUT
USE
AND
NONUSE
VALUES
Author
Year
Title
Source
Clonts
&
Malone
....
1990
.....
Preservation
Attitudes
and
Consumer
Surplus
in
Free
Flowing
Rivers.
In:
Social
Science
and
Natural
Resource
Recreation
Management,
Joanne
Vining,
editor.
Westview
Press,
Boulder,
CO.
pp.
301
 
317.
Croke
et
al
.............
1986
 
87
Estimating
the
Value
of
Improved
Water
Quality
in
an
Urban
River
System.
Journal
of
Environmental
Systems.
Vol.
16,
No.
1.
pp.
13
 
24.
Cronin
....................
1982
.....
Valuing
Nonmarket
Goods
Through
Contingent
Markets
Pacific
Northwest
Laboratory,
PNL
 
4255,
Richland,
WA.
Desvousges
et
al
...
1983
.....
Contingent
Valuation
Design
and
Results:
Option
and
Existence
Values.
In:
A
Comparison
of
Alternative
Approaches
for
Estimating
Recreation
and
Related
Benefits
of
Water
Quality
Improvements.
U.
S.
Environmental
Protection
Agency,
Economic
Analysis
Division,
Washington
D.
C.
Huang
et
al
............
1997
.....
Willingness
to
Pay
for
Quality
Improvements:
Should
Revealed
and
Stated
Preference
Data
Be
Combined
Journal
of
Environmental
Economics
and
Management
Vol.
34,
No.
3.
pp.
240
 
255.

Kaoru
.....................
1993
.....
Differentiating
Use
and
Nonuse
Values
for
Coastal
Pond
Water
Quality
Improvements.
Environmental
and
Resource
Economics.
Vol.
3.
pp.
487
 
494.
Lant
&
Roberts
......
1990
.....
Greenbelts
in
the
Cornbelt:
Riparian
Wetlands,
Intrinsic
Values,
and
Market
Failure.
Environment
and
Planning.
Vol.
22.
pp.
1375
 
1388.

Magat
et
al
.............
2000
.....
An
Iterative
Choice
Approach
to
Valuing
Clean
Lakes,
Rivers,
and
Streams.
Journal
of
Risk
and
Uncertainty.
Vol.
21,
No.
1.
pp.
7
 
43.
Mitchell
&
Carson
..
1981
.....
An
Experiment
in
Determining
Willingness
to
Pay
for
National
Water
Quality
Improvements.
Preliminary
Draft
of
a
report
to
the
U.
S.
Environmental
Protection
Agency.
Resources
for
the
Future,
Inc.,
Washington,
D.
C.
Olsen
et
al
.............
1991
.....
Existence
and
Sport
Values
for
Doubling
the
Size
of
Columbia
River
Basin
Salmon
and
Steelhead
Runs.
Rivers.
Vol.
2,
No.
1.
pp.
44
 
56.

Roberts
&
Leitch
....
1997
.....
Economic
Valuation
of
Some
Wetland
Outputs
of
Mud
Lake.
Agricultural
Economics
Report
No.
381,
Department
of
Agricultural
Economics,
North
Dakota
Agricultural
Experiment
Station,
North
Dakota
State
University.
Rowe
et
al
.............
1985
.....
Economic
Assessment
of
Damage
Related
to
the
Eagle
Mine
Facility.
Energy
and
Resource
Consultants,
Inc.,
Boulder,
CO.

VerDate
Jan<
31>
2003
19:
17
Mar
18,
2003
Jkt
200001
PO
00000
Frm
00055
Fmt
4701
Sfmt
4702
E:\
FR\
FM\
19MRP2.
SGM
19MRP2
13576
Federal
Register
/
Vol.
68,
No.
53
/
Wednesday,
March
19,
2003
/
Proposed
Rules
TABLE
X
 
43.
 
EXAMPLES
OF
STUDIES
THAT
PROVIDE
INFORMATION
ABOUT
USE
AND
NONUSE
VALUES
 
Continued
Author
Year
Title
Source
Sanders
et
al
.........
1990
.....
Toward
Empirical
Estimation
of
the
Total
Value
of
Protecting
Rivers.
Water
Resources
Research.
Vol.
26,
No.
7.
pp.
1345
 
1357.
Sutherland
&
Walsh
1985
.....
Effect
of
Distance
on
the
Preservation
Value
of
Water
Quality.
Land
Economics.
Vol.
61,
No.
3.
pp.
282
 
291.

Walsh
et
al
.............
1978
.....
Option
Values,
Preservation
Values
and
Recreational
Benefits
of
Improved
Water
Quality:
a
Case
Study
of
the
Southe
Platte
River
Basin,
Colorado.
EPA
 
600/
5
 
78
 
001,
Socioeconomic
Environmental
Studies
Series,
Office
of
Research
and
Development
U.
S.
Environmental
Protection,
Research
Triangle
Park,
NC.
Welle
......................
1986
.....
Potential
Economic
Impacts
of
Acid
Deposition:
A
Contingent
Valuation
Study
of
Minnesota.
Dissertation,
University
of
Wisconsin­
Madison.

Whitehead
&
Groothuis.
1992
.....
Economic
Benefits
of
Improved
Water
Quality:
a
case
study
of
North
Carolina's
Tar­
Pamlico
River.
Rivers.
Vol.
3.
pp.
170
 
178.

Whitehead
et
al
.....
1995
.....
Assessing
the
Validity
and
Reliability
of
Contingent
Values:
A
Comparison
of
On­
Site
Users,
Off­
Site
Users,
and
Non­
users.
Journal
of
Environmental
Economics
and
Management
Vol.
29.
pp.
238
 
251.

The
Agency
is
considering
applying
the
results
of
this
type
of
review
and
analysis
to
estimate
nonuse
value
for
aquatic
resources
potentially
affected
by
impingement
and
entrainment
for
the
final
rule
analysis,
and
recognizes
that
this
approach
requires
careful
accounting
of
factors
that
are
likely
to
affect
nonuse
values
of
aquatic
resources
such
as
the
geographic
scale
of
environmental
improvements,
regional
or
national
importance
of
the
affected
resources,
and
the
magnitude
of
environmental
quality
changes.
The
Agency
seeks
comment
on
this
general
approach
as
well
as
the
applicability
and
feasibility
of
estimating
nonuse
values
that
are
based
on
(
1)
a
percent
or
fraction
of
use
values
per
household
(
see
Section
X
B
4
of
this
preamble
for
summary
of
methods
for
assessing
recreational
use
values)
and/
or
(
2)
specific
user
and
nonuser
populations
for
this
rule.
The
agency
also
solicits
feedback
about
the
studies
reviewed
by
EPA
as
well
as
other
studies
that
might
be
suitable.

b.
Meta
Analysis
In
addition
to
simply
reviewing
available
information
about
the
relative
magnitudes
of
nonuse
and
use
values,
EPA
is
also
considering
regressionbased
meta­
analysis
of
nonuse
WTP
for
water
resources.
Depending
on
the
suitability
of
available
data,
a
metaanalysis
can
provide
information
on
the
relative
influence
of
various
study,
economic,
and
natural
resource
characteristics
on
nonuse
willingness
to
pay.
Economic
literature
characterize
meta
analysis
as
a
rigorous
alternative
to
the
more
casual,
narrative
discussion
of
research
studies
which
typify
many
attempts
to
summarize
available
information
about
environmental
values.
The
primary
advantage
of
a
regression­
based
approach
is
that
it
may
account
for
differences
among
study
sites
that
may
contribute
to
changes
in
nonuse
values,
to
the
extent
permitted
by
available
data.
The
following
discussion
briefly
summarizes
EPA's
approach
to
this
analysis.
DCN
5
 
1011
provides
further
detail.
The
dependent
variable
in
the
regression­
based
meta­
analysis
may
be
either
the
estimated
nonuse
value
or
the
total
value
(
including
use
and
nonuse
value)
of
aquatic
habitat
improvements.
The
total
value
can
be
modeled
as
a
function
of
explanatory
variables
that
include
(
1)
core
economic
variables
and
(
2)
study
design
effects
variables.
The
core
economic
variables
are
used
to
characterize
specifics
of
the
resource(
s)
valued
(
e.
g.
whether
they
are
estuarine
or
freshwater);
the
geographic
scale
of
resource
improvements
(
e.
g.,
single
water
body
versus
multiple
water
bodies);
the
estimated
use
values
for
environmental
quality
improvement,
quantitative
or
categorical
measures
of
environmental
quality
improvements,
and
survey
respondents'
characteristics
such
as
mean
income
of
survey
respondents.
Study
design
effects
characterize
the
year
in
which
a
study
was
conducted,
the
elicitation
format
of
the
survey
(
e.
g.,
telephone
and
mail);
the
elicitation
method
(
e.
g.,
open
ended
WTP
method).
DCN
5
 
1011
provides
information
on
key
variables
available
from
the
18
studies
reviewed
by
EPA.
EPA
also
notes
potential
limitations
of
this
approach.
Limitations
of
the
regression
analysis
approach
specifically
stem
from
the
number
of
studies
that
meet
criteria
for
inclusion,
the
number
of
variables
that
could
be
included
in
the
regression
analysis
(
which
depends
on
the
number
of
and
information
available
from
the
original
studies),
as
well
as
degrees
of
freedom
and
statistical
significance.
For
example,
study
differences
often
prevent
the
use
of
a
single
measure
of
the
degree
of
environmental
quality
improvements.
Prior
meta­
analyses
of
this
type,
including
Woodward
and
Wui
(
2000)
and
Poe
et
al.
(
2001),
lack
a
continuous
and
quantified
measure
of
environmental
quality
improvement.
The
use
of
other
economic
variables
that
might
be
desirable
from
a
theoretical
perspective
(
e.
g.,
information
on
substitute
goods)
may
complicate
extraction
of
suitable
data
from
the
underlying
studies.
EPA
also
recognizes
that
clear
and
objective
criteria
are
needed
to
determine
which
studies
are
suitable
for
inclusion
in
meta
analysis;
criteria
should
acknowledge
issues
related
to
potential
bias
associated
with
stated
preference
studies,
and
steps
that
the
researchers
should
take
to
minimize
bias,
as
noted
in
Section
X
B
1
of
this
preamble.
One
key
challenge
of
both
of
the
approaches
discussed
in
this
section
is
to
determine
the
applicability
of
study
results
to
the
policy
case
of
interest
(
i.
e.,
fish
impacts
due
to
impingement
and
entrainment
in
this
rule)
because
of
significant
variations
in
study
objectives
and
methodologies.
The
use
(
and
interpretation)
of
the
value
estimates
to
predict
WTP
in
specific
cases
will
follow
the
methodologies
from
the
benefits
transfer
literature
(
e.
g.,
Vandenberg
et
al.
2001;
Desvousges
et
al.,
1998).
EPA
seeks
comments
on
appropriateness
of
the
meta­
analysis
approach
for
calculating
nonuse
values
for
aquatic
habitat
improvements
associated
with
reduced
impingement
and
entrainment
in
this
rule.

F.
Regional­
Level
Benefit
Cost
Analysis
This
section
presents
EPA's
estimates
of
the
total
monetary
value
of
the
baseline
impingement
and
entrainment
losses
at
cooling
water
intake
structures
located
in
the
North
Atlantic
and
Northern
California
study
regions.
A
comprehensive
estimate
of
the
value
of
the
resource
should
include
both
use
VerDate
Jan<
31>
2003
19:
17
Mar
18,
2003
Jkt
200001
PO
00000
Frm
00056
Fmt
4701
Sfmt
4702
E:\
FR\
FM\
19MRP2.
SGM
19MRP2
13577
Federal
Register
/
Vol.
68,
No.
53
/
Wednesday,
March
19,
2003
/
Proposed
Rules
and
nonuse
values.
However,
EPA
was
able
to
estimate
nonuse
values
for
the
North
Atlantic
region
only
due
to
data
limitations.
``
Nonuse
values,
like
use
values,
have
their
basis
in
theory
of
individual
preferences
and
the
measurement
of
welfare
changes.
According
to
theory,
use
values
and
nonuse
values
are
additive''
(
M.
Freeman,
1993).
The
following
sections
present
the
estimated
monetary
value
of
impingement
and
entrainment
losses
under
the
baseline
scenario
and
the
estimated
impingement
and
entrainment
reduction
benefits
under
the
preferred
option
for
the
two
study
regions.
The
Agency,
however,
points
out
the
estimate
of
benefits
for
the
Northern
California
region
is
incomplete
and
includes
recreational
and
commercial
fishing
benefits
only.

1.
Benefit­
Cost
Analysis
of
the
Preferred
Option
for
the
North
Atlantic
Region
a.
Total
Monetary
Value
of
Baseline
Impingement
and
Entrainment
Losses
in
the
North
Atlantic
Region
Table
X
 
44
presents
EPA's
estimates
of
the
total
value
of
baseline
impingement
and
entrainment
losses
at
cooling
water
intake
structures
in
the
North
Atlantic
region.
The
estimated
nonuse
value
of
fishery
resources
lost
to
impingement
and
entrainment
ranges
from
$
75.64
million
to
$
139.92
million
per
year
(
2002$).
Note
that
EPA
has
provided
two
different
estimates
of
total
value
in
Table
X
 
44.
The
first
total
value
is
the
sum
of
aggregate
use
value
and
the
nonuse
component
of
restoration­
based
value.
The
second
total
value
(
i.
e.,
restoration­
based
total
value)
is
simply
the
total
value
(
including
nonuse)
for
SAV
and
wetland
restoration
acres
as
presented
in
Section
X
E
d
of
this
preamble.
The
estimated
total
value
of
impingement
and
entrainment
losses
in
the
North
Atlantic
region
ranges
from
$
79
to
$
143
million
(
2002$)
per
year
when
commercial/
recreational
use
values
are
added
to
the
nonuse
component
of
restoration­
based
values.
The
total
value
based
on
the
total
restoration­
based
value
is
similar
in
range
($
79
to
$
148
million).

TABLE
X
 
44.
 
ANNUAL
VALUE
OF
BASELINE
LOSSES
FROM
IMPINGEMENT
AND
ENTRAINMENT
IN
THE
NORTH
ATLANTIC
REGION
(
MILLIONS
2002$)

Before
discounting
Discounted
using
3%
discount
rate
Discounted
using
7%
discount
rate
Low
High
Low
High
Low
High
Use
Value
of
Resources
Lost
Commercial
Use
a,
b
..........................................................
$
0.28
$
0.28
$
0.24
$
0.24
$
0.20
$
0.20
Recreational
Use
a,
b
.........................................................
3.07
3.07
2.64
2.64
2.25
2.25
Aggregate
Use
Benefits
...................................................
3.36
3.36
2.88
2.88
2.45
2.45
Nonuse
Value
of
Resources
Lost
c
Restoration­
based
nonuse
value
.....................................
75.64
139.92
75.64
139.92
75.64
139.92
Total
Monetary
Value
of
Resources
Lost
Total
value
(
aggregate
use
+
restoration­
based
nonuse
...............................................................................
79.00
143.28
78.52
142.80
78.09
142.37
Restoration­
based
total
value
d
........................................
79.21
148.25
79.21
148.25
79.21
148.25
Note:
Sum
of
components
may
not
equal
totals
due
to
rounding.
a
Welfare
losses
represent
losses
due
to
both
impingement
and
entrainment
because
recreational
estimates
cannot
be
presented
separately
for
these
categories.
Commercial/
recreational
use
values
are
annual
values
derived
in
Section
X
C.
b
Commercial
and
recreational
losses
are
presented
undiscounted,
and
discounted
at
3%
and
7%.
There
are
no
low
or
high
estimates
for
welfare
losses.
c
Nonuse
values
are
not
discounted.
Values
are
based
on
nonuse
values
for
SAV
and
wetland
restoration
for
the
populations
in
counties
abutting
affected
water
bodies.
Low
values
assume
lower
bound
restoration
acreage
and
high
values
assume
upper
bound
restoration
acreage
amounts
(
see
Section
X
E
d
of
this
preamble).
d
Total
monetary
value
based
on
total
values
associated
with
restoration
is
not
discounted
(
see
Section
E.
2
for
detail).

b.
Estimated
Benefits
and
Costs
of
the
Preferred
Option
Table
X
 
45
presents
the
total
annual
costs
of
the
preferred
regulatory
option
for
the
North
Atlantic
region.
The
estimated
pre­
tax
cost
for
facilities
located
on
estuaries
or
tidal
rivers
is
$
17.58
million
and,
for
ocean­
located
facilities,
$
0.57
million.
The
total
annual
cost
is
$
18.15
million.

TABLE
X
 
44.
 
TOTAL
ANNUAL
COSTS
FOR
THE
NORTH
ATLANTIC
REGION
(
PRE­
TAX)
AS
OF
2005
(
IN
2002$,
MILLIONS)

Estuary/
Tidal/
Total
River
Ocean
Total
North
Atlantic
...............................................................................................................................
$
17.58
$
0.57
$
18.15
Table
X
 
46
presents
EPA's
estimates
of
the
total
benefits
from
impingement
and
entrainment
reduction
in
the
North
Atlantic
region
under
the
preferred
option.
The
estimated
impingement
and
entrainment
reduction
benefits
under
the
preferred
option
range
from
$
14.84
to
$
28.57
million
per
year
(
2002$).
Combining
the
estimated
cost
and
benefit
values,
the
estimated
net
benefits
of
installing
the
preferred
option
range
from
negative
$
3.31
million
to
positive
$
10.42
million
(
2002$).

VerDate
Jan<
31>
2003
21:
28
Mar
18,
2003
Jkt
200001
PO
00000
Frm
00057
Fmt
4701
Sfmt
4702
E:\
FR\
FM\
19MRP2.
SGM
19MRP2
13578
Federal
Register
/
Vol.
68,
No.
53
/
Wednesday,
March
19,
2003
/
Proposed
Rules
TABLE
X
 
46.
 
ANALYSIS
OF
COSTS
AND
BENEFITS
OF
THE
PREFERRED
OPTION
FOR
THE
NORTH
ATLANTIC
REGION
(
MILLIONS
2002$)

Before
discounting
Discounted
using
3%
discount
rate
Discounted
using
7%
discount
rate
Low
High
Low
High
Low
High
Annual
Use
Benefits
Commercial
a,
b
.................................................................
$
0.08
$
0.08
$
0.07
$
0.07
$
0.06
$
0.06
Recreational
a,
b
................................................................
0.88
0.88
0.76
0.76
0.65
0.65
Aggregate
Use
Benefits
...................................................
0.96
0.96
0.83
0.83
0.71
0.71
Annual
Nonuse
Benefits
c
Restoration­
Based
Nonuse
Benfits
d
...............................
14.17
26.87
14.17
26.87
14.17
26.87
Total
Annual
Benefits
Total
Benefits
(
aggregate
use
+
restoration­
based
nonuse
values)
...................................................................
15.13
27.83
15.00
27.70
14.88
27.58
Total
Restoration­
based
Benefits
d
..................................
14.84
28.57
14.84
28.57
14.84
28.57
Annualized
Costs
Total
Costs
.......................................................................
18.15
18.15
18.15
18.15
18.15
18.15
Net
Annual
Benefits
(
Benefits
 
Costs)

Net
Benefits
.....................................................................
(
3.02)
9.68
(
3.15)
9.55
(
3.27)
9.43
Restoration­
based
Net
Benefits
.......................................
(
3.31)
10.42
(
3.31)
10.42
(
3.31)
10.42
Note:
Sum
of
components
may
not
equal
totals
due
to
rounding.
a
Welfare
losses
represent
losses
due
to
both
impingement
and
entrainment
because
recreational
estimates
cannot
be
presented
separately
for
these
categories.
Commercial/
recreational
use
values
are
annual
values
derived
in
Section
X
C.
b
Commercial
and
recreational
losses
are
presented
undiscounted,
and
discounted
at
3%
and
7%.
There
are
no
low
or
high
estimates
for
welfare
losses.
c
Nonuse
values
are
not
discounted.
Values
are
based
on
nonuse
values
for
SAV
and
wetland
restoration
for
the
populations
in
counties
abutting
affected
water
bodies.
Low
values
assume
lower
bound
restoration
acreage
and
high
values
assume
upper
bound
restoration
acreage
amounts
(
see
Section
X
E
d
of
this
preamble).
d
Total
monetary
value
based
on
total
values
associated
with
restoration
is
not
discounted
(
see
Section
E.
2
for
detail).

2.
Benefit­
Cost
Analysis
of
the
Preferred
Option
for
the
Northern
California
Region
a.
Total
Monetary
Value
of
Baseline
Impingement
and
Entrainment
Losses
in
the
Northern
California
Region
Table
X
 
47
presents
EPA's
estimates
of
the
monetary
value
of
baseline
impingement
and
entrainment
losses
at
cooling
water
intake
structures
in
the
Northern
California
region.
As
noted
above,
EPA
did
not
estimate
nonuse
values
of
impingement
and
entrainment
losses
for
the
Northern
California
region
analysis;
data
aren't
available
to
support
use
of
the
restoration­
based
approach
for
the
North
California
region.
The
estimated
use
value
of
fishery
resources
lost
to
impingement
and
entrainment
in
the
Northern
California
region
ranges
from
$
1.1
million
to
$
1.49
million
per
year
(
2002$).

TABLE
X
 
47.
 
ANNUAL
VALUES
OF
THE
BASELINE
FISHERY
LOSSES
FROM
IMPINGEMENT
AND
ENTRAINMENT
IN
THE
NORTHERN
CALIFORNIA
REGION
(
MILLIONS
2002$)

Before
discounted
Discounted
using
3%
discount
rate
Discount
using
7%
discount
rate
Use
Value
of
the
Resources
Lost
Commercial
Use
a
b
..................................................................................................................................
$
0.06
$
0.05
$
0.05
Recreational
Use
a
b
.................................................................................................................................
1.43
1.22
1.05
Total
Use
Benefits
...................................................................................................................................
1.49
1.27
1.10
Note:
Sum
of
components
may
not
equal
totals
due
to
rounding.
a
Welfare
losses
represent
losses
due
to
both
impingement
and
entrainment
because
recreational
estimates
cannot
be
presented
separately
for
these
categories.
b
Commercial
and
recreational
losses
are
presented
undiscounted,
and
discounted
at
3%
and
7%.
There
are
no
low
or
high
estimates
for
welfare
losses.

VerDate
Jan<
31>
2003
21:
12
Mar
18,
2003
Jkt
200001
PO
00000
Frm
00058
Fmt
4701
Sfmt
4702
E:\
FR\
FM\
19MRP2.
SGM
19MRP2
13579
Federal
Register
/
Vol.
68,
No.
53
/
Wednesday,
March
19,
2003
/
Proposed
Rules
b.
Estimated
Benefits
and
Costs
of
the
Preferred
Option
for
the
Northern
California
Region
Table
X
 
48
presents
the
total
annual
costs
of
the
preferred
regulatory
option
for
the
Northern
California
region.
The
estimated
pre­
tax
cost
for
facilities
located
on
estuaries
or
tidal
rivers
is
$
6.6
million
and,
for
ocean­
located
facilities,
$
13.5
million.
The
total
annualized
cost
is
$
20.1
million.

TABLE
X
 
48.
 
TOTAL
ANNUAL
COSTS
FOR
THE
NORTHERN
CALIFORNIA
REGION
(
PRE­
TAX)
AS
OF
2005
(
IN
2002$,
MILLIONS)

Estuary/
Tidal
River
Ocean
Total
Northern
California
...................................................................................................................................
$
6.60
$
13.50
$
20.10
Table
X
 
49
presents
EPA's
estimates
of
the
total
use
benefits
from
impingement
and
entrainment
reduction
at
cooling
water
intake
structures
in
the
Northern
California
region
under
the
preferred
option.
The
estimated
use
benefits
of
impingement
and
entrainment
reduction
under
the
preferred
option
range
from
$
0.62
to
$
0.81
million
per
year
(
2002$),
depending
on
the
factor
for
discounting
the
use
value
of
lost
resources.
EPA
did
not
estimate
net
benefits
in
CA
due
to
the
lack
of
information
on
nonuse.

TABLE
X
 
49.
 
ANALYSIS
OF
COSTS
AND
BENEFITS
OF
THE
PREFERRED
OPTION
IN
THE
NORTHERN
CALIFORNIA
REGION
(
MILLIONS
2002$)

Before
discounting
Discounted
using
3%
discount
rate
Discounted
using
7%
discounted
rate
Annual
Use
Benefits
Commercial
a
b
..........................................................................................................................................
$
0.02
$
0.02
$
0.02
Recreational
a
b
.........................................................................................................................................
0.79
0.66
0.60
Total
Use
Benefits
...................................................................................................................................
0.81
0.68
0.62
Nonuse
Benefits
......................................................................................................................................
(
c)
....................
....................

Annualized
Costs
Total
Costs
...............................................................................................................................................
20.10
20.10
20.10
Net
Annual
Benefits
(
Benefits
 
Costs)

Total
Net
Benefits
....................................................................................................................................
(
c)
(
c)
(
c)

Note:
Sum
of
components
may
not
equal
totals
due
to
rounding.
a
Welfare
losses
represent
losses
due
to
both
impingement
and
entrainment
because
recreational
estimates
cannot
be
presented
separately
for
these
categories.
b
Commercial
and
recreational
losses
are
presented
undiscounted,
and
discounted
at
3%
and
7%.
There
are
no
low
or
high
estimates
for
welfare
losses.
c
Not
estimated.

G.
Break­
Even
Analysis
Estimating
nonuse
values
is
an
extremely
challenging
and
uncertain
exercise,
particularly
when
primary
research
using
stated
preference
methods
is
not
a
feasible
option
(
as
is
the
case
for
this
rulemaking).
In
the
preceding
section,
EPA
described
possible
alternative
approaches
for
developing
nonuse
benefit
estimates
based
on
benefits
transfer
and
associated
methods.
Due
to
the
uncertainties
of
providing
estimates
of
the
magnitude
of
nonuse
values
associated
with
the
regulation,
this
section
provides
an
alternative
context
with
which
to
consider
the
potential
magnitude
of
nonuse
values.
The
approach
used
here
applies
a
``
breakeven
analysis
to
identify
what
nonuse
values
would
have
to
be
in
order
for
the
proposed
option
to
have
benefits
that
are
equal
to
costs.
The
break­
even
approach
uses
EPA's
estimated
commercial
and
recreational
use
benefits
for
the
rule
and
subtracts
them
from
the
estimated
annual
costs.
The
resulting
``
net
cost''
enables
one
to
work
backwards
to
estimate
what
nonuse
values
would
need
to
be
(
in
terms
of
willingness
to
pay
per
household
per
year)
in
order
for
total
annual
benefits
to
equal
annualized
costs.
Table
X
 
50
provides
such
an
assessment
for
the
marine
resources
impacted
in
the
two
regions
for
which
commercial
and
recreational
benefit
estimates
are
available
to
date.
The
table
shows
the
values
using
a
seven
percent
discount
rate.

VerDate
Jan<
31>
2003
21:
22
Mar
18,
2003
Jkt
200001
PO
00000
Frm
00059
Fmt
4701
Sfmt
4702
E:\
FR\
FM\
19MRP2.
SGM
19MRP2
13580
Federal
Register
/
Vol.
68,
No.
53
/
Wednesday,
March
19,
2003
/
Proposed
Rules
TABLE
VII
 
50.
 
IMPLICIT
NON­
USE
VALUE
 
BREAK­
EVEN
POINTS
FOR
REGIONAL
BENEFIT­
COST
ANALYSIS,
USING
A
7%
DISCOUNT
RATE
Study
region
Use
benefits
1
Compliance
costs
1
Net
costs
2
Number
of
households
(
millions)
3
Break­
even
nonuse
WTP
per
household
North
Atlantic
...........................................................................................
$
0.70
$
18.15
$
17.45
Abutting
Counties
.............................................................................
....................
....................
....................
3.65
$
4.78
Within
32.4
Diles
...............................................................................
....................
....................
....................
4.20
4.15
Statewide
..........................................................................................
....................
....................
....................
5.14
3.39
Northern
California
...................................................................................
0.64
20.10
19.46
Abutting
Counties
.............................................................................
....................
....................
....................
2.38
8.18
Within
32.4
Miles
..............................................................................
....................
....................
....................
2.50
7.78
All
N.
CA
Counties
............................................................................
....................
....................
....................
4.99
3.90
Statewide
..........................................................................................
....................
....................
....................
11.51
1.69
1
Millions
of
2002$
s
per
year,
from
2/
19/
03
NODA:
Tables
X
 
53
and
X
 
56
2
Annualized
compliance
costs
minus
annual
use
benefits
only
(
millions
2002$
s)
3
Millions
of
households:(
a)
in
abutting
counties
only
(
b)
within
32
miles
of
impacted
marine
resources,
(
c)
and
(
d)
statewide
(
or,
for
northern
half
of
CA).
Sources:
US
Census
2000
(
BLS):
http://
factfinder.
census.
gov;
4
Dollars
per
household
per
year
that,
when
added
to
use
benefits,
would
yield
a
total
annual
benefit
(
use
plus
nonuse)
equal
to
the
annualized
costs.

As
shown
in
Table
X
 
50,
nonuse
values
per
household
for
the
affected
marine
resources
in
the
region
would
have
to
amount
to
at
least
$
4.78
per
year
to
residents
in
the
North
Atlantic
region
 
if
assuming
that
only
households
in
abutting
counties
have
nonuse
values
for
the
affected
marine
resources
 
in
order
for
the
proposed
option
to
have
total
benefits
(
annual
use
plus
nonuse
values)
that
would
equal
or
exceed
the
estimated
annual
compliance
costs
for
the
proposed
option.
For
households
within
32.4
miles
of
the
impacted
resources,
nonuse
values
would
have
to
equal
$
4.15
per
year
to
have
total
benefits
equal
the
costs
of
the
proposed
option.
If
nonuse
values
are
considered
for
all
households
in
the
coastal
states
of
the
region
(
CT,
ME,
MA,
NH,
and
RI),
then
the
break­
even
nonuse
value
would
need
to
be
only
$
3.39
per
household.
For
the
Northern
California
region,
the
``
break­
even''
nonuse
willingness
to
pay
(
WTP)
per
household
would
need
to
be
$
8.18,
based
solely
on
households
in
coast­
abutting
counties
only.
For
households
within
32.4
miles
of
the
impacted
resources,
nonuse
values
would
have
to
equal
$
7.78
per
year
to
have
total
benefits
equal
the
costs
of
the
proposed
option.
This
level
of
breakeven
nonuse
value
would
decline
to
$
3.90
if
all
households
in
the
northern
part
of
California
are
considered,
and
declines
further
to
$
1.69
per
household
per
year
if
the
costs
are
spread
over
all
households
statewide.
While
this
approach
of
backing
out
the
``
breakeven''
nonuse
value
per
household
does
not
directly
answer
the
question
of
what
nonuse
values
might
actually
be
worth
for
the
316b
rulemaking,
these
results
do
frame
the
question
with
a
useful
perspective
that
appeals
to
common
sense
and
facilitates
policy­
making
decisions.
The
breakeven
approach
poses
the
question:
``
are
the
implicit
non­
use
WTP
estimates
per
household
at
plausible
levels,
given
empirical
evidence
available
from
the
existing
body
of
empirical
research?''.
EPA
requests
comment
on
whether
these
values
are
plausible
as
an
average
across
all
households
in
the
target
area,
and
data
or
research
that
addresses
this
question.

XI.
Implementation
and
Other
Regulatory
Refinements
A.
Definition
and
Methods
for
Determining
the
``
Calculation
Baseline''

EPA
received
a
number
of
comments
on
the
definition
and
methods
associated
with
the
calculation
baseline
during
the
comment
period
for
the
proposed
Phase
II
rule.
This
calculation
baseline
sets
a
hypothetical
baseline
against
which
compliance
with
the
proposed
technology­
based
performance
standards
in
§
125.94
is
determined
(
see
67
FR
17176).
The
calculation
provides
facilities
a
consistent
basis
for
determining
compliance
and
allows
them
to
take
credit
for
fish
protection
technologies
already
in
place
at
their
facility.
EPA
proposed
in
§
125.93
(
see
67
FR
17221)
that
the
``
calculation
baseline
was
an
estimate
of
impingement
mortality
and
entrainment
that
would
occur
at
your
site
assuming
you
had
a
shoreline
cooling
water
intake
structure
with
an
intake
capacity
commensurate
with
a
once­
through
cooling
water
system
and
with
no
impingement
and/
or
entrainment
reduction
controls.''
Some
commenters
stated
that,
in
general,
the
proposed
definition
was
too
vague.
They
added
that
the
regulated
industry
as
well
as
the
permitting
authority
would
be
better
served
if
there
were
more
specific
design
criteria
included
in
the
definition.
In
response
to
these
comments,
EPA
is
considering
and
is
requesting
comments
on
adding
the
following
specifications
to
the
definition:
 
Baseline
cooling
water
intake
structure
is
located
at,
and
the
screen
face
is
parallel
to,
the
shoreline.
EPA
is
considering
that
it
may
be
appropriate
to
allow
credit
in
reducing
impingement
mortality
from
screen
configurations
that
employ
angling
of
the
screen
face
and
currents
to
guide
organisms
away
from
the
structure
before
they
are
impinged.
 
Baseline
cooling
water
intake
structure
opening
is
located
at
or
near
the
surface
of
the
source
waterbody.
This
may
be
appropriate
to
allow
credit
in
reducing
impingement
mortality
or
entrainment
due
to
placement
of
the
opening
in
the
water
column.
 
Baseline
cooling
water
intake
structure
has
a
traveling
screen
with
the
standard
3 
8
inch
mesh
size
commonly
used
to
keep
condensors
free
from
debris.
This
would
allow
a
more
consistent
estimation
of
the
organisms
that
are
considered
``
entrainable''
vs.
``
impingeable''
by
specifying
a
standard
mesh
size
that
can
be
related
to
the
size
of
the
organism
that
may
potentially
come
in
contact
with
the
cooling
water
intake
structure.
 
Baseline
practices
and
procedures
are
those
that
the
facility
would
maintain
in
the
absence
of
any
operational
controls
implemented
in
whole
or
in
part
for
the
purpose
of
reducing
impingement
mortality
and
entrainment.
This
would
recognize
and
provide
credit
for
any
operational
measures,
including
flow
or
velocity
VerDate
Jan<
31>
2003
19:
17
Mar
18,
2003
Jkt
200001
PO
00000
Frm
00060
Fmt
4701
Sfmt
4702
E:\
FR\
FM\
19MRP2.
SGM
19MRP2
13581
Federal
Register
/
Vol.
68,
No.
53
/
Wednesday,
March
19,
2003
/
Proposed
Rules
reductions,
a
facility
had
adopted
that
reduce
impingement
mortality
or
entrainment.
If
all
of
the
above
specifications
are
determined
to
be
appropriate
for
the
baseline
cooling
water
intake
structure
that
is
used
to
determine
the
calculation
baseline,
EPA
would
modify
the
regulatory
definition
at
proposed
§
125.93
to
read
as
follows:

Calculation
baseline
means
an
estimate
of
impingement
mortality
and
entrainment
that
would
occur
at
your
site
assuming
(
1)
the
cooling
water
system
has
been
designed
as
a
once­
through
system;
(
2)
the
opening
of
the
cooling
water
intake
structure
is
located
at,
and
the
face
of
the
standard
3 
8­
inch
mesh
traveling
screen
is
oriented
parallel
to,
the
shoreline
near
the
surface
of
the
source
waterbody;
and
(
3)
the
baseline
practices
and
procedures
are
those
that
the
facility
would
maintain
in
the
absence
of
any
operational
controls,
including
flow
or
velocity
reductions,
implemented
in
whole
or
in
part
for
the
purposes
of
reducing
impingement
mortality
and
entrainment.''

EPA
also
considered
whether
basing
the
calculation
baseline
on
a
shoreline
intake
would
penalize
facilities
with
constructed
waterways
such
as
intake
canals
or
intake
bays,
if
these
configurations
had
a
higher
potential
for
impingement
and
entrainment
than
a
``
shoreline''
intake
located
on
the
open
waterbody.
Basing
calculations
on
this
hypothetical
open
waterbody
intake
could
potentially
result
in
such
facilities
having
to
reduce
impingement
and
entrainment
by
more
than
the
specified
performance
ranges.
This
is
not
EPA's
intent.
Rather,
facilities
should
demonstrate
they
have
(
or
will)
reduce
impingement
mortality
or
entrainment
by
the
percentages
established
in
the
proposed
performance
ranges
when
compared
to
an
intake
at
which
no
measures
have
been
taken
to
reduce
impingement
mortality
and
entrainment.
In
the
case
of
an
intake
located
on
the
``
shoreline''
of
an
intake
canal
or
intake
bay,
EPA
would
consider
the
intake's
location
on
the
constructed
waterway
to
be
the
shoreline
for
purposes
of
the
calculation
baseline.
EPA
solicits
comment
on
these
design
specifications
for
inclusion
or
exclusion
in
the
definition
of
the
calculation
baseline.
In
particular,
EPA
is
interested
in
whether
it
would
be
redundant
to
include
all
of
the
hypothetical
design
criteria.
EPA
requests
comments
on
any
other
design
criteria
that
may
be
appropriate
to
set
a
consistent
and
reproducible
baseline
upon
which
to
determine
compliance
with
the
proposed
performance
standards.
EPA
also
requests
comment
on
whether
these
design
criteria
will
provide
the
intended
credit
in
the
compliance
analyses
to
those
facilities
which
have
implemented
technologies
or
operational
measures
that
reduce
impingement
mortality
and/
or
entrainment,
without
creating
unintended
consequences
such
as
the
opportunity
to
seek
credit
for
hypothetical
``
reductions''
from
unreasonable
claims
regarding
baseline
operational
measures.
One
commenter
suggested
that
determination
of
the
calculation
baseline
for
entrainment
be
supplemented
with
an
optional
alternative,
``
As
Built''
approach.
Under
this
approach,
a
facility
would
determine
the
baseline
for
calculating
entrainment
reduction
by
either:
(
1)
Using
actual
historical
measurements
of
entrained
organisms
before
installation
of
the
new
intake
technology;
or
(
2)
sampling
immediately
in
front
of
the
new
technology
and
enumerating
organisms
of
a
size
that
will
pass
through
a
standard
3 
8­
inch
screen.
To
determine
entrainment
reduction,
the
facility
would
then
sample
and
enumerate
entrained
organisms
behind
the
new
technology
or
at
the
outfall.
This
second
option
would
eliminate
the
need
for
predictive
estimates
of
baseline
entrainment
occurring
at
a
facility
and
would
not
require
collection
of
historical
data
nor
the
use
of
estimations
that
may
increase
uncertainty.
Potential
benefits
cited
for
using
this
alternative
``
As
Built''
approach
for
estimating
compliance
with
performance
included
that
(
1)
the
facility
would
demonstrate
entrainment
reductions
directly
in
an
easily
verifiable
manner
that
does
not
rely
on
hypothetical
calculations;
(
2)
facilities
could
install
new
technologies
sooner
than
they
would
under
the
other
calculation
baseline
approach,
because
pre­
deployment
studies
would
not
be
necessary;
and
(
3)
the
baseline
numbers
would
be
actual
samples
of
entrained
or
entrainable
organisms.
EPA
requests
comments
on
providing
this
approach
as
an
optional
alternative
for
determining
the
calculation
baseline
for
entrainment.
It
should
be
noted
that
the
commenter
states
that
the
``
As
Built
''
approach
for
determining
the
calculation
baseline
would
not
be
appropriate
for
impingement
as
it
is
highly
speciesspecific
and
life­
stage
specific
with
no
reliable
way
to
measure
``
impingeable''
organisms
outside
of
the
cooling
water
intake
structure.
The
commenter
suggests
that
to
determine
the
calculation
baseline
for
impingement
mortality
the
only
valid
approach
would
be
to
collect
samples
before
the
new
intake
technology
is
deployed
so
that
the
baseline
impingement
(
predeployment
can
be
compared
to
the
post­
deployment
impingement
to
estimate
the
percent
reduction
in
impingement
mortality
attributable
to
the
technology.
EPA
requests
additional
comment
on
the
applicability
of
an
``
As
Built''
approach
to
estimate
the
calculation
baseline
for
impingement
mortality.
The
proposed
Phase
II
preamble
language
(
see
67
FR
17176)
stated
that
the
calculation
baseline
could
be
estimated
by
evaluating
existing
data
from
a
nearby
facility.
Some
commenters
requested
that
the
calculation
baseline
be
allowed
to
be
estimated
using
data
from
facilities
that
are
not
located
nearby
or
that
are
located
on
another
waterbody
as
long
as
the
two
facilities
had
closely
comparable
environmental
conditions
including
similar
locations
and
similar
species
that
would
be
impinged
and
entrained.
These
same
commenters
also
requested
that
the
proposed
rule
retain
flexibility
for
the
facility
in
choosing
the
location
of
the
hypothetical
shoreline
intake
as
long
as
the
location
is
one
where
an
intake
might
have
been
placed
in
the
exercise
of
sound
engineering
judgment,
without
regard
for
fish
protection.
Another
commenter
stated
that
assessing
the
mere
presence
or
absence
of
organisms
at
a
nearby
facility
or
in
the
same
waterbody
may
not
accurately
characterize
the
potential
for
impingement
and
entrainment
at
a
future
cooling
water
intake
structure.
This
commenter
also
indicated
that
sitespecific
interactions
of
organisms
with
the
hydrology
of
the
source
waterbody
and
the
cooling
water
intake
structure
configuration
would
confound
the
assessment
and
that
composition
and
abundance
of
impingement
of
organisms
can
be
very
different
for
two
cooling
water
intake
structures
located
close
to
one
another.
EPA
requests
additional
comment
on
the
appropriateness
of
allowing
facilities
to
define
the
calculation
baseline
using
data
from
other
facilities,
what
types
of
other
facilities
might
be
appropriate
for
this
purpose,
and
whether
the
variability
introduced
due
to
site­
specificity
is
greater
than
that
due
to
normal
fluctuations
in
natural
systems.

B.
Options
for
Evaluating
Compliance
With
Performance
Standards
EPA
received
numerous
comments
requesting
clarification
on
how
compliance
with
the
proposed
performance
standards
for
reducing
impingement
mortality
by
80
 
95%
and
entrainment
by
60
 
90%
would
be
determined.
For
both
impingement
mortality
and
entrainment,
EPA
is
evaluating
two
basic
methods
for
VerDate
Jan<
31>
2003
19:
17
Mar
18,
2003
Jkt
200001
PO
00000
Frm
00061
Fmt
4701
Sfmt
4702
E:\
FR\
FM\
19MRP2.
SGM
19MRP2
13582
Federal
Register
/
Vol.
68,
No.
53
/
Wednesday,
March
19,
2003
/
Proposed
Rules
determining
a
percent
reduction:
(
1)
Consideration
of
all
fish
and
shellfish
species
that
have
the
potential
to
be
impinged
or
entrained,
or
(
2)
consideration
of
fish
and
shellfish
from
only
a
subset
of
species
determined
to
be
representative
of
all
the
species
that
have
the
potential
to
be
impinged
or
entrained.
For
either
approach,
species
impinged
or
entrained
may
be
measured
by
counting
the
total
number
of
individual
fish
and
shellfish,
or
by
weighing
the
total
wet
or
dry
biomass
of
the
organisms.
These
approaches
are
described
in
more
detail
below.
EPA
invites
comments
on
these
approaches
and
whether
EPA
should
require
facilities
to
use
a
specific
method
or
only
provide
guidance.

All
Species
Approach
For
determining
compliance
with
the
impingement
mortality
and
entrainment
standards,
EPA
is
considering
requiring
that
all
species
of
fish
and
shellfish
present
at
the
cooling
water
intake
structure
and
having
the
potential
to
be
impinged
be
included
in
the
measurement.
Under
this
approach,
the
permittee
would
measure
either
the
total
number
or
the
total
biomass
of
the
fish
and
shellfish
impinged
(
without
regard
to
their
taxonomic
grouping)
and
use
this
number
to
compare
to
the
calculation
baseline
to
determine
compliance
with
the
impingement
mortality
reduction
performance
standards.
This
approach
would
be
the
simplest
conceptually
to
implement
since
only
the
total
number
or
mass
of
impinged
organisms
would
need
to
be
measured.
However,
this
approach
would
have
the
limitation
that
information
on
efficacy
of
the
technology
related
to
each
species
would
not
be
collected,
and
all
species
would
be
treated
as
equivalent,
without
regard
to
their
relative
ecological,
economic,
recreational,
or
cultural
importance.
EPA
is
similarly
considering
requiring
that
entrainment
losses
also
be
measured
by
counting
the
total
numbers
of
organisms
entrained.
This
approach
has
been
commonly
used
in
freshwater
rivers
and
streams
and
produces
either
a
total
number
of
undifferentiated
eggs
and
larvae
entrained,
or
an
identification
of
the
entrained
eggs
and
larvae
by
species
or
family.
Several
commenters
emphasized
that
a
permittee
should
not
be
required
to
prove
reduced
entrainment
of
every
entrained
species
by
at
least
60
percent.
These
commenters
also
stated
that
the
difficulty
and
cost
of
taxonomic
classifications
makes
species­
specific
monitoring
unreasonable,
and
that
classification
is
not
possible
for
early
life
stages
of
some
species.
If
EPA
were
to
require
the
use
of
an
approach
that
considers
the
total
number
of
all
fish
and
shellfish
that
have
the
potential
to
be
impinged
or
entrained,
regardless
of
species,
language
similar
to
the
following
would
be
added
at
proposed
§
125.94(
b)(
5):

(
5)
Compliance
with
impingement
mortality
and
entrainment
performance
standards
in
paragraphs
(
b)(
1)
through
(
4)
above
must
be
determined
based
on
a
comparison
of
the
enumeration
of
all
fish
and
shellfish
impinged
and
killed
and
entrained
with
those
estimated
to
be
impinged
and
killed
and
entrained
at
the
calculation
baseline.

EPA
requests
comment
on
the
approach
of
enumerating
all
fish
and
shellfish,
regardless
of
their
taxonomy
in
determining
compliance
with
the
performance
standards
for
impingement
mortality
and
entrainment
and
the
regulatory
language
above.
EPA
is
also
accepting
comment
on
the
advantages
and
disadvantages
of
using
the
absolute
number
of
organisms
impinged
or
entrained
as
opposed
to
using
wet
or
dry
total
weights
of
biomass.
For
measuring
compliance
with
the
entrainment
reduction
performance
standard,
several
commenters
suggested
that
the
entrained
biomass
could
be
measured
by
collecting
entrained
organisms
from
the
outfall
or
other
appropriate
monitoring
location
where
a
representative
sample
can
be
taken.
This
mass
would
then
be
compared
to
the
mass
of
eggs
and
larvae
that
would
have
been
entrained
at
the
calculation
baseline
to
determine
if
there
is
a
60
percent
reduction
or
better.
However,
EPA
is
concerned
that
if
a
facility
uses
biomass,
the
weights
may
not
be
substantial
enough
to
yield
useable
data
since
most
entrained
organisms
are
at
the
egg
or
larval
stage.
EPA
requests
comment
on
the
feasibility
of
using
biomass
for
measuring
compliance
with
the
entrainment
reduction
standard.

Representative
Species
Approach
Another
approach
to
determine
compliance
with
the
impingement
mortality
and
entrainment
performance
standard
involves
considering
a
subset
of
the
species
that
are
representative
of
all
species
that
are
susceptible
to
impingement
or
entrainment
in
the
waterbody
that
needs
to
be
protected.
This
approach
would
require
the
permittee
to
identify
representative
important/
indicator
species
(
RIS),
as
opposed
to
considering
all
species
present
at
the
cooling
water
intake
structure,
for
use
in
calculating
compliance
with
the
performance
standards.
If
this
approach
were
allowed,
EPA
is
considering
requiring
that
the
list
of
RIS
be
developed
by
the
facility,
in
consultation
with
the
Director
and
Federal,
State
and
Tribal
fish
and
wildlife
management
agencies
using
available
data.
EPA
might
also
require
the
concurrence
of
the
Director.
Historically,
the
term
RIS
has
been
defined
in
different
ways.
EPA's
1977
Draft
Guidance
for
Evaluating
the
Adverse
Impact
of
Cooling
Water
Intake
Structures
on
the
Aquatic
Environment:
Section
316(
b)
P.
L.
92
 
500
uses
the
concept
of
``
critical
aquatic
organisms.''
This
term
is
used
in
a
manner
similar
to
RIS.
The
1977
Guidance
states
that
``
critical
aquatic
organisms''
are
``
those
species
which
would
be
involved
with
the
intake
structure
and
are:
(
1)
Representative,
in
terms
of
their
biological
requirements,
of
a
balanced,
indigenous
community
of
fish,
shellfish,
and
wildlife;
(
2)
commercially
or
recreationally
valuable
(
e.
g.,
among
the
top
ten
species
landed
 
by
dollar
value);
(
3)
threatened
or
endangered;
(
4)
critical
to
the
structure
and
function
of
the
ecological
system
(
e.
g.,
habitat
formers);
(
5)
potentially
capable
of
becoming
localized
nuisance
species;
(
6)
necessary,
in
the
food
chain,
for
the
well­
being
of
species
determined
in
1
 
4;
(
7)
one
of
1
 
6
and
have
high
potential
susceptibility
to
entrapmentimpingement
and/
or
entrainment;
and
(
8)
critical
aquatic
organisms
based
on
1
 
7,
are
suggested
by
the
applicant,
and
are
approved
by
the
appropriate
regulatory
agencies
``
(
see
DCN
4
 
0006).
In
EPA's
section
316(
a)
regulations,
the
term
``
representative
important
species
(
RIS)''
is
used
and
defined
as
``
species
which
are
representative,
in
terms
of
their
biological
needs,
of
a
balanced,
indigenous
community
of
shellfish,
fish
and
wildlife
in
the
body
of
water
into
which
a
discharge
of
heat
is
made''
(
see
40
CFR
125.71).
Under
these
same
regulations,
the
term
``
balanced,
indigenous
community''
is
defined
as
``
a
biotic
community
typically
characterized
by
diversity,
the
capacity
to
sustain
itself
through
cyclic
seasonal
changes,
presence
of
necessary
food
chain
species
and
by
lack
of
domination
by
pollutant
tolerant
species.''(
See
40
CFR
125.71).
The
section
316(
a)
regulations
require
that
in
selecting
RIS,
special
consideration
be
given
to
species
mentioned
in
applicable
water
quality
standards.
It
further
requires
that
after
the
discharger
submits
its
detailed
plan
of
study,
the
Director
either
approve
the
plan
or
specify
any
necessary
revisions
to
the
plan
(
see
40
CFR
125.72).
Other
entities,
including
some
States,
use
the
concept
of
RIS
defined
as
those
species
selected
by
a
discharger
and
VerDate
Jan<
31>
2003
19:
17
Mar
18,
2003
Jkt
200001
PO
00000
Frm
00062
Fmt
4701
Sfmt
4702
E:\
FR\
FM\
19MRP2.
SGM
19MRP2
13583
Federal
Register
/
Vol.
68,
No.
53
/
Wednesday,
March
19,
2003
/
Proposed
Rules
approved
by
the
state
that
exhibit
one
or
more
of
the
following
characteristics:
Species
that
are
sensitive
to
adverse
harm
from
operations
of
the
facility
(
for
example,
heat­
sensitive
species);
species
that
use
the
local
area
as
spawning
or
nursery
grounds,
or
both,
including
those
species
that
migrate
past
the
facility
to
spawn;
species
of
commercial
or
recreational
value
or
both;
species
that
are
habitat
formers
and
are
critical
to
the
functioning
of
the
local
ecosystem;
species
that
are
important
links
in
the
local
food
web;
rare,
threatened,
or
endangered
species;
or
potential
nuisance
organisms
likely
to
be
enhanced
by
plant
operations.
In
some
cases,
the
permitting
authority
allows
the
permittee
to
identify
RIS
on
a
site­
specific
basis
(
see
State
of
Maryland
comments
on
proposed
Phase
II
rule).
EPA
is
considering
an
approach
that
employs
a
RIS
or
``
critical
aquatic
organisms''
approach
to
determine
compliance
with
the
impingement
mortality
performance
standards.
Facilities
would
be
required
to
identify
all
species
being
impinged
(
or
having
the
potential
to
be
impinged)
by
the
cooling
water
intake
structure.
From
that
total
list
of
species,
the
facility
would
then
choose
a
limited
number
of
organisms
based
on
a
definition
of
``
critical
aquatic
organisms''
provided
in
the
regulations.
EPA
requests
comment
on
whether
10
to
15
species
might
be
an
appropriate
number
to
protect
the
types
of
species
and
ecosystem
functions
discussed
in
the
above
discussions
of
representative
indicator
species
and
critical
aquatic
organisms.
EPA
is
considering
using
the
same
term
``
critical
aquatic
organisms''
since
it
has
been
associated
with
section
316(
b)
requirements
in
the
past.
EPA
is
concerned
that
the
RIS
term,
which
has
been
used
in
other
regulatory
programs,
may
have
conflicting
programmatic
issues
and
definitions
associated
with
it
that
could
not
be
anticipated.
EPA
would
consider
using
the
portions
of
the
above
language
from
the
definition
provided
in
the
1977
Guidance
as
it
provides
a
reasonable,
but
flexible,
framework
for
determining
a
list
of
fish
and
shellfish
that
are
representative
of
all
the
species
that
have
the
potential
to
be
impinged
or
entrained
at
cooling
water
intake
structures.
Changes
to
the
language
above
might
include
modifying
criteria
number
8
to
require
the
following:

(
8)
critical
aquatic
organisms
based
on
1
 
7,
are
developed
by
the
applicant,
with
the
concurrence
of
the
Director
and
in
consultation
with
Federal,
State,
and
Tribal
fish
and
wildlife
management
agencies
with
responsibility
for
fisheries
and
wildlife.
The
definition
would
be
added
to
the
proposed
rule
at
§
125.93.
As
discussed
above,
EPA
is
also
considering
a
consultation
role
for
the
Director
rather
than
one
of
concurrence.
Compliance
with
the
impingement
mortality
and
entrainment
performance
standards
could
then
be
measured
by
either
counting
the
total
number
of
individuals
of
all
the
critical
aquatic
organisms
impinged
and
killed
or
entrained,
or
by
measuring
the
total
biomass
(
wet
or
dry)
of
the
critical
aquatic
organisms
impinged
and
killed
or
entrained.
This
value
would
then
be
compared
to
the
calculation
baseline
to
determine
compliance
with
the
performance
standard.
EPA
is
also
considering
two
options
for
making
the
compliance
determination
using
the
critical
aquatic
organism
approach.
The
first
option
would
be
to
determine
compliance
based
on
a
total
enumeration
of
individuals
from
all
of
the
listed
critical
aquatic
organism
species,
and
the
second
option
would
be
to
base
compliance
on
a
separate
analysis
to
determine
the
reduction
in
impingement
mortality
and
entrainment
for
each
species.
If
this
critical
aquatic
organism
approach
is
used,
EPA
might
adopt
regulatory
language
at
§
125.94(
b)(
5)
for
Option
1
as
follows:

(
5)
Compliance
with
the
applicable
impingement
mortality
and
entrainment
performance
standards
in
paragraphs
(
b)(
1)
through
(
4)
above
must
be
determined
based
on
a
comparison
of
the
enumeration
of
individuals
from
all
of
the
listed
critical
aquatic
organism
species
impinged
and
killed
and
entrained
with
the
total
number
of
listed
critical
aquatic
organism
species
estimated
to
be
impinged
and
killed
and
entrained
at
the
calculation
baseline.

If
this
critical
aquatic
organism
approach
is
used
for
Option
2,
EPA
might
adopt
regulatory
language
at
§
125.94(
b)(
5)
for
Option
2
as
follows:

(
5)
Compliance
with
the
applicable
impingement
mortality
and
entrainment
performance
standards
in
paragraphs
(
b)(
1)
through
(
4)
above
must
be
determined
based
on
a
comparison
of
the
enumeration
of
individuals
from
each
of
the
listed
critical
aquatic
organism
species
impinged
and
killed
and
entrained
with
each
of
those
estimated
to
be
impinged
and
killed
and
entrained
at
the
calculation
baseline.

EPA
invites
comments
on
the
use
of
critical
aquatic
organism
approach,
the
above
definition
for
critical
aquatic
organisms,
the
above
regulatory
language
above,
and
the
two
options
(
a
total
enumeration
of
all
organisms
from
the
critical
aquatic
organism
species
or
a
separate
analysis
for
each
species)
for
determining
compliance
with
the
impingement
mortality
and
entrainment
performance
standards.
In
addition
to
the
potential
refinements
discussed
above
EPA
is
also
considering
and
requests
comment
on
whether
the
Agency
should
allow
the
Director
to
determine
how
best
to
measure
compliance,
either
programmatically
or
as
part
of
individual
permit
decisions.
EPA
recognizes
that
a
challenge
in
determining
compliance
with
both
the
impingement
mortality
and
entrainment
performance
standards
is
how
to
address
the
number
of
moribund
or
dead
fish
that
wash
up
against
the
intake
structure
or
become
entrained.
Under
ideal
circumstances,
fish
that
were
previously
injured
or
killed
from
weather­
related
phenomena,
or
other
episodic
fish
kills,
would
be
removed
from
the
measurement
in
order
to
more
accurately
determine
the
control
technology
performance.
To
ensure
consistency
with
the
use
of
the
term
moribund
among
permittees,
EPA
is
considering
adding
the
following
definition
of
moribund
(
A
Dictionary
of
Ecology,
Evolution,
and
Systematics,
Cambridge
University
Press,
1982)
to
§
125.93:

Moribund
means
dying;
close
to
death.

EPA
is
considering
placing
in
the
regulatory
language
the
ability
for
a
facility
to
take
into
account
moribund
fish
and
shellfish
for
determining
compliance
with
the
impingement
mortality
and
entrainment
performance
standard
using
actual
or
historical
data
(
if
representative
of
current
conditions).
If
EPA
allowed
the
exclusion
of
already
moribund
fish
and
shell
fish
in
determining
compliance
with
the
performance
standards,
the
Agency
might
adopt
regulatory
language
at
§
125.94(
b)(
5)
as
follows:

(
5)
Compliance
with
the
applicable
impingement
mortality
and
entrainment
performance
standards
in
paragraphs
(
b)(
1)
through
(
4)
above
must
be
determined
based
on
a
comparison
of
*
*
*.
The
number
of
moribund
organisms
that
were
previously
injured
or
killed
prior
to
encountering
the
intake
structure
must
be
removed
from
the
calculation
if
data
are
available.

EPA
invites
comments
on
including
this
regulatory
language
in
the
regulation
at
§
125.94
to
allow
facilities
to
exclude
already
moribund
fish
and
shellfish,
if
data
are
available.
EPA
also
invites
comment
on
whether
a
facility
should
have
the
opportunity
to
remove
the
number
of
moribund
organisms
from
the
calculation
but
not
be
required
to
do
so
(
as
in
the
sample
regulatory
language
above).

Other
Issues
To
calculate
the
mass
of
organisms
entrained
for
the
calculation
baseline
VerDate
Jan<
31>
2003
19:
17
Mar
18,
2003
Jkt
200001
PO
00000
Frm
00063
Fmt
4701
Sfmt
4702
E:\
FR\
FM\
19MRP2.
SGM
19MRP2
13584
Federal
Register
/
Vol.
68,
No.
53
/
Wednesday,
March
19,
2003
/
Proposed
Rules
facility
and
the
existing
plant
with
new
intake
technology
installed,
several
commenters
proposed
the
following
approach:
The
entrained
biomass
could
be
measured
by
sampling
the
waterbody
near
the
intake
(
the
hypothetical
shoreline
intake
for
the
baseline
plant
and
the
existing
or
relocated
intake
for
the
future
complying
plant).
To
calculate
the
mass
of
organisms
that
would
be
entrained
both
by
the
hypothetical
shoreline
intake
without
any
protective
technology
and
by
whatever
new
proposed
intake
technologies
are
being
assessed,
the
density
of
entrainable
organisms
present
in
the
samples
would
be
used
(
number/
volume).
An
important
consideration
in
evaluating
entrainment
is
the
element
of
time,
i.
e.,
the
density
of
entrainable
organisms
will
fluctuate.
EPA
is
soliciting
comment
on
the
use
of
total
biomass
or
density
in
predicting
or
determining
the
entrainment
reduction
that
would
occur
at
a
cooling
water
intake
structure.
EPA
received
numerous
comments
requesting
clarification
of
the
averaging
period
for
determining
the
percent
reduction
required
by
the
impingement
mortality
and
entrainment
performance
standards.
The
commenters
stated
that
due
to
significant
natural
temporal
and
spatial
variability
in
fish
abundance
and
distribution,
a
short­
term
averaging
period
may
not
be
appropriate.
Entrainment
may
be
near
zero
during
months
when
there
are
no
entrainable
organisms
near
the
intake.
Additionally,
the
density
of
aquatic
populations
varies
naturally
over
the
longer
term.
Some
commenters
suggested
that
the
averaging
period
for
determining
reductions
should
be
two
to
five
years
to
verify
that
the
technology
is
achieving
reductions
within
the
ranges
specified
for
the
performance
standards.
This
could
involve
measuring
the
percent
reductions
over
the
entire
monitoring
period.
EPA
is
considering
specifying
an
averaging
time
for
determining
compliance
with
performance
standards
over
1
year,
3
years,
or
a
running
average
over
the
entire
permit
term
(
5
years).
In
addition,
EPA
is
considering
requiring
the
use
of
basic
arithmetic
means
as
the
averaging
methodology.
EPA
is
requesting
comment
on
the
time
frames
and
averaging
method
discussed
above.
In
addition,
EPA
requests
comment
on
the
appropriate
methodology
for
determining
the
averaging
period.
EPA
is
also
considering
leaving
it
to
the
Director
to
determine
appropriate
averaging
periods
and
methodologies,
either
programmatically
or
on
a
sitespecific
basis,
and
requests
comment
on
this
approach.

C.
Compliance
Timelines,
Schedules,
and
Determination
The
proposed
rule
states
that
Phase
II
existing
facilities
would
have
to
comply
with
the
proposed
rule
requirements
when
a
NPDES
permit
containing
requirements
consistent
with
the
proposed
Subpart
J
requirements
is
issued
to
the
facility
(
see
proposed
§
125.92).
Under
existing
NPDES
program
regulations,
this
would
occur
following
publication
of
the
final
rule
when
an
existing
NPDES
permit
is
reissued,
or
when
an
existing
permit
is
modified,
or
revoked
and
reissued.
EPA
is
considering
options
that
would
require
full
compliance
with
the
rule
after
the
effective
date,
similar
to
what
EPA
did
in
the
Concentrated
Animal
Feeding
Operations
Rule,
to
the
extent
the
best
technologies
will
not
be
available
immediately
after
promulgation
of
the
final
rule.
As
discussed
below,
the
nature
of
this
regulation
is
such
that
facilities
may
need
to
test
and
verify
the
efficacy
of
the
technology
option
that
they
choose.
(
68
FR
7176,
7214
Feb.
12,
2003).
EPA
requests
comment
on
this
approach.
Commenters
raised
numerous
issues
regarding
the
proposed
implementation
and
compliance
schedules.
Key
comments
include
concern
that
the
proposed
rule
does
not
provide
sufficient
time
for
permittees
to
develop
necessary
information,
prepare
the
permit
application,
and
come
into
compliance;
suggestions
that
each
permit
renewal
need
not
encompass
a
complete
re­
application
and
redevelopment
of
the
permit;
questions
regarding
how
the
proposed
requirements
will
be
enforced
(
i.
e.,
what
constitutes
compliance);
and
a
general
request
for
additional
clarification
about
implementation
timing
issues
(
e.
g.,
effective
date).
Several
commenters
indicated
that
the
proposed
requirement
to
submit
data
associated
with
the
Comprehensive
Demonstration
Study
at
least
180
days
prior
to
permit
renewal
is
unrealistic.
These
commenters
indicated
that
sufficient
time
is
needed
to
collect
data
and
prepare
the
permit
application,
as
well
as
to
design
and
test
equipment.
Commenters
suggested
various
means
by
which
time
could
be
built
into
the
implementation
schedule,
including
allowing
for
the
use
of
compliance
schedules,
phased
compliance
requirements,
and
providing
a
fixed
period
of
time
for
facilities
to
evaluate
how
they
will
comply
and
submit
an
application.
The
proposed
180­
day
requirement
is
based
on
the
existing
NPDES
permit
program
requirement
for
renewal
of
existing
permits
(
40
CFR
122.21(
d)(
2)).
EPA
proposed
this
time
period,
in
part,
to
ensure
consistency
with
the
existing
NPDES
program.
The
180­
day
time
period
ensures
that
permit
writers
have
sufficient
time
to
review
NPDES
permit
applications,
which
for
Phase
II
existing
facilities
will
often
be
complex
and
include
considerable
amounts
of
information.
Some
commenters
have
suggested
EPA
allow
for
the
use
of
compliance
schedules
for
Phase
II
existing
facilities
to
conform
to
newly
promulgated
section
316(
b)
requirements.
NPDES
regulations
at
§
122.47
allow
for
the
use
of
compliance
schedules
in
NPDES
permits
by
allowing
permittees
additional
time
to
achieve
compliance
with
the
CWA
and
applicable
regulations.
Examples
of
situations
where
compliance
schedules
have
been
used
include,
but
are
not
limited
to,
where
new
or
revised
effluent
limitations
guidelines
were
promulgated
prior
to
1989,
or
where
new
water
quality
standards
are
developed.
EPA
believes
that
the
use
of
compliance
schedules
in
the
context
of
section
316(
b)
warrants
consideration
because
such
schedules
are
intended
to
allow
permittees
additional
time
where
it
clearly
is
necessary
to
achieve
compliance.
Compliance
schedules,
in
association
with
the
proposed
Phase
II
regulations,
would
allow
facilities
whose
NPDES
permit
would
be
reissued
within
the
first
few
years
after
promulgation,
additional
time
during
the
term
of
the
permit
to
collect
the
information
needed
for
the
analyses
required
for
the
permit
application,
and/
or
to
design,
install,
and
optimize
technologies
to
meet
the
performance
standards.
For
example,
facilities
that
would
be
issued
a
revised
NPDES
permit
six
months
after
the
Phase
II
rule
was
published
may
not
have
provided
the
Director
with
information
on
their
cooling
water
intake
structure,
and
even
if
they
had,
it
may
not
have
contained
the
regulation­
specific
information
such
as
the
Impingement
Mortality
and
Entrainment
Characterization
Study,
the
Design
and
Construction
Technology
Plan,
or
the
Verification
Monitoring
Plan.
In
addition,
the
facility
may
not
have
assessed
feasibility
and
certainly
would
not
have
begun
construction
of
technologies.
Use
of
compliance
schedules
under
the
NPDES
permit
program
would
require
that
the
permit
writer
develop
a
schedule
that
is
reasonable
and
that
will
ensure
that
the
VerDate
Jan<
31>
2003
19:
17
Mar
18,
2003
Jkt
200001
PO
00000
Frm
00064
Fmt
4701
Sfmt
4702
E:\
FR\
FM\
19MRP2.
SGM
19MRP2
13585
Federal
Register
/
Vol.
68,
No.
53
/
Wednesday,
March
19,
2003
/
Proposed
Rules
27
For
example,
one
commenter
suggested
allowing
two
years
for
baseline
ecological
studies
and
economic
studies;
one
year
to
proposed
and
install
technologies;
and
two
years
to
monitor
effectiveness
of
changes.
facility
is
brought
expeditiously
towards
compliance.
Some
commenters
suggested
that
EPA
provide
for
a
delayed
or
phased
compliance
date
that
would
allow
Phase
II
existing
facilities
to
have,
at
least,
a
specified,
minimum
period
of
time
to
conduct
their
study
and
implement
appropriate
technologies.
Commenters
questioned
whether
facilities
with
permit
renewal
dates
shortly
after
the
Phase
II
rule
becomes
final
would
have
sufficient
time
to
conduct
the
required
characterization
studies
and
implement
enhanced
control
technologies.
As
a
result,
they
suggested
that
some
specified
period
of
time
be
provided
to
all
Phase
II
existing
facilities
under
the
rule.
Generally,
suggestions
regarding
the
specific
amount
of
time
necessary
ranged
from
two
or
three
years
to
a
full
5­
year
permit
term
(
i.
e.,
allow
applicants
to
collect
data
and
perform
analyses
within
the
term
of
the
permit).
27
EPA
is
considering
and
requests
comment
on
whether
the
final
rule
should
allow
facilities
required
to
apply
for
a
permit
renewal
shortly
after
promulgation
of
the
Phase
II
rule
additional
time
to
complete
the
studies
associated
with
submitting
a
permit
application.
EPA
is
considering
the
following
options:
(
1)
Allowing
applicants
whose
permits
must
be
renewed
in
the
first
year
after
promulgation
of
the
Phase
II
rule
to
submit
application
materials
required
by
the
Phase
II
rule
one
year
after
their
current
permit
expires;
and
(
2)
allowing
a
two­
year
extension
in
the
deadline
for
submitting
Phase
II
application
materials.
Commenters
also
questioned
whether
the
study
and
data
requirements
specified
under
the
proposed
Phase
II
rule
will
be
fully
applicable
to
all
subsequent
316(
b)
permit
renewals
for
a
given
facility
(
i.
e.,
the
second,
third,
or
subsequent
rounds
of
316(
b)
permit
renewals
that
take
place
following
publication
of
the
final
Phase
II
rule).
Some
suggested
that
neither
the
preamble
nor
the
proposed
rule
covering
the
Comprehensive
Demonstration
Study
make
clear
whether
the
information
required
to
be
submitted
is
required
with
each
NPDES
permit
renewal.
Generally,
commenters
asserted
that
detailed
permit
evaluations
should
not
be
required
every
5
years
(
i.
e.,
with
each
renewal
cycle).
One
commenter
suggested
that
a
full
reassessment
should
only
be
required
every
third
permit
term
(
every
15
years).
EPA
did
not
discuss
alternative
permit
application
requirements
for
permit
renewals
in
the
proposed
Phase
II
rule.
The
proposed
Phase
II
rule
specifies
that
with
each
permit
renewal
the
Director
must
review
the
application
materials
and
monitoring
data
to
determine
whether
requirements,
or
additional
requirements,
for
design
and
construction
technologies
or
operational
measures
should
be
included
in
the
permit
(
see
proposed
§
125.98(
a)(
1)).
EPA
does
not
generally
specify
reduced
permit
application
requirements
for
permit
renewals
under
the
NPDES
program.
Rather,
permitted
facilities
and
permit
writers
normally
exchange
the
information
specified
in
the
relevant
permit
application
requirements
and
the
permit
writer
determines
when
the
application
is
complete
(
see
40
CFR
122.21(
d)).
It
is
not
uncommon,
however,
that
some
existing
information
(
i.
e.,
information
submitted
as
part
of
an
earlier
permit
application)
remains
part
of
a
renewal
application.
EPA
expects
this
to
be
true
for
Phase
II
existing
facilities
as
well.
Under
the
proposed
Phase
II
rule,
EPA
has
identified
several
categories
of
permit
application
data
and
information
requirements.
These
requirements,
which
are
reasonably
general
in
nature,
provide
certain
flexibility
to
applicants
to
update
only
the
key
parts
of
the
application
that
reflect
changes
in
environmental
conditions
or
operations.
For
example,
the
proposed
rule
would
allow
Phase
II
existing
facilities
to
submit
a
proposal
for
information
as
the
first
step
in
identifying
the
scope
of
the
Comprehensive
Demonstration
Study
(
see
proposed
§
125.95(
b)(
1)).
This
proposed
requirement
would
provide
applicants
with
an
opportunity
to
identify
the
information
in
the
study
that
has
changed
and
must
be
updated,
as
well
as
existing
information
that
remains
representative
of
current
conditions.
In
fact,
it
specifically
provides
for
inclusion
of
historical
studies
where
relevant.
It
also
provides
for
the
use
of
historical
impingement
and
entrainment
data,
provided
they
are
representative
of
the
current
operation
and
biological
conditions.
The
proposed
requirements
do
ensure
that
the
Director
retains
sufficient
flexibility
to
require
Phase
II
existing
facilities
to
submit
data
needed
to
assess
source
waterbody
conditions
and
design
and
operational
conditions
at
the
facility.
EPA
is
evaluating
an
additional
option
that
it
believes
would
maintain
the
Director's
ability
to
obtain
the
information
needed
to
make
informed
decisions
when
writing
NPDES
permits
for
existing
facilities
with
cooling
water
intake
structures.
The
proposed
rule
requires
that
facilities
submit
all
of
the
information
required
in
§
122.21(
r)
and
§
125.95
(
as
applicable).
EPA
is
considering
whether
to
develop
additional
regulatory
language
that
would
allow
the
Director
to
relax
the
application
information
requirements
if
conditions
at
the
facility
and
in
the
waterbody
remain
unchanged
since
the
facility
submitted
their
previous
NPDES
permit
application,
such
that
the
information
that
they
would
submit
would
remain
unchanged.
Should
this
new
regulatory
language
be
implemented,
the
facility
would
be
required
to
submit
evidence
that
the
conditions
remain
unchanged.
This
would
serve
to
lessen
the
burden
for
information
collection
activities
on
the
facility
after
the
initial
permit
where
section
316(
b)
requirements
are
placed
in
the
NPDES
permit
as
long
as
conditions
remain
unchanged.
To
demonstrate
that
operational
conditions
remain
unchanged,
the
facility
may
rely
upon
data
collected
during
the
permit
term,
including
facility
operational
data,
monitoring,
design
information,
and
other
data.
To
demonstrate
that
conditions
in
the
waterbody
remain
unchanged,
the
facility
may
rely
on
monitoring
and
studies
conducted
by
the
facility,
or
data
collected
by
other
sources
such
as
universities,
federal,
State,
or
local
environmental
and
resource
agencies,
or
other
facilities
located
in
close
proximity.
Determinations
of
unchanged
conditions
may
rely
upon
demonstrations
that
there
is
no
statistically
significant
changes
in
impingement
and
entrainment
at
the
facility
or
in
the
densities
of
organisms
in
the
vicinity
of
the
cooling
water
intake
structures,
for
example.
If
EPA
decides
to
relax
application
requirements
for
permit
renewals
after
a
facility's
initial
permit
implementing
the
Phase
II
regulations,
the
regulatory
language
of
§
125.95(
a)
might
be
revised
as
follows:

(
a)(
1)
You
must
submit
to
the
Director
the
application
information
required
by
40
CFR
122.21(
r)(
2),
(
3)
and
(
5)
and
the
Comprehensive
Demonstration
required
by
paragraph
(
b)
of
this
section
at
least
180
days
before
your
existing
permit
expires,
in
accordance
with
Sec.
122.21(
d)(
2).
(
2)
In
subsequent
permit
terms,
the
Director
may
approve
a
request
to
reduce
the
information
required
to
be
submitted
in
your
permit
application
on
the
cooling
water
intake
structure
and
the
source
waterbody,
if
conditions
at
your
facility
and
in
the
waterbody
remain
unchanged
since
your
previous
application.
You
should
submit
your
request
for
reduced
cooling
water
intake
structure
and
waterbody
application
VerDate
Jan<
31>
2003
19:
17
Mar
18,
2003
Jkt
200001
PO
00000
Frm
00065
Fmt
4701
Sfmt
4702
E:\
FR\
FM\
19MRP2.
SGM
19MRP2
13586
Federal
Register
/
Vol.
68,
No.
53
/
Wednesday,
March
19,
2003
/
Proposed
Rules
information
to
the
Director
at
least
1
year
prior
to
the
expiration
of
the
permit
term.
Your
request
must
contain
a
list
and
justification
for
each
information
item
in
§
122.21(
r)
or
§
125.95
that
you
determine
has
not
changed
since
the
previous
permit
application.

EPA
requests
comment
on
the
two
options
described
above.
EPA
specifically
requests
comments
on
whether
an
option
like
that
in
the
suggested
regulatory
language
above
is
appropriate
to
reduce
the
burden
for
NPDES
permit
applicants
in
subsequent
permit
terms
or
whether
the
option
that
would
provide
guidance
and
allow
resubmittal
of
existing
data
and
hence
a
reconfirmation
of
the
data
through
the
application
process
is
needed
to
ensure
accurate
data
for
the
Director.
There
would
be
companion
language
in
§
125.98
requiring
the
Director
to
review
and
approve,
approve
with
comments,
or
disapprove
the
request
within
60
days
of
submittal
by
the
applicant.
EPA
also
requests
comment
on
the
specific
time
frames
that
would
be
appropriate
for
this
option,
and
whether
they
should
be
specified
by
EPA
or
left
up
to
the
discretion
of
the
Director.
In
addition
to
the
concerns
discussed
above
regarding
the
timing
and
content
of
application
materials,
some
commenters
also
voiced
concerns
regarding
how
Directors
will
determine
if
a
facility
is
in
compliance
with
the
requirements
of
the
proposed
rule.
These
commenters
expressed
concern
that,
given
the
difficulty
of
predicting
the
performance
of
distinct
cooling
water
intake
control
technologies,
it
is
not
reasonable
to
expect
every
Phase
II
existing
facility
to
be
able
to
ensure
that
it
will
achieve
reductions
in
impingement
and
entrainment
that
are
consistent
with
the
proposed
performance
standards
within
the
first
permit
term
and,
therefore,
it
would
be
unfair
to
enforce
the
proposed
standards
until
each
facility
has
had
a
reasonable
period
to
achieve
compliance.
One
comment
expressed
by
these
groups
is
that
proper
design,
installation,
operation,
and
maintenance
of
technologies
reasonably
likely
(
based
on
appropriate
characterization
and
study)
to
meet
the
performance
standards
should
satisfy
the
permit
terms
and
conditions
(
i.
e.,
be
deemed
compliance),
at
least
until
the
second
round
of
permitting
occurs.
Stated
another
way,
commenters
maintain
that
Phase
II
existing
facilities
should
not
be
subject
to
immediate
enforcement
actions
in
the
first
permit
term
for
failing
to
meet
the
proposed
performance
ranges
(
i.
e.,
a
facility
that
properly
designs,
installs,
operates
and
maintains
cooling
water
intake
structure
control
technologies
but
discovers,
at
or
near
the
end
of
the
first
permit
term,
that
it
has
not
achieved
the
requisite
level
of
impingement
and
entrainment
reduction,
should
not
be
subject
to
enforcement
for
violating
the
section
316(
b)
requirements).
EPA
recognizes
that
significant
variability
in
biological
communities
over
seasons
and
other
time
periods
(
for
example,
a
period
of
peak
larval
abundance
that
typically
occurs
in
the
spring
months),
may
complicate
optimization
of
the
performance
of
technologies
for
reducing
impingement
mortality
and
entrainment.
EPA
is
considering
the
need
for
regulatory
language
that
would
allow
facilities
time
to
come
into
compliance
if
they
choose
to
install
technologies
to
meet
the
performance
standards
in
proposed
§
125.94.
This
would
allow
facilities
a
period
of
time
to
optimize
technology(
ies)
so
that
they
operate
to
minimize
impingement
mortality
and
entrainment.
EPA
is
currently
evaluating
and
considering
allowing
six
months,
one
year,
two
years,
or
five
years
(
one
permit
term)
for
a
facility
to
come
into
compliance
after
issuance
of
its
permit.
Example
regulatory
language
for
a
new
paragraph
(
e)
in
§
125.94
might
read
as
follows:

(
e)
If
you
propose
to
implement
design
and
construction
technologies
or
operational
measures
to
meet
the
performance
standards
in
§
125.94(
b)
or
(
c),
you
will
have
an
optimization
period
of
[
six
months/
one
year/
two
years/
five
years]
from
the
issuance
of
a
permit
requiring
compliance
with
§
125.94(
b)
or
(
c)
after
which
you
must
comply
with
the
standards.

In
this
case,
the
proposed
paragraphs
§
125.94(
e)
and
(
f)
would
then
become
(
f)
and
(
g),
respectively.
EPA
requests
comments
on
these
time
frames
and
the
suggested
regulatory
language
above.
EPA
also
requests
comment
on
whether
EPA
should
specify
the
length
of
the
optimization
period
or
whether
the
Director
should
make
this
decision.

D.
Determining
Capacity
Utilization
Rates
At
§
125.94(
b)(
2),
the
proposed
rule
would
require
facilities
with
a
capacity
utilization
rate
of
less
than
15
percent
to
meet
performance
standards
for
reducing
impingement
mortality.
§
125.94(
b)(
3)
would
require
facilities
with
a
capacity
utilization
rate
of
15
percent
or
more
to
meet
performance
standards
both
for
reducing
impingement
mortality
and
for
reducing
entrainment.
(
See
67
FR
17221.)
As
discussed
in
Section
III
above,
the
proposed
Phase
II
rule
defined
capacity
utilization
based
on
the
generation
and
capacity
of
the
entire
facility,
including
steam
electric
and
non­
steam
generators.
(
See
the
proposed
definition
of
``
capacity
utilization
rate''
at
§
125.93,
67
FR
17220.)
EPA
is
considering
whether,
for
the
purposes
of
implementing
Section
316(
b),
defining
capacity
utilization
based
on
the
steam
electric
part
of
a
facility
better
reflects
a
facility's
potential
for
adverse
environmental
impact
because
only
the
steam
electric
generators
use
cooling
water.
Thus,
EPA
is
considering
refining
its
regulatory
definition
for
``
capacity
utilization
rate''
at
the
proposed
§
125.93
to
reflect
use
of
the
steam
electric
part
of
a
facility.
If
EPA
were
to
make
this
change,
the
definition
of
``
capacity
utilization
rate''
in
§
125.93
might
be
revised
as
follows
(
new
language
is
underlined):

Capacity
utilization
rate
means
the
ratio
between
the
average
annual
net
generation
of
the
steam
electric
part
of
a
facility
(
in
MWh)
and
the
total
net
capability
of
the
steam
electric
part
of
a
facility
(
in
MW)
multiplied
by
the
number
of
available
hours
during
a
year.
The
average
annual
generation
must
be
measured
over
a
five
year
period
(
if
available)
of
representative
operating
conditions.

EPA
requests
comment
on
this
suggested
refinement.

E.
Clarifications
and
Corrections
1.
Implementation
Burden
for
Studies
and
Biological
Data
Collection
EPA
received
comments
concerning
the
information
collection,
study,
and
monitoring
costs
presented
in
the
supporting
Information
Collection
Request
for
Cooling
Water
Intake
Structures
for
the
Phase
II
Existing
Facility
Proposed
Rule
(
US
EPA
ICR
No.
2060.01)
(
February
2002).
Commenters
stated
that
the
format
was
confusing
and
the
detail
provided
in
the
ICR
was
insufficient
to
enable
them
to
review
and
comment
on
these
costs.
To
assist
reviewers,
EPA
has
placed
additional
information
into
the
record
summarizing
the
general
derivation
of
information
collection,
study,
and
monitoring
activity
costs
associated
with
the
Phase
II
rule.
Labor
categories,
labor
rates,
monitoring
components,
and
associated
costs
are
outlined
and
additional
cost
details
are
presented
in
summary
tables
to
facilitate
ease
of
review
and
understanding.
Commenters
also
pointed
out
that
EPA
had
inadvertently
transposed
the
labor
figures
for
statisticians
and
biological
technicians
when
putting
together
the
summary
tables
of
costs.
EPA
has
recalculated
the
ICR
costs
to
rectify
this
error
and
has
determined
that
costs
will
not
change
substantially.
Labor
costs
associated
with
monitoring
activities
in
the
ICR
were
significantly
higher
than
the
labor
for
writing
final
reports
and
studies.
Therefore,
when
the
VerDate
Jan<
31>
2003
19:
17
Mar
18,
2003
Jkt
200001
PO
00000
Frm
00066
Fmt
4701
Sfmt
4702
E:\
FR\
FM\
19MRP2.
SGM
19MRP2
13587
Federal
Register
/
Vol.
68,
No.
53
/
Wednesday,
March
19,
2003
/
Proposed
Rules
correction
to
the
labor
rates
was
made,
the
overall
facility
costs
decreased.
However,
the
decrease
in
facility
costs
due
to
the
correction
to
the
labor
rates
was
offset
by
other
changes
that
EPA
has
made
to
the
ICR
costs
since
proposal.
Some
commenters
stated
that
the
burdens
for
impingement
and
entrainment
monitoring
were
too
low.
EPA
has
reviewed
these
burden
estimates
and
has
increased
the
burdens
associated
with
impingement
and
entrainment
monitoring
associated
with
the
Impingement
Mortality
and
Entrainment
Characterization
Study.
In
addition,
EPA
has
revised
capital
and
O&
M
costs
associated
with
the
pilotscale
studies
some
facilities
may
perform
to
reflect
the
assumption
that
only
facilities
which
are
projected
to
install
new
technologies
will
perform
pilot
studies,
and
to
be
proportional
to
the
projected
capital
costs
for
installing
these
new
technologies
to
comply
with
the
rule.
The
following
provides
a
summary
of
the
effects
of
these
corrections
and
updates
on
labor
costs
and
overall
costs
for
facilities,
as
well
as
total
combined
costs
for
States
and
facilities.

 
Facility
labor
costs
increased
by
65%
from
$
66,399,819
to
$
109,346,909
annually.
 
Facility
capital
and
O&
M
costs
decreased
by
61%
from
$
63,633,640
to
$
24,801,777
annually.
 
Total
costs
for
facilities
increased
by
3.2%
from
$
130,033,459
to
$
134,148,685
annually.
 
Total
facility
and
State
costs
increased
by
2.8%
from
$
135,990,706
to
$
139,820,531
annually.
The
effects
of
the
recalculation
are
summarized
in
more
detail
in
a
memorandum
placed
in
the
record
(
see
``
Updated
Information
Collection
Costs
for
the
316(
b)
Phase
II
Notice
of
Data
Availability,
January
31,
2002).

2.
San
Onofre
Impacts
Discussion
In
response
to
comments
received
about
inaccuracies
related
to
facilityspecific
impacts
caused
by
impingement
and
entrainment
discussed
in
EPA's
Information
Collection
Request
(
ICR),
EPA
provides
the
following
clarification.
Specifically,
the
ICR
for
the
proposed
rule
described
entrainment
losses
at
San
Onofre
Nuclear
Generating
Station
(
SONGS).
EPA
received
updated
information
from
SONGS
facility
scientists
that
clarified
actual
entrainment
losses
in
normal
(
non­
El
Nino)
years
and
described
trends
in
shallow­
water
and
deepwater
fish
species
affected
by
entrainment.
In
addition,
prior
to
publication
of
the
proposed
rule,
EPA
concluded
that
kelp
bed
losses
in
proximity
to
the
SONGS
intake
were
attributable
to
turbidity
increases
caused
by
cooling
water
discharges,
not
cooling
water
withdrawals.
The
updated
information
for
SONGS
was
placed
in
the
preamble
to
the
proposal
(
see
67
FR
17138
 
17139),
but
was
inadvertently
omitted
from
the
ICR.
The
final
ICR
will
reflect
the
changes
described
above.

XII.
General
Solicitation
of
Comments
EPA
encourages
public
participation
in
this
rulemaking
and
requests
comments
on
this
notice
of
availability
supporting
the
proposed
rule
for
cooling
water
intake
structures
for
existing
Phase
II
facilities.
As
stated
in
section
II
of
this
NODA,
EPA
is
also
reopening
the
comment
period
on
all
aspects
of
the
proposal.
EPA
invites
all
parties
to
coordinate
their
data
collection
activities
with
the
Agency
to
facilitate
mutually
beneficial
and
cost­
effective
data
submissions.
Please
refer
to
the
FOR
FURTHER
INFORMATION
CONTACT
section
at
the
beginning
of
this
preamble
for
technical
contacts
at
EPA.

Dated:
March
12,
2003.
G.
Tracy
Mehan,
Assistant
Administrator,
Office
of
Water.
[
FR
Doc.
03
 
6453
Filed
3
 
18
 
03;
8:
45
am]

BILLING
CODE
6560
 
50
 
P
VerDate
Jan<
31>
2003
19:
17
Mar
18,
2003
Jkt
200001
PO
00000
Frm
00067
Fmt
4701
Sfmt
4702
E:\
FR\
FM\
19MRP2.
SGM
19MRP2