§ 316( b) Regional Case Studies, Part F: Northern CaliforniaChapter F5: Recreational Fishing Benefits 1 Southern California residents visiting Southern California sites were not included in the model. The Agency is considering estimating a joint model for Northern and Southern California for the final rule.

NODA Version  March 12, 2003F5 1 Chapter F5: Recreational Fishing Benefits INTRODUCTION EPA's regional case study uses a random utility model ( RUM) approach to estimate the benefits of improved fishing opportunities due to reduced impingement and entrainment ( I& E) in the Northern California region. The Northern California region is defined based on National Marine Fisheries Service ( NMFS) regional boundaries, and includes all northern counties to, and including, San Luis Obispo County.

EPA included anglers intercepted at sites in the Northern California region in the RUM model. When constructing each angler's choice set, EPA included all sites within 140 miles of the angler's home zip code. Thus, sites from the Southern California region were included for some Northern California anglers, to allow anglers from Northern California to travel to all substitute sites located within a one day travel distance limit. Also, anglers residing in Southern California who were intercepted at Northern California sites were included in the model. 1 Cooling Water Intake Structures ( CWISs) withdrawing water from California coastal waters and estuaries impinge and entrain many of the species sought by recreational anglers. These species include halibut, flounders, striped bass, various bottom fish species, and other less prominent species.

The study's main assumption is that, all else being equal, anglers will get greater satisfaction and thus greater economic value from sites with a higher catch rate. This benefit may occur in two ways:

< first, an angler may get greater enjoyment from a given fishing trip with higher catch rates, yielding 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.

The following sections focus on the data set used in the analysis, and the analytic results. Chapter A 10 of the Proposed Rule Case Study Report ( http:// www. epa. gov/ ost/ 316b) provides a detailed description of the RUM methodology used in this analysis.

F5 1 DATA SUMMARY EPA's analysis of improvements in recreational fishing opportunities in Northern California relies on data collected by the National Marine Fisheries Service's ( NMFS) Marine Recreational Fishery Statistics Survey ( MRFSS) CHAPTER CONTENTS F5 1 Data Summary.............................. F5 1 F5 1.1 Summary of Anglers' Characteristics....... F5 2 F5 1.2 Recreational Fishing Choice Sets .......... F5 5 F5 1.3 Site Attributes......................... F5 5 F5 1.4 Travel Cost............................ F5 7 F5 2 Site Choice Models........................... F5 7 F5 3 Welfare Estimates............................ F5 9 F5 3.1 Estimating Changes in the Quality of Fishing Sites............................. F5 9 F5 3.2 Estimating Losses from I& E in Northern California .............................. F5 12 F5 4 Limitations and Uncertainty................... F5 17 F5 4.1 Considering Only Recreational Values..... F5 17 F5 4.2 Charter Anglers....................... F5 17 F5 4.3 Species and Mode Substitution........... F5 18 Glossary....................................... F5 19 Acronyms...................................... F5 20 References..................................... F5 21 § 316( b) Regional Case Studies, Part F: Northern California Chapter F5: Recreational Fishing Benefits combined with the 2000 Add on MRFSS Cost Survey ( NMFS, 2000). 2 The model of recreational fishing behavior relies on a subset of the data that includes only single day trips to sites located in Northern California, and sites in the bordering county of Southern California. In addition, the sample excludes respondents missing data on key variables ( e. g., home town), and includes only private/ rental boat and shore mode anglers. The Agency did not include charter boat mode anglers in the model for the NODA, because charter boat trips represent only thirteen percent of the total angling trips in this region. As explained further below, the welfare gain to charter boat anglers from improved catch rates is approximated based on the regression coefficients developed for the boat anglers. The final sample used to estimate the RUM model includes 5,385 boat and shore anglers.

F5 1.1 Summary of Anglers  Characteristics a. Fishing modes and targeted species A majority of the anglers in the Northern California sample ( 62 percent) fish from either a private or a rental boat ( see Table F5 1 below). Approximately 26 percent fish from the shore; the remaining 13 percent fish from a party or charter boat. In addition to the mode of fishing, the MRFSS contains information on the specific species targeted on the current trip. The most popular species, targeted by 25 percent of anglers, is salmon. The second most popular species group, targeted by 21 percent of anglers, is bottom fish. 3 Approximately 26 percent of anglers did not have a designated target species. Of the remaining anglers, ten, nine, six, two, and .5 percent target small gamefish, flounders, sturgeon, big game fish, and other species, respectively.

< Bottom fish species include sheephead, greenlings, cabezon, sculpins, croakers, sea basses, rockfishes, scorpionfish, hake, tomcod, lingcod, and wrasses. < Small game fish include striped bass, Pacific bonito, Pacific barracuda, and small tunas and mackerels. < Flounders include California halibut, rock sole, sanddabs, starry flounder, and other flounders. < Big game fish include sharks, yellowtail, and other jacks. < Other species include jacksmelt, silversides, northern anchovy, herrings, and surf smelt.

The distribution of target species is not uniform by fishing mode. For example, 35% of private/ rental boat anglers and 28% of charter anglers target salmon, while less than two percent of shore anglers target salmon. Forty seven percent of shore anglers do not target a particular species, while only 20% of private/ rental boat anglers, and 13% of charter boat anglers do not target a species. Almost 58% of charter boat anglers target bottom fish species, while only 13% of private/ rental boat anglers, and 23% of shore anglers target bottom fish. Fourteen percent of private/ rental boat anglers target flounders ( including halibut), while no charter anglers and less than two percent of shore anglers target flounders. Twenty two percent of shore anglers target small game fish, while only 7% of private/ rental boat anglers and less than two percent of charter boat anglers target small game fish.

2 For general discussion of the MRFSS see Proposed Section 316( b) Phase II Existing Facilities Rule Case Study Analysis or   Marine Recreational Fisheries Statistics: Data User s Manual,  NMFS, http:// www. st. nmfs. gov. recreational/ index. html).

3 Bottom fish species include sheephead, greenlings, cabezon, sculpins, croakers, sea basses, rockfishes, scorpionfish, hake, tomcod, lingcod, and wrasses.

NODA Version  March 12, 2003 F5 2 § 316( b) Regional Case Studies, Part F: Northern CaliforniaChapter F5: Recreational Fishing Benefits 4 Income was not reported by most survey respondents. Median household income data by zip code, from the U. S. Census in 2000, was used to provide income information for respondents not reporting income.

5 All costs are in 2000$, which represent the MRFSS survey year. All costs/ benefits will be updated to 2002$ later in this analysis ( e. g., for welfare estimation).

6 Calculation of trip cost and travel time is explained in section F5 1.4 below.

NODA Version  March 12, 2003F5 3 Table F5 1: Species Group Choice by Mode of Fishing Species Group All ModesPrivate/ Rental BoatParty/ Charter BoatShore FrequencyPercentFrequencyPercent by ModeFrequencyPercent by ModeFrequencyPercent by Mode Small game61810.39% 2717.28% 101.32% 34722.20%

Bottom fish85521.43% 49413.27% 44057.97% 36123.10%

Flounders5459.02% 51613.86% 00.00% 291.86%

Big game921.52% 792.12% 00.00% 130.83%

Salmon1,32225.33% 1,30034.93% 20927.54% 221.41%

Sturgeon3475.74% 3258.73% 00.00% 221.41%

No target1,57626.08% 73619.77% 10013.18% 74047.34%

Other300.50% 10.03% 00.00% 291.86%

All species6,044100.00% 3,72261.58% 759 12.56% 1,563 25.86%

Source: U. S. EPA analysis.

b. This section presents a summary of angler characteristics for the Northern California region as defined above. comparison the study uses only the data included in the RUM model, i. e. only data for private/ rental boat anglers and shore anglers. t anglers and 1,563 shore anglers. marizes information on fishing trips and anglers.

The average income of the respondent anglers was $ 54,882.4 Ninety two percent of the anglers are male. spent 32 days fishing during the past year. erage trip cost for surveyed trips is $ 23.20 ( 2000$), 5 and the average one way travel time to the site was about half an hour. 6 The average duration of a fishing trip was 4.72 hours. did not include additional demographic statistics ( e. g., race and Anglers  characteristics For this data This data set includes 5,285 observations: 3,722 boaTable F5 2 sum The average angler The av The California data education). § 316( b) Regional Case Studies, Part F: Northern CaliforniaChapter F5: Analysis of Recreational Fishing Benefits NODA Version  March 12, 2003F5 4 Table F5 2: ta Summary for the Northern California Coast Anglers Variable All ModesPrivate/ Rental BoatShore NMeanaStd DevMinMaxNMeanaStd DevMinMaxNMeanaStd DevMinMax Travel cost5,28523.2025.220.37157.363,72225.0426.090.61157.361,56318.8322.450.37149.82 Travel time5,2850.530.590.0083.483,7220.570.610.023.481,5630.430.520.013.36 Male5,2380.920.27013,6920.920.27011,5460.910.2901 Annual trips5,22432.2640.1503603,68630.0034.4803501,53837.6750.860360 Income5,285$ 54,882$ 18,047$ 0$ 145,4253,722$ 54,373$ 18,384$ 0$ 142,4591,563$ 56,094$ 17,163$ 0$ 145,425 Average trip length in hours 6,7954.7182.0170.5016.504,1495.0921.7830.5016.5001,8873.4091.1590.5010.50 a For dummy variables such as   Male  that take the value of 0 or 1, the reported value represents a portion of the survey respondents possessing the relevant characteristic.

example, 92 percent of the surveyed anglers are males.

Source: U. S. EPA analysis. Da For § 316( b) Regional Case Studies, Part F: Northern CaliforniaChapter F5: Recreational Fishing Benefits NODA Version  March 12, 2003F5 5 F5 1.2 There are 126 National Marine Fisheries Service ( NMFS) intercept sites in the Northern California region. These 126 fishing sites constitute the total choice set for the Northern California region. California region were generated based on NMFS sites located within 140 miles of the respondent s home zip code. Distances from unique zip codes to each of the 248 NMFS sites located in California were estimated using ArcView 3.2a software. A maximum of 37 sites defines the choice set inclusive of the site actually visited at the time of the survey. In cases where more than 36 additional sites are within the 140 mile distance limit, 36 sites are randomly drawn from the available sites. resulting choice sets for individual anglers range from 6 to 94 sites, with the average choice set containing 71 sites. F5 3 summarizes the number of sites available, and anglers intercepted, for each county in the Northern California region.

Table F5 3: Number of Northern California Region Sites and Anglers by County CountyNumber of SitesNumber of Intercepted Anglers a Alameda12650 Contra Costa5409 Del Norte6119 Humboldt11379 Marin11388 Mendocino10233 Monterey12409 San Francisco12326 San Luis Obispo10239 San Mateo15602 Santa Clara10 Santa Cruz10745 Solano2530 Sonoma9256 Total1265,285 a Includes intercepted private/ rental boat and shore mode anglers only. Charter boat anglers are not included as no specific charter boat model of site choice was estimated.

Source: U. S. EPA analysis.

F5 1.3 This analysis assumes that the angler chooses between site alternatives by comparing his/ her indirect utility function for each alternative and choosing the one that maximizes utility. llowing McConnell and Strand ( 1994), this assumption states that the individual first chooses fishing mode and species and then, conditional on his choice, chooses the recreational site ( Hicks, Steinback, Gautam, and Thunberg, 1999).

To measure site quality, this analysis uses catch rates for the fish species of concern, as well as the presence of marinas and/ or docks at each site, and the presence of piers or jetties at each site. the most important attribute of a fishing site from the angler s perspective ( McConnell and Strand, 1994; Haab et al., 2000). concern because catch rate is a function of fish abundance, which is affected by fish mortality due to I& E. Recreational Fishing Choice Sets Choice sets for individual anglers in the Northern The Table Site Attributes Fo Catch rate is This attribute is also a policy variable of The catch rate § 316( b) Regional Case Studies, Part F: Northern CaliforniaChapter F5: Recreational Fishing Benefits 7 No target anglers in Northern California caught fish in all species groups included in the model.

NODA Version  March 12, 2003F5 6 variable in the RUM therefore provides the means to measure baseline losses in I& E and changes in anglers  welfare attributed to changes from I& E resulting from the 316( b) rule.

To specify the fishing quality of the case study sites, EPA calculated historic catch rate based on the NMFS catch rates from 1996 to 2000. the model. on, flounders, small game fish, big game fish, bottom fish, and other species, as described above. for all species caught by anglers who did not target a specific species. 7 The catch rates represent the number of fish caught on a fishing trip divided by the number of hours spent fishing ( i. e., the number of fish caught per hour per angler). ated catch rates are averages across all anglers by mode, target species, and site over the five year period ( 1996 2000).

The catch rate variables include total catch, including fish caught and kept and fish released. e NMFS studies use the catch and keep measure as the relevant catch rate. eater error may be associated with measured number of fish not kept, the total catch measure is most appropriate because a large number of anglers catch and release fish. h rate variables include both targeted fish catch and incidental catch. ple, small game catch rates include fish caught by small game anglers, anglers targeting another species group but who actually caught a small game fish, and anglers who don t target any particular species. eted species catch rates for this analysis, but discovered that this approach did not provide a sufficient number of observations to allow estimation of catch rates for all fishing sites included in the analysis.

Anglers who target particular species generally catch more fish in the targeted category than anglers who do not target these species, because of specialized equipment and skills. summarizes average catch rates by species for all sites in the study area. ode anglers who target particular species, bottom fish anglers catch the largest number of fish per hour ( 1.09), followed by anglers who target species in the   other  category (. 83), those who target small game ( 0.62), those who target flounders (. 55), those who target big game (. 46), those who target salmon (. 34), and those who target sturgeon (. 21). ode anglers who target particular species, anglers who target fish in the   other  category catch the largest number of fish per hour ( 1.67), followed by anglers who target flounders ( 1.57), those who target bottom fish ( 0.95), those who target big game fish or sturgeon (. 52), those who target small game (. 51), and those who target salmon (. 28).

Table F5 4: Average Catch Rate by Species/ Species Group for the Northern California Coast Sites by Mode of Fishing Species/ Species Group Average Catch Rate ( fish per angler per hour)

All SitesSites with Non Zero Catch Rates Private/ Rental BoatShorePrivate/ Rental BoatShore Small game<IP_ADDRESS>0.51 Other bottom fish0.400.661.090.95 Flounders0.160.350.551.57 Big game<IP_ADDRESS>0.52 Salmon<IP_ADDRESS>0.28 Sturgeon<IP_ADDRESS>.52 No target0.250.560.750.87 Other0.120.650.831.67 Source: U. S. EPA analysis. Six species or species groups were included in They are sturgeon, salm For no target anglers, EPA calculated average catch The estim Som Although a gr The total catc For exam EPA considered using targ Table F5 4 Of the boat m Of the shore m § 316( b) Regional Case Studies, Part F: Northern California Chapter F5: Recreational Fishing Benefits Some RUM studies have used predicted, rather than actual, catch rates ( Haab et al., 2000; Hicks et al., 1999; McConnell and Strand, 1994). to affect catch rates; for example, anglers with different levels of experience may have different catch rates. al. ( 2000) compared historic catch and keep rates to predicted catch and keep rates and found that historic catch and keep rates were a better measure of site quality. found that using historic catch rates resulted in more conservative welfare estimates than predicted catch rate models. Consequently, EPA used this more conservative approach.

F5 1.4 EPA used ArcView 3.2a software to estimate distances from the household zip code to each NMFS fishing site in the individual opportunity sets. locations from the Master Site Register supplied by NMFS. The Master Site Register includes both a unique identifier that corresponds to the visited site used in the angler survey, and latitude and longitude coordinates. e sites the latitude and longitude coordinates were missing or demonstrably incorrect, in which case the town point, as identified in the U. S. Geological Survey ( USGS) Geographic Names Information System, was used as the site location if a town was reported in the site address. measured the distance in miles of the shortest route, using state and U. S. highways, from the household zip code to each fishing site, then added the distances from the zip location to the closest highway and from the site location to the closest highway. to the visited site for all modes is 21.2 miles. Private/ rental boat anglers traveled further, on average, to the chosen site than shore anglers, going 22.91 miles versus 17.06 miles.

EPA estimated trip   price  as the sum of travel costs plus the opportunity cost of time following the procedure described in Haab et al. ( 2000). udy assumed that time spent   on site  is constant across sites and can be ignored in the price calculation. ate anglers  travel costs, EPA multiplied round trip distance by average motor vehicle cost per mile ($ 0.325, 2000$). 8 To estimate the opportunity cost of travel time, EPA first divided round trip distance by 40 miles per hour to estimate trip time, and used one third of the household s wage to yield the opportunity cost of time. ated household wage by dividing household income by 2,080 ( i. e., the number of full time hours potentially worked).

EPA calculated visit price as:

( F5 1)

F5 2 SITE CHOICE MODELS The nature of the MRFSS data leads to the RUM as a means of examining anglers  preferences ( Haab, Whitehead, and McConnell, 2000). among a set of feasible sites. es that the individual angler makes a choice among mutually exclusive site alternatives based on the attributes of those alternatives ( McFadden, 1981). ber of feasible choices ( J) in each angler s choice set was set to 37 sites within 140 miles of the angler s home.

An angler s choice of sites relies on utility maximization. j if the utility ( uj) from visiting site j is greater than that from vising other sites ( h), such that:

( F5 2)

Anglers choose the species to seek and the mode of fishing in addition to choosing a fishing site. odes This practice allows for individual characteristics Haab et Hicks et al. ( 1999)

Travel Cost The Agency obtained fishing site For som The program The average one way distance Based on Parsons and Kealy ( 1992), this st To estim EPA estim Anglers arrive at each NMFS site by choosing The RUM assum The num An angler will choose site Available fishing m 8 EPA used the 2000 government rate ($ 0.325) for travel reimbursement to estimate travel costs per mile traveled. This estimate includes vehicle operating cost only.

NODA Version  March 12, 2003 F5 7 § 316( b) Regional Case Studies, Part F: Northern California Chapter F5: Recreational Fishing Benefits include shore fishing, fishing from charter boats, or fishing from private or rental boats. The target species or group of species include small game, bottom fish, flounders, big game fish, salmon, sturgeon and other fish. Anglers may also choose not to target any particular species.

Recreational fishing models generally assume that anglers first choose a mode and species, and then a site. The nested logit model is generally used for recreational demand models, as it avoids the independence of relevant alternatives ( IIA) problem, in which sites with similar characteristics that are not included in the model have correlated error terms. However, for the Northern California RUM, the estimated inclusive value parameters for a nested model of shore and boat anglers were significantly greater than one, indicating that nesting was not appropriate for the data. Consequently, EPA estimated separate logit models for boat and shore anglers. The Agency did not include the angler s choice of fishing mode and target species in the model, instead assuming that the mode/ species choice is exogenous to the model and that the angler simply chooses the site. EPA used the following general model to specify the deterministic part of the utility function: 9 where:

v TCj SITE ATTRIBUTESj SQRT( Qjs ) Flag( s) ( F5 3)

= the expected utility for site j ( j= 1,... 37); = travel cost for site j; = presence of marinas or docks, and piers or jetties at site j; = square root of the historic catch rate for species s at site j; 10 and = 1 if an angler is targeting this species; 0 otherwise.

The analysis assumes that each angler in the estimated model considers site quality based only on the catch rate for the targeted species. Theoretically, an angler may catch any of the available species at a given site ( McFadden, 1981). If, however, an angler truly has a species preference, then including the catch variable for all species available at the site would inappropriately attribute utility to the angler for a species not pursued ( T. Haab, J. Whitehead, and T. McConnell, 2000). To avoid this problem, the Agency used an interaction variable SQRT ( Qjs ) × Flag ( s), such that the catch rate variable for a given species is turned on only if the angler targets a particular species ( Flag ( s) = 1). The Agency calculated a separate catch rate for no target anglers, using the average of all species caught by no target anglers. The final model presented here is a site choice model that includes all fish species. The analysis therefore assumes that each angler has chosen a mode/ species combination followed by a site based on the catch rates for that site and species. EPA estimated all RUM models with LIMDEPTM software ( Greene, 1995). Table F5 5 gives the parameter estimates for this model.

9 See Chapter A 10 of the Proposed Section 316( b) Phase II Existing Facilities Rule Case Study Analysis report for detail on model specification.

10 The analysis used the square root of the catch rate to allow for decreasing marginal utility of catching fish ( McConnell and Strand, 1994).

NODA Version  March 12, 2003 F5 8 § 316( b) Regional Case Studies, Part F: Northern CaliforniaChapter F5: Recreational Fishing Benefits NODA Version  March 12, 2003F5 9 Table F5 5: Estimated Coefficients for the Conditional Site Choice Variable Private/ Rental Boat ModelShore Model Estimated Coefficientt statisticEstimated Coefficientt statistic TRIPCST 0.0896 53.82 0.1091 34.19 SQRT ( Qsalmon) 5.798023.405.56154.78 SQRT ( Qsturgeon) 16.697210.10N/ AN/ A SQRT ( Qflounder) 2.342610.430.93063.82 SQRT ( Qsmall game) 0.82448.042.10388.81 SQRT ( Qbottom) 1.03206.140.42112.09 SQRT ( Qbig game) 3.14765.28N/ AN/ A SQRT ( Qno target) 2.078313.930.46565.58 Marina/ Dock0.41959.38 1.8644 17.60 Pier/ Jetty 0.6808 17.320.618610.59 Source: U. S. EPA analysis.

One disadvantage of the specified model is that the model looks at site choice without regard to mode or species, whereas species selection is an integral part of the nested RUM. across species ( i. e., the value of catching, or potentially catching, a different species is not included in the calculation). Therefore, improvements in fishing circumstances related to other species will have no effect on anglers  choices.

Table F5 5 shows that all coefficients have the expected signs and are statistically significant at the 95th percentile. cost has a negative effect on the probability of selecting a site, indicating that anglers prefer to visit sites closer to their homes ( other things being equal). arina/ dock variable and the negative coefficient on the pier/ jetty variable for boat anglers indicates that anglers fishing from boats are more likely to choose sites with marinas or docks, and less likely to choose sites with piers or jetties. these variables are reversed for shore anglers, indicating that shore anglers prefer sites with piers or jetties, and are less likely to fish from marinas or docks.

For all species, the probability of a site visit increases as the historic catch rate for fish species increases. toric catch rates averaged over all species caught by no target anglers to characterize fishing site quality for no target anglers. Many species can contribute to sites  perceived quality for no target anglers because they catch whatever bites. no target anglers select sites with higher historic catch rates.

F5 3 WELFARE ESTIMATES This section presents estimates of welfare losses to recreational anglers from fish mortality due to I& E, and potential welfare gains from improvements in fishing opportunities due to reduced fish mortality stemming from the 316( b) rule.

F5 3.1 To estimate changes in the quality of fishing sites under different policy scenarios, EPA relied on the recreational fishery landings data by state and the estimates of recreational losses from I& E on the relevant species corresponding to different technology options. ded the recreational fishery landings data for the Northern California region. ated the losses to recreational fisheries using the physical impacts of I& E on the relevant fish species and the percentage of total fishery landings attributed to recreational fishery, as described in Section D. 2 of the 316( b) NODA. Once an angler chooses a target species no substitution is allowed Trip The positive coefficient on the m The signs on EPA used his In general,

Estimating Changes in the Quality of Fishing Sites The National Marine Fisheries Service provi EPA estim § 316( b) Regional Case Studies, Part F: Northern California Chapter F5: Recreational Fishing Benefits The Agency estimated changes in the quality of recreational fishing sites under different policy scenarios in terms of the percentage change in the historic catch rate. EPA assumed that catch rates will change uniformly across all marine fishing sites in Northern California, because species considered in this analysis inhabit the entire coast. EPA used five year recreational landing data ( 1996 through 2000) for state waters to calculate an average landing per year for each species included in the model. 11 EPA then divided losses to the recreational fishery from I& E by the total recreational landings for Northern California to calculate the percent change in historic catch rate from eliminating I& E completely. Table F5 6 presents results of this analysis. Table F5 7 presents estimated improvements in catch rates, over baseline losses, for the preferred technology option at each facility in Northern California.

11 State waters include sounds, inlets, tidal portions of rivers, bays, estuaries, and other areas of salt or brackish water, plus ocean waters to three nautical miles from shore ( NMFS 2001a, http:// www. st. nmfs. gov. recreational/ index. html).

NODA Version  March 12, 2003 F5 10 § 316( b) Regional Case Studies, Part F: Northern CaliforniaChapter F5: Recreational Fishing Benefits NODA Version  March 12, 2003F5 11 Table F5 6: Estimated Changes in Catch Rates from Eliminating All I& E of Affected Species in Northern California Estimated Recreational Fishery Losses from I& E Total Recreational Landings for Northern California ( fish per year) a Percent Increase in Recreational Catch from Elimination of I& E Species by Species Group Forgone Recreational Catch from I& E Flounders:

California halibut1,250 Other flounders127 Total for Flounders1,377238,394.578%

Small game Fish:

Striped bass257,431 Total for Small Game257,431459,56356.016%

Bottom fish:

Cabezon164 Croakers928 Rockfishes18,917 Sculpins38,471 Surfperches182,610 Total for Bottom Fish241,0893,665,5206.595%

Other fish:

Silversides78,830 Smelts217 Total for Other Fish79,0471,442,3565.480%

Total for All Species 578,9445,795,8339.989%

a. Source: The Marine Recreational Fishery Statistics Survey, 1996 2000. landings are calculated as a five year average ( 1996 2000) for state waters. Total recreational § 316( b) Regional Case Studies, Part F: Northern CaliforniaChapter F5: Recreational Fishing Benefits NODA Version  March 12, 2003F5 12 Table F5 7: Estimated Changes in Catch Rates from Reducing I& E of Affected Species in Northern California, under the Preferred Policy Option Estimated Change in Recreational Fishery Losses under the Preferred Policy OptionTotal Recreational Landings for Northern California ( fish per year) a Percent Increase in Recreational Catch from Reduction in I& ESpecies by Species Group Estimated Reduction if Forgone Recreational Catch Flounders:

California halibut666 Other flounders96 Total for Flounders762238,394.320%

Small game fish:

Striped bass68,615 Total for Small Game68,615459,56314.931%

Bottom fish:

Cabezon123 Croakers740 Rockfishes15,099 Sculpins21,611 Surfperches146,077 Total for Bottom Fish183,6513,665,5205.024%

Other fish:

Silversides62,588 Smelts171 Total for Other Fish62,7601,442,3564.351%

Total for All Species 315,7885,795,8335.449%

a Source: The Marine Recreational Fishery Statistics Survey, 1996 2000. recreational landings are calculated as a five year average ( 1996 2000) for state waters.

F5 3.2 The recreational behavior model described in the preceding sections provides a means for estimating the economic effects of changes in recreational fishery losses from I& E in Northern California. ated welfare gain to recreational anglers from eliminating fishery losses due to I& E. timate represents economic damages to recreational anglers from I& E of recreational fish species in Northern California under the baseline scenario. ated benefits to recreational anglers due to I& E reduction under the preferred policy option.

EPA estimated anglers  willingness to pay for improvements in the quality of recreational fishing due to I& E elimination by Total Estimating Losses from I& E in Northern California First, EPA estim This es EPA then estim § 316( b) Regional Case Studies, Part F: Northern California Chapter F5: Recreational Fishing Benefits first calculating an average per trip welfare gain based on the expected changes in catch rates from eliminating I& E. Table F5 8 presents the compensating variation per trip ( averaged over all anglers in the sample) associated with reduced fish mortality from eliminating I& E for each fish species group of concern. Table F5 8 also shows the per trip welfare gain attributable to reduced I& E resulting from the preferred technology option. 12 Table F5 8 shows that shore anglers targeting small game fish ( primarily striped bass) have the largest per trip gain ($ 3.37) from eliminating I& E in Northern California. Boat anglers targeting small game fish also have a per trip welfare gain of $ 1.19. Striped bass is a small game species prized for both its fighting skills and taste. While no target anglers who fish from boats have the second highest welfare gain per trip ($ 2.66), no target anglers who fish from shore have the lowest per trip gain. This is likely to be the case because of the species caught by no target anglers from boats versus from shore. Over three quarters of no target boat anglers catch small game fish, flounders, or bottom fish. Over half of shore no target anglers catch bottom fish; 22 percent catch other fish; and 15 percent catch small game fish. In general, the fish caught by no target anglers from boats are likely to be larger, and thus more valuable, than those caught by no target anglers from shore.

Table F5 8 also reports the willingness to pay ( WTP) for a one unit increase in historic catch rate by species. The value of increasing the historic catch rate varies significantly by species and by fishing mode. For boat anglers who target specific species, sturgeon are the most highly valued fish, followed by salmon, big game fish, flounders, and bottom fish. For shore anglers who target specific species, salmon are most highly valued, followed by small game fish, flounders, and bottom fish. Boat anglers have higher values than shore anglers for flounders and bottom fish. Most boat anglers who target fish in the flounders category catch halibut, which are much larger than other species in the flounders category. Few shore anglers catch halibut. Shore anglers have higher values for small game fish than boat anglers. No target anglers who fish from boats have much higher values per fish than no target anglers who fish from shore. This might be explained by the fact that boat anglers generally catch more valuable species.

12 A compensating variation equates the expected value of realized utility under the baseline and post compliance conditions. For more detail see Chapter A 10 of the Proposed Section 316( b) Phase II Existing Facilities Rule Case Study Analysis..

NODA Version  March 12, 2003 F5 13 § 316( b) Regional Case Studies, Part F: Northern CaliforniaChapter F5: Recreational Fishing Benefits NODA Version  March 12, 2003F5 14 Table F5 8: Per Trip Welfare Gain from Eliminating I& E and from I& E Reductions under the Preferred Policy Option in Northern California Targeted Species Group Per Trip Welfare Gain ( 2002$) WTP for an Additional Fish per Trip ( 2002$)

Eliminating I& EReduced I& E with Preferred Technology Boat Anglers Shore AnglersBoat AnglersShore AnglersBoat AnglersShore 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 fishaN/ A$ 0.58N/ A$ 0.46N/ A$ 1.10 No targetb$ 2.66$ 0.02$ 2.48$ 0.00d$ 8.53$ 0.76 SalmoncN/ AN/ AN/ AN/ A$ 9.40$ 10.66 SturgeoncN/ AN/ AN/ AN/ A$ 33.50N/ Ad Big game fishbN/ AN/ AN/ AN/ A$ 4.05N/ A a Not targeted by boat anglers in the sample b The value is based on all species caught by no target anglers. c Not estimated due to limitations of I& E data. d Mean value of the welfare gain from reduced I& E under the preferred technology option for no target anglers for shore mode was negligible.

Source: U. S. EPA analysis.

EPA calculated the total economic value of eliminating I& E in Northern California by combining the estimated per trip welfare gain with the total number of fishing days in the Northern California region. ation on the total number of fishing trips by state and by fishing mode; this total number of fishing days includes both single and multiple day trips. ber of fishing days by fishing mode.

Table F5 9: Recreational Fishing Participation in 2001 by Fishing Mode for Northern California Fishing Mode Total Number of Fishing Days per Year Private rental boat920,196 Shore864,178 Charter boat193,007 Total1,977,381 Source: NMFS, http:// www. st. nmfs. gov. recreational/ index. html). NMFS provided inform Table F5 9 presents the NMFS num § 316( b) Regional Case Studies, Part F: Northern California Chapter F5: Recreational Fishing Benefits Per trip welfare gain differs across recreational species and fishing mode. 13 EPA therefore estimated the number of fishing trips associated with each species of concern and the number of trips taken by no target anglers. EPA used the MRFSS sample to calculate the proportion of recreational fishing trips taken by no target anglers and anglers targeting each species of concern and applied these percentages to the total number of trips to estimate species specific participation. Table F5 10 shows the calculation results. No target anglers account for the largest number of fishing days in Northern California ( 616,463 days), followed by anglers targeting bottom fish, salmon, small game fish, flounders, sturgeon, big game fish, and other fish.

The estimated number of trips represents the baseline level of participation. Anglers may take more fishing trips as recreational fishing circumstances change. However, EPA was unable to estimate a trip participation model for Northern California, because the required data were not available. Therefore, the welfare estimates presented here do not account for likely increases in the number of trips due to elimination of I& E, and thus understate total welfare effects.

13 EPA used the per trip values for private/ rental boat anglers to estimate welfare gains for charter boat anglers.

NODA Version  March 12, 2003 F5 15 § 316( b) Regional Case Studies, Part F: Northern CaliforniaChapter F5: Recreational Fishing Benefits NODA Version  March 12, 2003F5 16 Table F5 10: Recreational Fishing Participation by Species and Fishing Mode Species Mode: Private Rental Boats Number of Fishing Days Mode: Shore Number of Fishing DaysMode: Charter Boat Number of Fishing Days Total for all Modes a Flounders127,53916,0740143,613 Small Game fish66,990191,8482,548261,385 Bottom fish122,110199,625111,886433,621 Other fish27616,074016,350 No target181,923409,10225,438616,463 Salmon321,42412,18553,154386,764 Sturgeon80,33312,185092,518 Big Game fish19,5087,173026,681 Total a920,104864,264193,0261,977,395 a Sum of individual values may not add up to totals due to the rounding error.

Source: U. S. EPA analysis.

Tables F5 11 and F5 12 provide total annual welfare estimates for baseline losses and reductions in baseline losses, respectively. that fish must grow to a certain size before they will be caught by recreational anglers. discount factors separately for impingement and entrainment of each species ( see Section X. B. 6 of the 316( b) NODA). ate discounted total benefits for Northern California, EPA calculated weighted averages of these discount factors, and applied them to estimated willingness to pay values. for both a 3 percent discount rate and a 7 percent discount rate.

Table F5 11 presents annual losses to recreational anglers from baseline I& E effects in Northern California. recreational losses ( 2002$) to Northern California anglers, before discounting, from I& E of flounders, small game fish, bottom fish and other fish are $ 1,432,645 per year. scounted baseline losses are $ 1,224,284, discounted using a three percent discount rate, and $ 1,050,991, discounted using a seven percent discount rate.

Table F5 12 presents the annual welfare gain under the preferred policy option for each facility in the region. Total undiscounted recreational losses are reduced by $ 790,560 with the preferred technology. total losses are reduced by $ 663,965. cent discount rate, total losses are reduced by $ 596,551. These values were discounted, to reflect the fact EPA calculated To estim Discount factors were calculated Total Total di Using a three percent discount rate, Using a seven per § 316( b) Regional Case Studies, Part F: Northern CaliforniaChapter F5: Recreational Fishing Benefits NODA Version  March 12, 2003F5 17 Table F5 11: Total Estimated Annual Baseline Losses from I& E for Northern California ( 2002$)

Species Total Losses before Discounting Total Losses with 3% Discounting Total Losses with 7% Discounting Flounders$ 56,634$ 45,307$ 35,679 Small game fish$ 728,909$ 634,151$ 532,104 Bottom fish$ 77,312$ 71,900$ 67,261 Other fish$ 9,276$ 7,699$ 6,772 No target$ 560,514$ 465,227$ 409,175 Total recreational use losses$ 1,432,645$ 1,224,284$ 1,050,991 Source: U. S. EPA analysis.

Table F5 12: Total Estimated Annual Reductions in Baseline Losses under the Preferred Policy Option in Northern California ( 2002$)

Species Total Losses Before Discounting Total Losses with 3% Discounting Total Losses with 7% Discounting Flounders$ 2,702$ 2,189$ 1,729 Small game fish$ 206,584$ 183,860$ 157,004 Bottom fish$ 59,041$ 54,908$ 51,366 Other fish$ 7,376$ 5,975$ 5,458 No target$ 514,857$ 471,034$ 380,994 Total recreational use losses$ 790,560$ 663,965$ 596,551 Source: U. S. EPA analysis.

F5 4 LIMITATIONS AND UNCERTAINTY F5 4.1 Considering Only Recreational Values This study understates the total benefits of improvements in fishing site quality because estimates are limited to recreational use benefits. Many other forms of benefits, such as habitat values for a variety of species ( in addition to recreational fish), non use values, etc., are also likely to be important.

F5 4.2 Charter Anglers The Agency used values for private/ rental boat anglers to estimate values for charter anglers. It is not clear whether this will result in an overestimate or underestimate of per trip values for charter boat anglers. § 316( b) Regional Case Studies, Part F: Northern California Chapter F5: Recreational Fishing Benefits F5 4.3 Species and Mode Substitution EPA s estimated RUM model does not allow for anglers to substitute between modes or species. The analysis therefore assumes that each angler has chosen a mode/ species combination followed by a site based on the catch rates for that site and species. One disadvantage of the specified model is that the model looks at site choice without regard to mode or species. Once an angler chooses a target species and mode, no substitution is allowed across species or mode ( i. e., the value of catching, or potentially catching, a different species or fishing using a different mode is not included in the calculation). Therefore, improvements in fishing circumstances related to other species or modes will have no effect on anglers  choices, and thus will not be accounted for in the welfare estimates.

NODA Version  March 12, 2003 F5 18 § 316( b) Regional Case Studies, Part F: Northern California Chapter F5: Recreational Fishing Benefits GLOSSARY Cooling Water Intake Structures ( CWISs) : the total physical structure and any associated constructed waterways used to withdraw water from waters of the U. S. The cooling water intake structure extends from the point at which water is withdrawn from the surface water source to the first intake pump or series of pumps.

Independence of Irrelevant Alternatives ( IIA): IIA means that the relative odds of one alternative being chosen over a second should be independent of the presence or absence of unchosen third alternatives.

Impingement and Entrainment ( I& E) : impingement is the entrapment of aquatic organisms on the outer part of an intake structure or against a screening device during periods of intake water withdrawal; entrainment is the incorporation of fish, eggs, larvae, and other plankton with intake water flow entering and passing through a cooling water intake structure and into a cooling water system.

Marine Recreational Fishery Statistics Survey ( MRFSS) : a long term monitoring program that provides estimates of effort, participation, and finfish catch by recreational anglers. The MRFSS survey consists of two independent, but complementary, surveys: a random digit dial telephone survey of households and an intercept survey of anglers at fishing access sites. Sampling is stratified by state, fishing mode ( shore, private/ rental boat, party/ charter boat), and wave, and allocated according to fishing pressure. Fishing sites are randomly selected from an updated list of access sites.

National Marine Fisheries Service ( NMFS) : a division of the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration ( NOAA), NMFS is the primary fisheries service in the U. S., responsible for fisheries management and marine ecosystem health.

Random Utility Model ( RUM): a model of consumer behavior. The model contains observable determinants of consumer behavior and a random element.

NODA Version  March 12, 2003 F5 19 § 316( b) Regional Case Studies, Part F: Northern California Chapter F5: Recreational Fishing Benefits ACRONYMS CWISs: Cooling Water Intake Structures I& E: impingement and entrainment MRFSS: Marine Recreational Fishery Statistics Survey NMFS: National Marine Fisheries Service RUM: random utility model NODA Version  March 12, 2003 F5 20 § 316( b) Regional Case Studies, Part F: Northern California Chapter F5: Recreational Fishing Benefits REFERENCES ArcView 3.2a. Environmental Systems Research Institute, Inc, Redlands, CA, 2000.

Greene, William H. 1995. Limdep Version 7 User s Manual. Plainview, NY: Econometric Software, Inc.

Haab, Timothy C.; John C. Whitehead; and Ted McConnell. 2000. The Economic Value of Marine Recreational Fishing in the Southeast United States: 1997 Southeast Economic Data Analysis. Final Report, July.

Hicks, Rob, Scott Steinback, Amy Gautam, and Eric Thunberg. 1999. Volume II: The Economic Value of New England and Mid Atlantic Sportfishing in 1994. U. S. Department of Commerce, National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, National Marine Fisheries Service. NOAA Technical Memorandum NMFS F/ SPO 38.

Lupi, Frank, and John P. Hoehn. 1998.   The Effect of Trip Lengths on Travel Cost Parameters in Recreation Demand,  in Western Regional Research Publication: W 133, Benefits and Costs of Resource Policies Affecting Public and Private Land. Eleventh Interim Report, June, 1998.

McConnell, K. and I. Strand. 1994. The Economic Value of Mid and South Atlantic Sportfishing: Volume 2. Cooperative Agreement # CR 811043 01 0 between the University of Maryland at College Park, the Environmental Protection Agency, the National Marine Fisheries Service, and the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration.

McFadden, D. 1981.   Econometric Models of Probabilistic Choice.  In C. F. Manski and D. L. McFadden, Eds., Structural Analysis of Discrete Data. Cambridge, MA; MIT Press.

National Marine Fisheries Service, Office of Science and Technology, Fisheries Statistics and Economics Division. 1999. Marine Recreational Fisheries Statistics: Data User s Manual. http:// www. st. nmfs. gov/ st1/ recreational/ research/ procedures. html, July 12.

National Marine Fisheries Service, Office of Science and Technology, Fisheries and Economics Division. 2001a. Marine Recreational Fisheries Statistics Survey ( MRFSS), Snapshot Query. http:// www. st. nmfs. gov/ recreational/ queries/ catch/ snapshot. html. Accessed in November 2002.

National Marine Fisheries Service, Office of Science and Technology, Fisheries Statistics and Economics Division. 2001b. Marine Recreational Fisheries Statistics ( 1996 2000). http:// www. st. nmfs. gov/ st1/ recreational/ research . Accessed in November 2002.

Parsons, G. and M. J. Kealy. 1992.   Randomly Drawn Opportunity Sets in a Random Utility Model of Land Recreation.  Land Economics, 68( 1): pp 93 106.

NODA Version  March 12, 2003 F5 21


[Federal Register Volume 82, Number 185 (Tuesday, September 26, 2017)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 44733-44734]
[FR Doc No: 2017-20564]

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY

Coast Guard

33 CFR Part 117

[Docket No. USCG-2017-0573]

Drawbridge Operation Regulation; Southern Branch of the Elizabeth
River, Chesapeake, VA

AGENCY: Coast Guard, DHS.

ACTION: Notice of deviation from drawbridge regulation.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

SUMMARY: The Coast Guard has issued a temporary deviation from the
operating schedule that governs the I-64 (High Rise) Bridge across the
Atlantic Intracoastal Waterway, Southern Branch of the Elizabeth River,
mile 7.1, at Chesapeake, VA. The deviation is necessary to facilitate
routine maintenance. This deviation allows the bridge to remain in the
closed-to-navigation position.

DATES: This deviation is effective from 7 a.m. on October 2, 2017
through 11 p.m. on November 22, 2017.

ADDRESSES: The docket for this deviation, [USCG-2017-0573] is available
at http://www.regulations.gov. Type the docket number in the ``SEARCH''
box and click ``SEARCH''. Click on Open Docket Folder on the line
associated with this deviation.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: If you have questions on this
temporary deviation, call or email Mr. Mickey Sanders, Bridge
Administration Branch Fifth District, Coast Guard; telephone (757) 398-
6587, email<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The Virginia Department of Transportation,
owner and operator of the I-64 (High Rise) Bridge across the Atlantic
Intracoastal Waterway, Southern Branch of the Elizabeth River, mile
7.1, at Chesapeake, VA, has requested a temporary deviation from the
current operating schedule to accommodate annual maintenance to remove
and replace the center locks and install new electrical wiring and
lubrication piping. The bridge has a vertical clearance of 65 feet
above mean high water (MHW) in the closed position.
    The current operating schedule is set out in 33 CFR 117.997(e).
Under this

temporary deviation, the bridge will be maintained in the closed-to-
navigation position for four (4) separate five (5) day periods from 7
a.m., October 2, 2017, through 11 p.m., October 6, 2017; from 7 a.m.,
October 16, 2017, through 11 p.m., October 20, 2017; from 7 a.m.,
October 30, 2017, through 11 p.m., November 3, 2017; from 7 a.m.,
November 13, 2017, through 11.p.m., November 17, 2017. The alternate
dates for inclement weather are from 7 a.m., October 9, 2017, through
11 p.m., October 13, 2017; from 7 a.m., October 23, 2017, through 11
p.m., October 27, 2017; from 7 a.m., November 6, 2017, through 11 p.m.,
November 10, 2017; from 7 a.m., November 18, 2017, through 11 p.m.,
November 22, 2017. The bridge will open on signal if at least 24 hours
notice is given at all other times.
    The Atlantic Intracoastal Waterway, Southern Branch of the
Elizabeth River is used by a variety of vessels including small
commercial vessels, recreational vessels and tug and barge traffic. The
Coast Guard has carefully coordinated the restrictions with waterway
users in publishing this temporary deviation.
    Vessels able to pass through the bridge in the closed position may
do so if at least 15 minutes notice is given. The bridge will not be
able to open for emergencies and there is no immediate alternate route
for vessels unable to pass through the bridge in the closed position.
The Coast Guard will also inform the users of the waterways through our
Local and Broadcast Notice to Mariners of the change in operating
schedule for the bridge so that vessel operators can arrange their
transits to minimize any impact caused by this temporary deviation.
    In accordance with 33 CFR 117.35(e), the drawbridge must return to
its regular operating schedule immediately at the end of this effective
period of this temporary deviation. This deviation from the operating
regulations is authorized under 33 CFR 117.35.

    Dated: September 21, 2017.
Hal R. Pitts,
Bridge Program Manager, Fifth Coast Guard District.
[FR Doc. 2017-20564 Filed 9-25-17; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 9110-04-P