March 12, 2003 Memorandum Date March 12, 2003 To Memo to the 316( b) Record From Lynne Tudor, OW/ EPA; Elena Besedin, Marisa Mazzotta, and Robert Johnston, Abt Associates Inc.; and Elizabeth Strange, Stratus Consulting Subject Estimating Total and Non Use Values for Fish, Based on Habitat Values for Coastal Wetlands and Eelgrass ( SAV)

Introduction Reducing impingement and entrainment ( I& E) losses of fish results in both use and non use benefits. I& E 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 I& E losses consisting of fish that are recreationally and commercially landed, however, represented only approximately 0.15 percent of the total age one equivalent I& E losses at five estuary, tidal river, and ocean case study facilities evaluated for the Phase II 316( b) proposal ( see the proposed Case Study Document, http:// www. epa. gov/ waterscience/ 316b/ casestudy/ ). 1 The remaining I& E losses at these five facilities are distributed as follows:

< Unlanded recreational and commercial fish represent 0.77 percent of the total age one equivalent I& E 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 fisheries means that EPA did not directly value approximately 99.85 percent of the total age one equivalent I& E losses at the five cooling water intake structures ( CWISs) discussed above. 2 Although individuals do not use these resources directly, they may nevertheless be affected by changes in their status or quality. Monetary expression of individuals  preferences for these resources is known as non use value. Both commercial and recreational fishermen, as well as those who do not use the resource, may have non use values for these species.

Given that aquatic species without any direct uses account for the majority of CWIS losses, it is important to account for non use values in the benefits analysis. Stated preference methods, or benefit transfers based on stated preference studies, are the only generally accepted techniques for estimating non use 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. Benefit transfer involves adapting research conducted for another purpose in the available literature to address the policy questions in hand. Because benefits analysis of environmental regulations rarely affords enough time to develop 1 The estuary/ tidal river facilities incorporated in this estimate include Salem, Big Bend, and Brayton Point. The ocean facilities are Seabrook and Pilgrim.

2 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.

 1 March 12, 2003 original stated preference surveys that are specific to the policy effects, benefit transfer is often the only option for providing information to inform a policy decision.

It is not feasible to conduct a primary stated preference study for the 316( b) rule, because of the regulatory schedule and the time and significant resources necessary to properly perform such a study. EPA therefore analyzed available existing evidence concerning total benefits ( including use and non use values) for the 316( b) regulation. Specifically, the Agency developed total values for forage species and recreational and commercial species ( including the unlanded portion of commercial and recreational species) using a benefit transfer approach. This approach uses benefit transfer of habitat values to value the amount of habitat required to offset I& E losses.

The approach discussed here 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 I& E. The method used by EPA 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 I& E. These data are then combined to yield an indirect estimate of household values for fish and shellfish.

Researchers, in the original Peconic survey ( Opaluch, 1998) asked respondents to value eelgrass and wetland habitat, which EPA then translated, using estimates of fish abundance in these habitats into values for specific species and quantities of fish or shellfish. The purpose of this memo describes the benefit transfer approach and its application to estimate baseline I& E losses for the North Atlantic region. The methodology used in this analysis uses estimates of the public value of the fish habitat services from wetlands and eelgrass, or sub aquatic vegetation ( SAV), to value I& E damage to fishery resources.

This benefit transfer approach involves three general steps:

< ( 1) Estimate the amount of restored wetlands and eelgrass needed to produce organisms at a level necessary to offset I& E losses for the subset of species for which potential production information is available;

< ( 2) Develop WTP values for ecosystem services from fish production by wetlands and eelgrass; and < ( 3) Estimate the total value of baseline I& E losses by multiplying the WTP values for fish and shellfish services of restored wetlands and eelgrass by the number of acres of each needed to offset I& E losses.

The rest of this memorandum outlines the methodology and applies it to the North Atlantic region. The benefit transfer provides estimates of public values for eelgrass ( SAV) and coastal wetlands, both of which provide fish and shellfish habitat. Because wetlands may provide services other than fish habitat, the estimated wetlands values are reduced to reflect only the portion of value that may be attributed to fish habitat. These values are then applied to residents living near power generating facilities in the North Atlantic region to evaluate baseline I& E losses from these facilities.

1. Estimating the Amount of Different Habitat Types Needed to Offset I& E Losses for Specific Species The first step in the analysis involves calculating the area of habitat needed to offset I& E 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 at CWIS). Habitats that support fish and shellfish include seagrasses, tidal wetlands, coral reefs, and estuarine soft bottom sediments. The analysis may also consider man made  2 March 12, 2003 habitat enhancements, such as artificial reefs or fish passageways. The most suitable habitat restoration option is selected for each affected species. The proposed 316( b) rule case study report provides a detailed description of this method ( see U. S. EPA 2002, Proposed Section 316( b) Phase II Existing Facilities Rule Case Study Analysis, http:// www. epa. gov/ waterscience/ 316b/ casestudy/ ).

This memorandum provides estimates of the habitat required to offset I& E losses of fish species at estuarine and ocean facilities in the North Atlantic region based on the amount of habitat necessary for species that could benefit from restoration of submerged aquatic vegetation ( SAV) and wetlands. The regional analysis is based on analyses for the Brayton Point and Pilgrim power plants located in the North Atlantic region. A panel of local resource experts was convened separately for each facility to determine the type of habitat restoration most likely to offset I& E losses at the facility. Although a separate expert panel was convened for each facility, the same restoration action was identified for species that were lost at both facilities, with the exception of scup. Restoration of submerged aquatic vegetation ( SAV) was identified as the preferred restoration method for scup lost at Brayton Point, while water quality improvement was identified as the preferred restoration method for scup lost at Pilgrim.

Table 1 presents the fish species in the North Atlantic region for which SAV or tidal wetland restoration was identified as the preferred method for offsetting I& E losses. Of the 37 fish species lost to I& E in the region, experts determined that losses of seven species could be offset by tidal wetland restoration, and losses of six species could be offset by SAV restoration. Table 1 presents the I& E losses and restoration action identified for each of these 13 species. Losses of these species account for 23,090,067 age 1 equivalent fish out of the total regional I& E loss of 50,484,839. This represents 45.7% of the total I& E loss in the North Atlantic region.

Table 1: Average Annual Age 1 Equivalent I& E Losses and Preferred Habitat Restoration Alternative ( SAV or Tidal Wetland) for I& E Species in the North Atlantic Region. I& E Species Average Annual Age 1 Equivalent Preferred Habitat Restoration American sand lance 10,344,711 tidal wetland Winter flounder 8,981,759 tidal wetland Grubby 3,505,701 tidal wetland Atlantic silverside 106,159 tidal wetland Striped killifish 8,225 tidal wetland Striped bass 662 tidal wetland Bluefish 1,221 tidal wetland Threespine stickleback 81,693 SAV Atlantic cod 25,132 SAV Northern pipefish 15,224 SAV Weakfish 12,586 SAV Pollock 3,380 SAV Scup 3,614 SAV ( Brayton) Other ( Pilgrim) TOTAL I& E 23,090,067 Table 2 presents estimated age 1 equivalent densities in wetland or SAV habitat for the 13 fish species for which restoration of these habitats was identified as the preferred alternative for offsetting I& E losses. 3 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 3 Specific data sources for these estimates and details of data analyses are provided in chapters F5 and G5 of the § 316( b) Phase II Case Study Document.

 3 March 12, 2003 I& E 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).

Table 2: Estimated Age 1 Equivalent Densities in Tidal Wetland and SAV for 13 I& E Species Tidal Wetland Age 1 Equivalent Density, fish/ 100 m 2 ( fish/ acre) a, b SAV Age 1 Equivalent Densitity, fish/ 100 m 2 ( fish/ acre) a, b Brayton Point Estimate Pilgrim Estimate Brayton Point Estimate Pilgrim Esimate American sand lance No abundance data No abundance data Winter flounder 0.05 ( 205) 0.09 ( 351) Grubby No abundance data No abundance data Atlantic silverside 0.05 ( 202) 0.19 ( 752) SAV not preferred restoration alternative Striped killifish 0.19 ( 764) 0.17 ( 691) Striped bass No abundance data No abundance data Bluefish No abundance data No abundance data Threespine stickleback 11.23 ( 455) 19.29 ( 781) Atlantic cod No abundance data No abundance data Northern pipefish Wetland not preferred restoration alternative No I& E at Brayton Point 2.50 ( 101)

Weakfish No abundance data No abundance data Pollock No abundance data No abundance data Scup 0.08 ( 3) Not the preferred habitat restoration method for increased species production a. Differences in the abundance estimates for a specific species between Brayton Point and Pilgrim reflect incorporation of differences in site specific life history. b. Abundance estimates per unit of habitat are rounded to the nearest fish.

For any given species, the number of acres of restored habitat needed to offset I& E losses is determined by dividing the species average annual age 1 equivalent I& E loss by its estimated abundance per acre in that habitat. Table 3 presents results of this calculation for the species in Table 2 with density estimates for SAV or wetland. The amount of wetlands acreage needed to restore I& E losses ranged from 11 12 acres for killifish to 25,589 48,813 acres for winter flounder. For SAV, the acreage estimated ranged from 105 180 acres for threespine stickleback, to 1205 acres for scup.

 4 March 12, 2003 Table 3: Quantity of Tidal Wetland and SAV Habitat Restoration Required to Offset I& E Losses of Species for Which Estimates Could Be Developed Species Estimated North Atlantic Age 1 Equivalent I& E Loss Expected Abundance per Restored Acre of Habitat Total Acres of Habitat Restoration Required to Offset I& E Loss Brayton Point Estimate Pilgrim based Estimate Brayton Estimate Pilgrim Estimate Tidal Wetland Restoration Winter flounder 8,981,759 205 351 43,813 25,589 Atlantic silverside 106,159 202 752 526 141 Striped killifish 8,225 764 691 11 12 SAV Restoration Threespine stickleback 81,693 455 781 180 105 Northern pipefish 15,224 No I& E at Brayton Point 101 No I& E at Brayton Point 151 Scup 3,614 3 Not the preferred restoration alternative 1,205 Not the preferred restoration alternative Table 4 presents lower and upper bound estimates of the total wetland and SAV restoration required to offset North Atlantic I& E losses. These estimates reflect the acreage needed for the species requiring the maximum quantity of habitat restoration to offset its I& E losses ( see Table 3). 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 acreage needed for winter flounder overstates the acreage necessary for Atlantic silverside and Striped killifish. However, abundance data on additional species identified by local experts as benefitting most from tidal wetland restoration was unavailable to determine the acreage necessary to replace other species such as American sand lance, Grubby, Striped Lance, and Bluefish ( see Table 1), and the Agency was unable to provide acreage estimates for these species.

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.

Table 4: Lower and Upper Bound Estimates of Total Wetland and SAV Restoration Required to Offset North Atlantic I& E. 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  5 March 12, 2003 2. Developing WTP Values for Fish Production Services Provided by Submerged Aquatic Vegetation and Wetlands The value for fish habitat can provide an indirect basis for valuing the fish that are supported by the habitat. The mechanism for such indirect valuation first assesses public values for ecosystems that are valued mainly for the provision of fish habitat, and then estimates the quantity of such ecosystems required to provide the species and quantities of fish to be valued. Combining these data yields an indirect estimate of the public s value for the fish supported by the habitat. Survey respondents can be asked to value acres of habitat ( e. g., eelgrass or wetlands), and these values per acre can then be translated, using scientific data on the species supported, into values for specific species and quantities of fish. It is likely to be easier for members of the general public to understand and express their values for certain ecosystems, like wetlands, with which they are relatively familiar, than to express values for specific fish species with which they may or may not be familiar. Existing wetland valuation studies found that members of the general public are aware of the fish production services provided by SAV and wetlands, and that they express support for steps that include increasing SAV and wetland areas to restore reduced fish and shellfish populations ( Opaluch et al., 1995; Mazzotta, 1996).

2.1 Description of Studies Used for Benefit Transfer EPA based the benefit transfer of both total and non use 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, 2001b; Opaluch et al., 1995, 1998; Mazzotta, 1996). Conducted in 1995, the study provides information for the Peconic Estuary Program s Comprehensive Conservation and Management Plan ( see http:// www. savethepeconicbays. org/ ccmp/ ). EPA used an additional wetlands valuation study, Johnston et. al., 2000b, to supplement the information provided by the Peconic Estuary study. Section 2.1.2 discusses this additional study. The Peconic Estuary study is discussed briefly below.

2.1.1 Measuring Public Values and Priorities for Natural Resources: An Application to the Peconic Estuary System ( M. Mazzotta, 1996)

EPA selected the Peconic Estuary study for two reasons:

< The study elicited the public s total WTP values for coastal wetlands and eelgrass, using the contingent choice method. Wetland and eelgrass habitats are essential for supporting fish and shellfish species. These habitat were also the habitats most frequently identified by the expert panels for offsetting I& E losses at the 316( b) study sites. 4 The survey described eelgrass to respondents as   fish and shellfish habitat  but did not specifically describe wetlands  services.

< The study area is located between the North and Mid Atlantic regions, and thus provides site specific values for an estuary that can be potentially representative of values in both regions. 5 The Peconic Estuary s eelgrass and wetlands support aquatic species that are found throughout the North Atlantic region and that are likely to be affected by I& E ( e. g., bay anchovy, Atlantic silverside, scup, summer flounder, winter flounder, windowpane flounder, weakfish, and tautog, as well as scallops and hard clams). 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 I& E at power plants.

4 The Agency held meetings on Habitat Prioritization for Species Impinged and Entrained by Brayton Point on 9/ 10/ 2001 in Fall River MA; and on on Habitat Prioritization for Species Impinged and Entrained by Pilgrim on 9/ 12/ 2001 in Lakeville, MA. For a detailed list of participating Agencies and experts, See Chapters F5 and G5 in the Case Study Document that accompanied the proposed rule.

5 See Peconic Estuary Program CCMP, chapter 4, www. savethepeconicbays. org/ ccmp for details.

 6 March 12, 2003 For the final 316( b) rule analysis, EPA will further evaluate the applicability of the Peconic study to other study regions in the Mid Atlantic. EPA will also evaluate other aquatic habitat valuation studies for their applicability to the analysis of benefits of the 316( b) rule in other regions.

The Peconic study used an original contingent choice survey to estimate the relative preferences of residents and second homeowners in the study area for preserving and restoring key natural and environmental resources. 6 The study area is the East End of Long Island, New York, which includes the five towns surrounding the Peconic Estuary: Southold, Riverhead, Southampton, East Hampton, and Shelter Island. A map in Appendix 1 depicts the geographic area used in this analysis. The primary goal of the survey was to learn about the public s preferences, priorities, and values for the environmental and natural resources of the Peconic Estuary that might be affected by preservation and restoration actions.

The contingent choice survey format asks respondents to choose between bundles of public commodities, which differ across their physical, environmental, aesthetic, and/ or monetary dimensions. For example, respondents might compare two environmental policy proposals, each with a different impact on coastal resources and a different monetary cost. By analyzing the choices that respondents make among a variety of potential policies ( i. e., their preferences), it is possible to estimate respondents  relative values for environmental commodities ( or policy results), and their willingness to trade off elements of policy packages ( Cameron, 1988; Hanemann, 1984).

The extensive process to develop the survey over a six month period, from February to August 1995, included individual interviews, focus groups, and pretests of preliminary versions of the survey. Based on concerns expressed by participants in focus groups, and natural resources identified as important by the Technical Advisory Committee, the survey addressed five natural resources: ( 1) farmland, ( 2) undeveloped land, ( 3) wetlands, ( 4) shell fishing areas, and ( 5) eelgrass. The survey objective was to determine respondents  values for improvements in natural resources above a specified baseline level. The baseline is that level that would exist in the year 2020 if no action occurred to preserve or restore the resource. The baseline was determined in consultation with the Technical Advisory Committee, based on historical declines and the judgment of experts, for each resource.

In the contingent choice questions, each resource was included at three different levels: The projected level for 2020 ( the   no new action,  or baseline, scenario), and two levels associated with hypothetical programs that would preserve or restore the resource. Eelgrass was presented at the current level of 9,000 acres; the baseline or   no action  level of 8,000 acres; and a high level, with restoration, of 11,000 acres. Wetlands were presented at the current level of 16,000 acres; the baseline or   no action  level of 12,000 acres; and a high level, with restoration, of 17,500 acres.

Each survey question asked respondents to compare the   No New Action  baseline levels of two of the resources to two hypothetical programs to protect or restore these resources. 7 Respondents were asked to select their preferred option, given the program costs. Figure 1 shows an example question. A total of 60 different questions were developed, using Addelman s fractional factorial design, to produce orthogonal arrays of attributes ( Addelman 1962a, 1962b). 8 Each booklet contained five contingent choice questions.

6 The values presented here understate total benefits because they do not include values for visitors to the Peconic region; they do not include values for other individuals outside of the region who may value the resources of this region; they do not include producer surplus values to commercial users of the resources; and they do not include values to users of the resources in other regions who may benefit from species that are migratory.

7 In order to avoid choice questions that are excessively complex, each question included only two of the five resources, plus the cost to each household. The survey instructions led respondents to assume that the three resources not included in each question would not be affected by the program being evaluated, and would thus be at the baseline levels.

8 The orthogonal design selected did not allow for estimation of interactions among the resources. Such a design would have required a much larger sample size, which was not possible given the project budget limitations.

 7 March 12, 2003 Respondents completed a total of 968 surveys and answered 4,307 contingent choice questions. The distribution of surveys in various locations within the study area ensured response collection from a wide cross section of the public. 9 The data were analyzed using a conditional logit model. Based on standard economic consumer theory, the analysis assumed that respondents choose the option that maximizes utility received from attributes of the option, subject to their budget constraint. In this study, the options are described in terms of a set of natural resources and the cost of the option. Thus, the utility function can be specified as U( R), where R is a vector of natural resource levels. Solving the maximization problem results in the demand functions for the natural resources, Ri ( P, M), where P is the vector of prices and M is total income. Substituting the demand functions into the utility function gives the indirect utility function, U( P, M), and the conditional indirect utility function, U( R, M). For a detailed description of the model, see Opaluch et al.( 1998).

Box Cox tests were performed to assess the functional form of the model; these tests indicated that the linear model best fit the data. Consequently, a linear form of the valuation function is likely to be appropriate at least in the range of resource quantity changes considered in the Peconic study. 10 Based on the model coefficients, relative values for the different resources and dollar values for protecting an additional acre of each resource can be calculated as described by Hanemann ( 1984). The estimated values are marginal values, or WTP for an additional acre of each resource.

The study found that the survey sample population was better educated and had higher incomes than the population of the area. Thus, the estimated values were adjusted to be representative of the general population of the East End in terms of education and income. These adjustments were made to the model coefficients prior to estimating welfare values. The study used separate adjustments for those who live in the area year round ( about 2/ 3 of the sample) and those who are seasonal area residents.

The original study presented estimates of several statistical models. For the analysis presented below, EPA used the most conservative model, in terms of estimated values, to calculate the per household WTP values per acre of eelgrass and wetlands. This model includes alternative specific constants, which capture differences between taking action and choosing the   no action  alternative, as well as any unexplained differences between programs A and B.

Table 5 presents the Peconic model valuation results for eelgrass and wetlands. To separate users  values from non users  values for purposes of this analysis, EPA re estimated the Peconic model with separate coefficients for users and non users of fishery resources. The Agency defined users as those who stated that they either fish or shellfish, thus deriving indirect use values from the fish habitat services of eelgrass and wetlands. EPA estimated non use values for those who do not fish or shellfish. 11 For eelgrass, the value for non users is 77.7 percent of the total value for users, and 82.4 percent of the total value estimated for both users and non users; while for wetlands, the value for non users is 94.4 percent of the total value for users, and 95.8 percent of the total value for both users and non users.

9 In order to obtain a wide cross section of the public, surveys were conducted at over 37 locations around the East End. The study collected 451 at various grocery stores and shopping areas; 248 at public libraries and post offices; and 187 at other locations, including the Department of Motor Vehicles, the ferry from New London to Long Island, an aquarium and a vineyard, and 82 surveys at beaches.

10 That is, the WTP per acre of restored SAV or wetlands will not change as the number of acres required for restoration to offset I& E losses increases.

11 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.

 8 March 12, 2003 Figure 1 : Example Survey Question  9 March 12, 2003 Table 5: Estimated WTP Values from the Peconic Study ( 2002$) 12 Wetlandsa Eelgrass ( SAV) $/ HH/ Acre/ Yearb Non Use Value % $/ HH/ Acre/ Yearb Non Use Value % All Residents $ 0.056 95.80% $ 0.063 82.40% Users $ 0.057 94.40% $ 0.067 77.70% Non Usersc $ 0.054 100.0% $ 0.052 100.0% a. 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. b. Values shown are WTP per household per additional ( i. e, marginal) acre per year. c. Non users are defined as respondents who neither fish nor shellfish.

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 Peconic authors concluded that participants 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. Because coastal wetlands provide several services ( e. g., habitat, water quality, storm buffering, and aesthetics), EPA assigned only a portion of the estimated WTP for wetlands restoration to fish habitat services.

The survey data available from the Peconic study, however, provide no direct means to estimate the share of total wetland value from fish and shellfish habitat services alone. Wetland values presented in Table 5 reflect all ecological services provided by the wetlands, not just fish and shellfish habitat services. EPA therefore used a stated preference study from Narragansett Bay, Rhode Island to adjust wetland values. This study was designed to assess tradeoffs among different services of restored saltwater wetlands ( Johnston et al., 2002b). The results from this study allow estimation of the share of saltwater wetland restoration values associated with various services, including fish and shellfish habitat services. As shown in section 2.3.1, below, EPA estimated the value of saltwater wetlands associated with fish habitat services alone by multiplying this share by the total values in Table 5.

2.1.2 Description of the Johnston et al. ( 2002) Study The survey instrument Rhode Island Salt Marsh Restoration: 2001 Survey of Rhode Island Residents was designed to assess tradeoffs among attributes of salt marsh restoration plans. Survey development required more than 16 months and involved extensive background research; interviews with experts in salt marsh ecology and restoration; and over 16 focus groups with more than 100 Rhode Island residents. Numerous pretests, including verbal protocol analysis ( Schkade and Payne, 1994) ensured that the survey language and format would be easily understood by respondents, and that respondents would have a common understanding of survey scenarios ( cf. Johnston et al., 1995).

Focus groups and pretests led to an in person survey approach that combined a printed survey booklet with an eight minute introductory video. This video introduced respondents to information about salt marshes and salt marsh restoration; reminded respondents of tradeoffs involved in salt marsh restoration; reminded respondents of their budget constraint and the implications of choosing to direct funds to restoration programs; emphasized the importance of respondents  choices; and provided basic survey instructions. The authors pretested the video script and graphics extensively and revised both of them and the survey booklet.

12 EPA made dollar value adjustments using the Consumer Price Index for all urban consumers for the first half of 2002.

 10 March 12, 2003 Johnston et al.( 1995) chose attributes distinguishing restoration plans based on background research, expert interviews, and focus groups. The authors tailored these attributes to reflect primary salt marsh services in the Northeast United States that would be influenced by restoration activities, and characterized the size of the marsh, together with effects of restoration, on ( 1) habitat for birds, ( 2) habitat for fish, ( 3) habitat for shellfish, ( 4) potential to control mosquito nuisance, ( 5) recreational access, and ( 6) household cost. 13 Based on the results of focus groups and expert interviews, habitat and mosquito control services were presented from a standardized, statewide perspective. For example, improvements to fish habitat were characterized as   ecological improvements to RI fish populations [ resulting from a particular restoration project]  as judged by wetlands experts, compared to all other potential salt marsh restoration projects in Rhode Island.

Following the general approach of Johnston et al. ( 1999), the conjoint ( or multi attribute choice) survey presented respondents with four sets of discrete choices, each involving two alternative, multi attribute restoration plans. The authors used fractional factorial design to construct a range of survey questions with an orthogonal array of attribute levels, resulting in 80 contingent choice questions divided among 20 unique booklets. Attributes distinguishing plans were selected based on background research, expert interviews, and focus groups. All attributes were free to vary over their full range for both restoration plans presented in each question, with no imposed ordering of attribute levels between the two plans. Based on these attributes, respondents chose one of the two plans, or chose   Neither Plan.

The survey was conducted from September through December, 2001. Respondents were intercepted in person at Rhode Island Department of Motor Vehicle offices, public libraries, and other survey sites. Interviewers did not tell respondents that the survey concerned salt marsh restoration. Rather, interviewers asked respondents to participate in an important survey regarding   environmental issues in Rhode Island,  to reduce the potential for topic related nonresponse. In total, interviewers collected 661 completed surveys, providing complete and usable responses to 2,341 individual contingent choice questions ( 89 percent of the potential 2,644).

Table 6 presents variables incorporated in the analysis of salt marsh restoration choices. These variables include: ( 1) a dummy variable identifying the   neither  option, ( 2) quadratic interactions between this dummy and certain demographic characteristics, and ( 3) variables for the restored salt marsh attributes. Mean values for salt marsh attributes ( Table 6) indicate the mean values of these attributes over all completed surveys included in the analysis. The final column of the table calculates these mean values with " neither plan" data rows excluded. ( As noted above, each wetland restoration choice included the option of choosing neither plan. In the multinomial logit data, these options are presented as a " plan" with zeros for all wetland attributes.)

13 Additional, non habitat services that may be provided by saltwater wetlands include, among others, nutrient transformation, storm buffering, and coastal erosion control. Interviews with experts on saltwater wetland functions in New England ( and Rhode Island in particular) indicated, however, that wetland restoration would provide negligible impacts on these non habitat functions in the majority of cases. They based this assessment on the small size of most New England coastal wetlands, and on the fact that restoration may not always increase substantially the ability of a wetland to provide such functions as storm buffering or erosion control. Based on this advice, the survey focused mainly on wetland habitat functions.

 11 March 12, 2003 Table 6: Definitions and Summary Statistics for Model Variables Variable Name Description Whole Sample Mean ( Std. Dev.) Mean, Excluding   Neither Plan  Scenariosa Neither Neither= 1 identifies   neither plan  options 0.3333 ( 0.4714) 0.0000 Environ Dummy variable identifying respondents with membership in environmental organizations 0.1900 ( 0.3923) 0.1900 Taxgrp Dummy variable identifying respondents with membership associations 0.0233 ( 0.1510) 0.0233 Loincome Dummy variable identifying respondents with household income less than $ 35,000/ year 0.2450 ( 0.4301) 0.2450 Hiedu Dummy variable identifying respondents with greater than a four year college degree 0.1817 ( 0.3856) 0.1817 Birds Ecological improvement to statewide bird populations resulting from specified salt marsh restoration plan, compared to all other potential salt marsh restoration plans in Rhode Island 2.7608 ( 2.6072) 4.1413 Fish Ecological improvement to statewide fish populations resulting from specified salt marsh restoration plan, compared to all other potential salt marsh restoration plans in Rhode Island 2.9075 ( 2.6530) 4.3613 Shellfish Ecological improvement to statewide shellfish populations resulting from specified salt marsh restoration plan, compared to all other potential salt marsh restoration plans in Rhode Island 2.9070 ( 2.6518) 4.3619 Mosquito Increased ability to control statewide mosquito nuisance resulting from specified salt marsh restoration plan, compared to all other potential salt marsh restoration plans in Rhode Island 2.9077 ( 2.6506) 4.3617 Size Size of restored salt marsh ( minimum 3 acres; maximum 12 acres) 4.8890 ( 4.3965) 7.3335 Pro access Dummy variable indicating that respondent feels that access to salt marshes should be   somewhat limited  or   unlimited  0.8367 ( 0.3697) 0.8367 Con access Dummy variable indicating that respondent feels that access to salt marshes should be   severely limited  or   prohibited  0.2266 ( 0.4187) 0.1633 Platform Dummy variable indicating that restoration provides   viewing platforms  but no   trails  0.2215 ( 0.4153) 0.3400 Both Dummy variable indicating that restoration provides both   viewing platforms  and   trails  0.2215 ( 0.4153) 0.3323 Cost Annual cost of restoration plan in increased taxes ( minimum $ 0; maximum $ 200) 63.1694 ( 70.7816) 94.7542 in taxpayer ( 0 10 scale)

( 0 10 scale)

( 0 10 scale)

( 0 10 scale)

a. Each wetland restoration choice included the option of choosing neither plan. In the multinomial logit data, this option is presented as a   plan  with zeros for all wetland attributes. The final column of the table calculates means with the   neither plan  zeros excluded.

Table 7 presents results for a conditional logit model of survey data. The model is significant at p< 0.0001 ( 2LnL P2 = 1157.56, df= 13); all individual parameter estimates are significant at p< 0.05, with most significant at p< 0.01.

 12 March 12, 2003 Table 7: Conditional Logit Results for Johnston et al. ( 2002) Wetland Restoration Study Parameter Estimate Std. Error z P>| z| Neither 1.1568 0.1934 5.98 0.0001 Neither x Environ  1.1820 0.2232  5.30 0.0001 Neither x Tax 0.8676 0.3651 2.38 0.0170 Neither x Loincome 0.3104 0.1437 2.16 0.0310 Neither x Hiedu 0.4147 0.1686 2.46 0.0140 Birds 0.1191 0.0153 7.78 0.0001 Fish 0.1465 0.0157 9.36 0.0001 Shellfish 0.1587 0.0162 9.78 0.0001 Mosquito 0.1611 0.0162 9.95 0.0001 Size 0.0510 0.0098 5.22 0.0001 Pro access x Platform 0.1678 0.0826 2.03 0.0420 Pro access x Both 0.4310 0.0844 5.11 0.0001 Cost  0.0072 0.0005  14.23 0.0001  2LnL P2 1157.56 Prob> P2 0.0001 The signs of parameter estimates correspond with prior expectations derived from focus groups, where prior expectations exist. Respondents favor plans that restore larger salt marshes; improve bird, fish, and shellfish habitat; control mosquitoes; provide public access; and result in lower costs to the household. Comparing preferences for habitat improvements and mosquito control ( all measured on a ten point scale), respondents placed the greatest weight on mosquito control, followed by habitat improvements for shellfish, fish, and birds, respectively. The likelihood of rejecting restoration outright ( i. e., choosing neither plan) was smaller for members of environmental organizations, and larger for members of taxpayers organizations, lower income individuals, and more highly educated individuals ( Johnston et al., 2002b). Given the final model shown above, however, changes in education and income do not influence the marginal utility of fish and shellfish habitat, or that of other wetland attributes.

2.2 Estimating Proportion of Wetland Value Attributable to Fish Habitat Results of the conjoint analysis ( i. e., the public survey results) presented by Johnston et al. ( 2002b) allow policy makers to rank restoration projects based on their estimated influence on residents  welfare. These results also allows assessment of residents  willingness to trade off elements of wetland restoration plans, or willingness to pay for particular wetland attributes. Finally, for any specified restoration plan, provided that incremental gains or losses in wetland services are known, it allows the calculation of the proportion of the total gain in social value attributable to a particular service ( e. g., fish and shellfish habitat).

To estimate the proportion of value associated with fish and shellfish habitat, in a representative, conservative scenario, EPA began with the average wetland restoration scenario considered by the Rhode Island survey sample. The mean values of wetland attributes presented to survey respondents provide the most representative set of results from which value proportions may be estimated, and forecast the value proportions that would result from an average survey respondent confronted with an average wetland restoration scenario, as characterized by the Rhode Island Salt Marsh Restoration Survey data. Excluding all   Neither Plan  scenarios, which offered zero restoration, Table 6 summarizes the mean values for services considered by the Rhode Island sample.

 13 March 12, 2003 Although mean values are used for most attributes ( i. e., wetland attributes or services considered by survey respondents in choice scenarios), changes in certain attributes are set to zero to correspond more closely with the policy scenario and with the Peconic Study described above ( because the purpose of this analysis is to assess the proportion of the Peconic wetland values that may reasonably be attributed to fish habitat services). For example, because the Peconic study survey did not specify or discuss the provision of viewing platforms or trails at preserved wetlands, EPA assumed that survey respondents to the Peconic study did not consider such unusual provisions when making survey choices. Accordingly, in calculating value proportions in this analysis using the Rhode Island data, EPA assumed that viewing platforms and trails are not provided.

EPA also assumed that any wetland created or restored to provide fish habitat will likely not provide a great degree of additional mosquito control, because a large proportion of existing salt marshes have already been modified to minimize mosquito production. 14 For this reason, modern marsh restoration typically does not provide a significant increase in mosquito control. Rather, it often replaces older, more detrimental ( to marsh function and habitat) forms of mosquito control with Open Marsh Water Management ( OMWM), in which open water and natural fish predation is used to control mosquito nuisance ( Kennish, 2002). OMWM has not been an   unqualified success  at eliminating the mosquito nuisance ( New York Conservationist, 1997). Accordingly, for many salt marshes, the positive net effect of restoration on mosquito nuisance, if any, is often minimal. To generate the most conservative estimates, however, and in recognition of the fact that some salt marsh restoration projects may provide significant mosquito control, EPA also estimated value proportions assuming that significant additional mosquito control is provided. For all other wetland attributes included in the Rhode Island survey, EPA used the mean values shown in the final column of Table 6.

Estimation of value proportions is based on the estimated utility function v( A), which specifies the utility provided by a wetland restoration plan as a function of the attributes or services provided by that plan ( Johnston et al., 2002b). That is, following the standard random utility model of Hanemann ( 1984), the underlying model specifies respondents  choices using the conditional logit specification, in which the probability ( Pi ) of choosing any wetland restoration plan i ( plan A, plan B, or neither plan) over the two remaining options ( j or k) is given by exp[ vi()]   Pi =   exp[ vi()]      +   exp[ vj()] +   exp[ vk()]   ( 1)

where v( A) represents the relative benefits or utility resulting from each restoration option, including the   neither plan  option. The function v( A) is typically estimated as a simple function of program attributes ( in this case wetland restoration); in practice linear, functional forms are often used ( Johnston et al., 2002b).

From the assumptions and model noted above, the attribute definitions given in Table 6, and the model results of Table 7, the estimated utility function used to calculate value proportions is specified as v()   ( 2)  =   0.1191( birds) +   0.1465( fish) +   0.1587( shellfish) +   0.1611( mosquito) +   0.0510( size)

If mosquito control is not provided, then mosquito= 0. Given this linear specification, the proportion of wetland restoration value provided by the gain in fish habitat services is given by 14 The mosquito control variable was included in the survey in response to the strong concern of Rhode Island residents over the impact of restoration on mosquitoes and related illnesses for which mosquitoes are the primary vector. Wetlands experts indicated, however, that salt marsh restoration had limited impact on mosquito populations in most cases.

 14 March 12, 2003 v()   fish     v()   fish =   0 ( 3)      v()   fish     where v( A) fish represents the value of v( A) with the gain in fish habitat services set to its mean value ( as described above), and v( A) fish= 0 represents the value of the function with the gain in fish habitat services set to zero.

Table 8 shows the resulting value proportions, in which EPA calculated the proportion of wetland restoration value associated with different wetland services based on mean values of wetland attributes presented to survey respondents, as discussed above. Analogous methods were used to assess value proportions associated with shellfish and other habitat services; Table 8 shows these results for comparison. Table 8 also illustrates the results of a sensitivity analysis in which EPA calculated analogous value proportions for wetland habitat services, but allow wetland size to vary. Wetland size was allowed to vary from its minimum value in the Rhode Island survey data ( 3 acres) to its maximum value ( 12 acres), while holding habitat service changes constant. EPA chose these size values to be representative of unrestored saltwater wetlands currently existing in Narragansett Bay, which are typically quite small ( i. e., less than five acres). The three estimates of acreage are therefore likely closer to the   average  Rhode Island wetland than estimates based on larger acreages. ( In actual wetlands, changes in restored acres are typically correlated with larger gains in habitat services ( Johnston et al., 2002b). To illustrate even more conservative estimates, however, Table 8 contains cases in which restored wetland size increases from the mean, without any resultant increase in habitat services.)

 15 March 12, 2003 Table 8: Proportions of Restored Wetland Value Associated with Various Service Categoriesa Restoration Scenario Percentage of Value Associated with Service:

Fish Habitat Bird Habitat Shellfish Habitat Mosquito Control Otherb 1a: No additional mosquito control; Mean values for all other attributes 0.2906 0.2244 0.3149 0.0000 0.1701 1b: No additional mosquito control; Mean values for Habitat Gains; Size= 3 acres 0.3231 0.2494 0.3501 0.0000 0.0774 1c: No additional mosquito control; Mean values for Habitat Gains; Size= 12 acres 0.2622 0.2024 0.2841 0.0000 0.2512 2a: Mosquito control at mean value; Mean values for all other attributes 0.2202 0.1700 0.2386 0.2422 0.1289 2b: Mosquito control at mean value; Mean values for habitat gains; size= 3 acres 0.2384 0.1840 0.2583 0.2622 0.0571 2c: Mosquito control at mean value; Mean values for habitat gains; size= 12 acres 0.2035 0.1571 0.2205 0.2238 0.1950 3a: Mean over all scenarios 0.2564 0.1979 0.2778 0.1214 0.1466 a. Results assume that restoration does not provide viewing platforms or hiking trails. b. Other services may include, among others, nutrient transformation, storm buffering, and coastal erosion control.

2.2.1 Results: Proportion of Wetland Restoration Value Attributable to Fish and Shellfish Habitat Services As shown by Table 8, the proportion of value associated with fish habitat ranges from 0.2035 to 0.3231, with a mean value over all scenarios of 0.2564; and the proportion of value associated with shellfish habitat ranges from 0.2205 to 0.3501, with a mean value over all scenarios of 0.2778. Scenario 1a represents perhaps the most representative scenario for estimating value proportions for two reasons: ( 1) restored wetlands are not expected to provide additional mosquito control and ( 2) other wetland attributes are set to their mean values under this scenario. Its results are somewhat higher than those of scenario 3a, which represents the mean value over all scenarios presented. EPA therefore, to be conservative, used proportions calculated in scenario 3a ( 0.2564 for fish and 0.2778 for shellfish) as an estimate of the proportion of total wetland restoration value attributable to gains in fish and shellfish habitat services, given representative, mean values for other wetland services. Although these numbers are not directly comparable to other results found in the literature, they appear to be reasonable and conservative compared to similar proportions generated for freshwater habitats. For example, Schulze et al. ( 1995) estimate that between 32.98 percent and 33.44 percent of WTP for resource cleanup in the Clark Fork River Basin was associated with   aquatic resources and riparian habitat  ( p. 5 13).

EPA also considered directly the parametric results of Table 7 for further support of the soundness of the proposed value proportions. Estimates presented in Table 7 indicate that the parametric weights are similar among the dominant wetland services in Narragansett Bay ( i. e., bird habitat services, fish habitat services, shellfish habitat services, and mosquito control). In other words, the parameter estimates are very similar among these four variables. This correspondence suggests that restoration providing similar scale improvements for each of these services should produce a roughly equivalent increment to utility. Given the four habitat services considered in the survey ( including mosquito control), each service provides roughly 1/ 4 ( or 25 percent) of the total marginal utility associated with the combination of habitat improvements and mosquito control. For wetlands that do not provide substantial access provisions ( e. g., boardwalks) and that are of moderate or small size, it would be highly improbable for the proportion of value associated with fish or shellfish habitat to fall significantly below the 25.64 percent approximation estimated here.

 16 March 12, 2003 2.2.2 Applicability of Johnston et al. ( 2002) Value Proportions to Peconic Total Wetland Values As noted above, no direct means is available for assessing the exact proportion of Peconic wetland values ( Table 1) associated with fish and shellfish habitat services, however, the Johnston et al. ( 2002b) value proportions ( Table 8) provide a reasonable, average approximation, based on a random sample survey of Rhode Island residents. As with any type of benefit transfer, the applicability of the Johnston et al. ( 2002b) value proportions to the Peconic wetland values depends on certain assumptions. Primary among these are assumptions about the approximate constancy of value proportions with respect to changes in policy scale.

Unlike the Peconic survey, which addressed total and marginal wetland values over large, long term changes in wetland acreage ( i. e., up to 4,000 acres over the entire Peconic region), the Rhode Island study estimates restoration values over the scale of a single saltwater wetland ( i. e., between three and 12 acres). Although this difference in scale is likely to influence the marginal WTP for wetland preservation or restoration, EPA does not expect the difference in scale to significantly influence the proportion of marginal WTP associated with fish habitat services. That is, the Agency assumed that if fish and shellfish habitat services each account for approximately 25 percent of the total value for the tenth acre of restoration in a region, then each service will also account for approximately 25 percent of value for the hundredth or thousandth acre in the same region, even though the total value of each acre, on the margin, may change. That is, the assumption of fixed value proportions associated with fish and shellfish habitat services concerns only the relative proportion of value associated with fish and shellfish habitat, which may remain constant even as the absolute marginal value of a wetland acre diminishes with scale. 15 A second key assumption of this analysis is that residents of the Peconic region and residents of Rhode Island maintain similar relative values with respect to the services provided by saltwater wetlands. Although this presumption cannot be proven using results from Johnston et al. ( 2002b) or Opaluch et al. ( 1995, 1998), and while value proportions may differ to a small degree, there is no overriding reason to suspect ( and the literature results do not suggest) that relative value proportions would differ to a significant degree across the two regions.

2.3 Wetland Values for Fish and Shellfish Habitat Services Table 9 presents the values for wetlands from Table 5, adjusted to reflect fish habitat services only. As discussed above, EPA adjusted the values using the average proportion of total wetland restoration value attributable to gains in fish habitat services, based on a number of reasonable scenarios, 25.64 percent. Similarly, EPA calculated the value for wetlands, adjusted to reflect shellfish habitat services. As shown in Table 8, the average percent of total wetland restoration value attributable to shellfish habitat services is 27.78. Note that the wetland 15 Technical note regarding the robustness of value proportions: Following standard practice ( e. g., Adamowicz et al. 1998), the survey design underlying model results ( Table 7) is based on an orthogonal array of attribute levels. No imposed functional linkage exists between wetland size and habitat services. This independence is preserved by the linear form of the utility function. The model therefore allows one to vary wetland size and habitat services independently when estimating public values, even if such independence is highly unlikely in real situations. This specification allows the researcher a large degree of leeway when specifying " reasonable" restoration scenarios. It also allows the valuation of clearly unrealistic scenarios in which, for example, the restoration of huge wetlands provides negligible habitat gains. In such unrealistic scenarios, it is possible to illustrate cases in which proportions of value diminish to a significant degree as wetland size increases. However, if one specifies more realistic scenarios in which increases in restored wetland acreage and resulting increases in habitat services change ( approximately) proportionately, then the proportions of wetland values associated with fish and shellfish habitat are robust. That is, assuming that the marginal gain in habitat ( fish, shellfish, etc.) provided by the tenth acre of restoration is equivalent to the gain provided by the hundredth acre, the proportion of value associated with fish and shellfish will remain constant as one increases the scale of restoration.

 17 March 12, 2003 values for fish and shellfish services are not linearly additive within the same acreage, due to the functional form used in Johnson et al. ( 2002b). 16 Table 9: Estimated WTP Values per Household for Fish and Shellfish Habitat Services of Wetlands ( 2002$) from the Peconic Study $/ HH/ Acre/ Yeara Fish Habitat % b $/ HH/ Acre/ Year for Fish Habitatc Shellfish Habitat % b $/ HH/ Acre/ Year for Shellfish Habitatd All Residents $ 0.056 25.64% $ 0.014 27.78% $ 0.016 Users $ 0.057 25.64% $ 0.015 27.78% $ 0.016 Non Usersc $ 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. From Table 8 above. c. Total value per acre per year times 25.64 percent. d. Total value per acre per year times 27.78 percent.

2.3.1 Peconic Estuary Saltwater wetlands provide a range of valued services, including fish habitat, shellfish habitat, bird habitat, mosquito control, recreational access, and various other services that are typically correlated with a wetland s size. Therefore, EPA assigned only a portion of the estimated WTP for wetlands restoration to fish habitat services.

The exact proportion of wetland value associated with fish and shellfish habitat services will vary across wetlands with different physical attributes, because different wetlands will likely provide different combinations of valued services. This analysis provides a conservative estimate of the proportion of wetland values ( Table 5) attributable to fish and shellfish habitat services, for average saltwater wetlands of the type considered by the Peconic survey respondents. The results of Johnston et al. ( 2002b) allow such proportions to be approximated, based on choice experiment responses of randomly selected Rhode Island survey respondents.

Multiplying the value per household from Table 9 by the total number of households in the Peconic study area ( 73,423) yields the value per acre of wetlands for the population surrounding the Peconic Estuary. Table 10 shows these values. The study defined the affected population as the total number of households ( both year round and seasonal) in the five towns bordering the Peconic Estuary. As noted above, this definition of the study area results in conservative total values because it does not include the values for people who live on Long Island beyond these five towns, or the values of visitors to the area. For the Peconic Estuary region, the total annual value per acre for fish habitat services of wetlands is $ 1,053, whereas the total non use value only is $ 1,009; and the total annual value per acre for shellfish habitat services of wetlands is $ 1,141, whereas the total non use only value is $ 1,093.17 These values should not be added together to calculate total fish and shellfish values for the same acreage. For calculating a total value for fish and shellfish habitat, the percent of WTP attributable to both habitats as a set must be calculated.

16 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.

17 This analysis assumes that non use values are the same for both users and non users of the affected resources. It is likely that users of the resource have higher non use values than non users, but the data do not allow us to evaluate non use values specific to users.

 18 March 12, 2003 18 For most North Atlantic facilities, a single county was considered to define the affected population. For those facilities located within 10 miles of a second county, the households in both counties were included; and for facilities on rivers, downstream counties were included.

 19 Table 10: Estimated WTP Values for Fish and Shellfish Habitat Services Provided by Wetlands from the Peconic Study ( 2002$) FishShellfish $/ HH/ Acre/ YearaTotal WTP/ Acre/ Yearb$/ HH/ Acre/ YearaTotal WTP/ Acre/ Yearb Total Value$ 0.014$ 1,053$ 0.016$ 1,141 Non Use Valuec$ 0.014$ 1,009$ 0.015$ 1,093 a. Values shown are WTP per household per additional ( i. e, marginal) acre per year. b. Total WTP per acre is calculated as household WTP per acre times 73,423 total households in the study area. c. Total non use value is calculated as value per acre for non users only times all households in the region.

2.3.2North Atlantic Region Evaluating the total value per acre of SAV for the coastal population of the North Atlantic region required a definition of the benefit population for the region. 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 affected water body, due to their very close proximity to the affected resource. EPA estimated an average benefit population for the region as the average number of households in these nearby counties. 18 Households in counties that do not directly abut the affected water body will also likely value the water body's resources. Analysis of data from the Rhode Island Salt Marsh Restoration Survey ( Johnston et al., 2002b) reveals that values ascribed to even relatively small scale salt marsh restoration actions ( i. e., 3 12 acres) were stated by respondents from various parts of the state. 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 resource as Rhode Island residents from the studied resource would also value fish habitat improvements in the affected water body.

Additionally, EPA notes that a study by J. Pate and J. 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 willingness to pay for public goods with large non use 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.

From the evidence cited, EPA reasonably assumed that residents living outside the counties abutting affected water bodies would have positive values for improving fish habitat in those water bodies. EPA therefore 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. March 12, 2003 Table 11 presents this information. The first definition of the benefit population is the average number of households in the counties abutting affected water bodies, as described above. According to the 2000 Census, this average comprises 210,357 households. As noted above, the Agency also developed an alternative definition of the affected population based on the findings of the Johnston et al. ( 2002b) study of Rhode Island wetland restoration. Johnson et al. ( 2002b) found that residents in all of Rhode Island ascribed values to even relatively small scale wetland restoration actions. EPA therefore calculated the average distance from the western Rhode Island border to the shore of Mount Hope Bay, a water body affected by one of the Phase II facilities located in the North Atlantic region. This totaled 32.43 miles. The Agency then assumed that all residents living within a 32.43 mile radius of each facility would also value fish habitat improvements in the affected water body. EPA therefore calculated the average number of households, over all North Atlantic facilities, within a 32.43 mile radius of each facility. Calculations yielded an average affected population of 737,711 households. A map in Appendix 2 depicts the geographic area used in this analysis.

Table 11: Affected Populations in North Atlantic Region Households in Counties Abutting Affected Water Bodies Households Within 32.4 Mile Radius of Each FacilityFacility State Households Norwalk Harbor Fairfield CT 324,232 1,437,927 Bridgeport Harbor Fairfield New Haven CT 324,232 775,943319,040 Devon Fairfield New Haven CT 324,232 749,127319,040 County( ies)

Fairfield 324,232 New Haven Harbor New Haven CT 319,040 787,255 South Meadow Station Hartford CT 335,098 869,513 New London 99,835 Middlesex CT 61,341 Millstone Suffolk NY 469,299 223,986 Montville New London CT 99,835 277,085 239,936 239,936 Bristol 67,320 Plymouth 168,361 Providence Bristol Kent RI 19,033 67,320 Manchester Street Bristol MA 205,411 920,918 Providence 19,033 Bristol Kent Newport RI 67,320 35,228 Brayton Point Bristol MA 205,411 835,184 Newport RI 35,228 Somerset Bristol MA 205,411 866,945 Canal Barnstable MA 94,822 320,343 Pilgrim Plymouth MA 168,361 483,020  20 March 12, 2003 Rockingham NH 104,529 Maine Energy Recovery Cumberland 107,989 Rockingham NH Newington York ME 74,563 284,093 Schiller York ME 74,563 279,969 Co. York ME 74,563 202,096 William F. Wyman Cumberland ME 107,989 203,005 Lincoln 14,158 Mason Steam Sagadahoc ME 14,117 112,236 Average Affected Households 210,357 737,711 Source: Census 2000 Summary File 3 ( SF 3)  Sample Data Table 12 presents the values per acre per year for the total benefit population for the North Atlantic region, based on each of the definitions discussed above. For the counties abutting 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 non use only value is $ 2,891. The table also shows two estimates of the values for households living within the 32.43 mile radius area. EPA calculated these values based on Pate and Loomis s ( 1997) findings that WTP for improving wetland habitat in San Joaquin Valley for California residents outside the Valley comprise 97.7 percent of the WTP of the Valley residents and that WTP values for Oregon residents comprise approximately 27 percent of the WTP of the Valley residents. As shown below, EPA assigned the value per household from the Peconic study to all households in the counties abutting affected water bodies ( 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. Thus, for the 32.43 mile radius area, the total annual value per acre for fish habitat services provided by wetlands ranges from $ 5,059 to $ 10,390 for all households, while the total non use only value ranges from $ 4,848 to $ 9,958. Table 11: Affected Populations in North Atlantic Region Households in Counties Abutting Affected Water Bodies Households Within 32.4 Mile Radius of Each FacilityFacility State Households New Boston Essex Middlesex Suffolk Norfolk Plymouth MA 275,419 1,582,673 561,220 278,722 248,827 168,361 Mystic Essex Middlesex Suffolk Norfolk MA 275,419 1,592,865 561,220 278,722 248,827 Saugus Resco Essex Middlesex Suffolk MA 275,419 1,520,553 561,220 278,722 Salem Harbor Essex Middlesex Suffolk MA 275,419 1,393,291 561,220 278,722 Seabrook Essex Rockingham MA NH 275,419 511,616104,529 104,529 County( ies)

 21 March 12, 2003 Table 12 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 12: Estimated WTP Values for Fish in Wetlands for the North Atlantic Region ( 2002$)

$/ HH/ Acre/ Yeara Total Average WTP/ Acre/ Year for Counties Abutting Affected Water Bodiesb Total WTP/ Acre/ Year for Households in Proximity to Affected Water Bodiesc 97.7% 27% Fish Total Value $ 0.014 $ 3,017 $ 10,390 $ 5,059 Non Use Valued $ 0.014 $ 2,891 $ 9,958 $ 4,848 Shellfish Total Value $ 0.016 $ 3,268 $ 11,258 $ 5,481 Non Use Valued $ 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 210,357, the average number of 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 32.43 miles of affected water bodies. Values are adjusted with distance as explained in the text. d. Total non use value is calculated as value per acre for non users only times all households in the study area.

2.4 Eelgrass Values for Fish and Shellfish Habitat Services 2.4.1 Peconic Estuary Multiplying the value per household from Table 5 by the total number of households in the Peconic study area ( 73,423) yields the value per acre of eelgrass for the population surrounding the Peconic Estuary. Table 13 shows these values. The study defined the benefit population as the total number of households ( both year round and seasonal) in the five towns bordering the Peconic Estuary. For the Peconic Estuary region, the total annual value per acre for eelgrass is $ 4,656; and the total non use only value is $ 3,837.19 19 This analysis assumes that non use values are the same for both users and non users of the affected resources. Users of the resource likely have higher non use values than non users, but the data do not allow us to test this hypothesis.

 22 March 12, 2003 Table 13: Estimated WTP Values for Eeelgrass ( SAV) from the Peconic Study ( 2002$) 20 $/ HH/ Acre/ Yeara Total WTP/ Acre/ Yearb Total Value $ 0.063 $ 4,656 Non Use Valuec $ 0.052 $ 3,837 a. Values shown are WTP per household per additional ( i. e, marginal) acre per year. b. Total WTP per acre is calculated as household WTP per acre times 73,423 total households in the study area. c. Total non use value is calculated as value per acre for non users only times all households in the study area.

2.4.2 The North Atlantic Region Table 14 presents the values per acre per year for households in counties abutting affected water bodies, and for households within the larger, 32.43 mile, radius. The total annual value per acre for eelgrass ( SAV) for households living in counties abutting affected water bodies is $ 13,341 for all residents; and the total non use only value is $ 10,993. For households residing within 32.43 miles of affected water bodies, the total annual value per acre for fish and shellfish habitat services provided by SAV ranges from $ 22,371 to $ 45,949, whereas the total non use only value ranges from $ 18,434 to $ 37,863.

Table 14: Estimated WTP Values for SAV for the North Atlantic Region ( 2002$) Total WTP/ Acre/ Year for Total WTP/ Acre/ Year for Counties Abutting Households in Proximity to $/ HH/ Acre/ Yeara Affected Water Bodiesb Affected Water Bodiesc 97.7% 27.0% Total Value $ 0.063 $ 13,341 $ 45,949 $ 22,371 Non Use Valued $ 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 210,357, the average number of 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 32.43 miles of affected water bodies. Values are adjusted with distance as explained in the text. d. Total non use value is calculated as value per acre for non users only times all households in the relevant study area.

3. Estimating the Value of Baseline I& E Losses for the North Atlantic Region EPA multiplied the estimated number of acres of SAV and wetlands needed to offset the I& E losses for the North Atlantic region, as detailed in Section 1 above, with the estimated per acre values of SAV and wetlands, to evaluate the benefits of I& E reduction. EPA performed this analysis for SAV and wetlands dependent species requiring the maximum restoration acres among these for which productivity estimates are available.

20 EPA made dollar value adjustments using the Consumer Price Index ( CPI) for all urban consumers for the first half of 2002.

 23 March 12, 2003 Table 15 presents the estimated values for SAV restoration for the North Atlantic. EPA estimated that between 151 and 1,205 acres of revegetated SAV ( eelgrass) is needed to offset estimated average annual I& E losses to 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 affected water bodies, the total value of restoring 151 acres of eelgrass is $ 2,014,450 per year. The non use only value is $ 1,659,243. The estimated value to all households residing within 32.43 miles of affected water bodies ranges from $ 3,377,982 to $ 6,938,316 per year. The non use only value ranges from $ 2,783,496 to $ 5,717,253.

Based on the estimated value per acre to residents of counties abutting affected water bodies, the total value of restoring 1,205 acres of eelgrass is $ 16,075,574 per year, with a non use only value of $ 13,246,458. The estimated value to all households residing within 32.43 miles of affected water bodies ranges from $ 26,956,743 to $ 55,368,683 per year. The non use only value ranges from $ 22,212,667 to $ 45,624,433.

Table 15: WTP Values for SAV Restoration of Fish to Offset the Baseline I& E Losses in 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 Threespine stickleback Northern pipefish 151 acres Total Value $ 2,014,450 Non Use Value $ 1,659,243 1,205 acres Total Value $ 16,075,574 Non Use Value $ 13,246,458 All Households Residing Within 32.43 Miles of Affected Water Bodies ( High Estimate)

Scup Threespine stickleback Northern pipefish 151 acres Total Value $ 6,938,316 Non Use Value $ 5,717,253 1,205 acres Total Value $ 55,368,683 Non Use Value $ 45,624,433 All Households Residing Within 32.43 Miles of Affected Water Bodies ( Low Estimate) Total Value $ 3,377,982 Scup Threespine stickleback Northern pipefish 151 acres Non Use Value $ 2,783,496 1,205 acres Total Value $ 26,956,743 Non Use Value $ 22,212,667 Table 16 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 needed to offset estimated average annual I& E 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 $ 77,194,196 per year, with the non use only value at $ 73,982,015. For all households within 32.43 miles of the affected water bodies, the total value of restoring 25,589 acres of coastal wetlands ranges from $ 129,445,085 to $ 265,877,962 per year, while the non use only value ranges from $ 124,058,656 to $ 254,814,331.

 24 March 12, 2003  25 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 $ 132,170,436 per year, while the non use only value is $ 126,670,601, adjusted to fish production services only. For all households within 32.43 miles of affected water bodies, the total value of restoring 43,813 acres of coastal wetlands ranges from $ 221,633,417 to $ 455,231,200 per year, with the non use only value ranging from $ 212,410,876 to $ 436,288,260, adjusted to fish production services only. All figures are 2002 dollars. This analysis does not include fish or shellfish losses caused by thermal discharges that are covered under § 316( a).

Table 16: WTP Values for Wetlands Restoration to Offset the Baseline I& E Losses of Fish in 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 Atlantic silverside Striped killifish 25,589 acres Total Value$ 77,194,196 Non Use Value$ 73,982,015 43,813 acres Total Value $ 132,170,436 Non Use Value$ 126,670,601 All Households Within 32.43 Miles of Affected Water Bodies ( High Estimate)

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

Winter flounder Atlantic silverside Striped killifish 25,589 acres Total Value$ 129,445,085 Non Use Value$ 124,058,656 43,813 acres Total Value$ 221,633,417 Non Use Value$ 212,410,876 Summing the values for wetlands and SAV restoration ( from Tables 15 and 16), the total value of losses from baseline I& E of the six species identified above ranges from $ 79,208,645 to $ 510,599,883. The non use only value ranges from $ 75,641,944 to $ 481,912,693.

EPA notes that the values in Tables 15 and 16 do not account for all species lost to I& E in the North Atlantic Region ( e. g., tautog) and include benefits for species not affected by I& E. EPA continues to evaluate this approach as one method for estimating comprehensive non use benefits associated with this regulation.

4. Estimating the Benefits of the Preferred Option for the North Atlantic Region Table 17 shows the percent reduction in I& E losses for each of the affected species included in this analysis under the preferred option. The preferred option is expected to reduce I& E losses by 18.4 to 23.8 percent, depending on species. EPA multiplied the percent reduction for the species that determined the number of acres of restoration required ( shown in Table 3) by the total number of acres of the relevant habitat type to estimate the number of March 12, 2003 acres of restored habitat that would achieve the same reduction in baseline I& E losses. For tidal wetlands, winter flounder required the largest number of acres of restoration. Accordingly, EPA used the 18.73% reduction in I& E 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 17: Estimated Reductions in I& E Losses under the Preferred Option Species Percent Reduction Winter flounder 18.73% Atlantic silverside 21.78% Striped killifish 18.43% Threespine stickleback 31.17% Northern pipefish 18.97% Scup 23.75%

Source: EPA s analysis Table 18 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 ranges from $ 14,840,614 to $ 98,414,866. The non use value only ranges from $ 14,171,720 to $ 92,552,594.

Table 18: WTP Values for Reduction in the Baseline I& E Losses in the North Atlantic Region under the Preferred Option, Based on WTP for Wetlands and SAV Restoration of Fish for ( 2002$) Lower Bound Upper Bound Counties Abutting Affected Water Bodies Total Value $ 14,840,614 $ 28,573,472 Non Use Value $ 14,171,720 $ 26,871,437 All Households Within 32.43 Miles of Affected Water Bodies ( High Estimate) Total Value $ 51,115,141 $ 98,414,866 Non Use Value $ 48,811,287 $ 92,552,594 All Households Within 32.43 Miles of Affected Water Bodies ( Low Estimate) Total Value $ 24,885,868 $ 47,914,165 Non Use Value $ 23,764,215 $ 45,060,065 5. Per Household Values of Changes in I& E 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 19 presents results of these calculations. A total of 3.65  26 March 12, 2003 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.

5.1 Willingness to Pay to Eliminate I& E The results of this analysis implies a total WTP to eliminate all I& E losses of $ 21.70 to $ 40.62 and non use 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 19: 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 5.2 Willingness to Pay to Reduce I& E The total WTP values shown in Table 18 implies a total WTP to reduce I& E 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$.

 27 March 12, 2003 6. References Adamowicz, W., P. Boxall, M. Williams, and J. Louviere. 1998. Stated Preference Approaches for Measuring Passive Use Values: Choice Experiments and Contingent Valuation. American Journal of Agricultural Economics 80( 1): 64 75.

Addelman, Sidney. 1962a.   Orthogonal Main Effect Plan for Asymmetrical Factorial Experiments,  Technometrics 4 No. 1 ( February): 21 46.

Addelman, Sidney. 1962b.   Symmetrical and Asymmetrical Fractional Factorial Plans,  Technometrics 4 No. 1 ( February): 47 57.

Cameron, T. A. 1988. A New Paradigm for Valuing Non market Goods Using Referendum Data: Maximum Likelihood Estimation by Censored Logistic Regression, Journal of Environmental Economics and Management 15( 3): 355 379.

Hanemann, W. M. 1984. Welfare Evaluations in Contingent Valuation Experiments with Discrete Responses, American Journal of Agricultural Economics 66( 3): 332 341.

Johnston, R. J., S. K. Swallow and D. M. Bauer. 2002a. Spatial Factors and Stated Preference Values for Public Goods: Considerations for Rural Land Development. Land Economics 78( 4): 481 500.

Johnston, R. J., G. Magnusson, M. Mazzotta and J. J. Opaluch. 2002b. Combining Economic and Ecological Indicators to Prioritize Salt Marsh Restoration Actions. American Journal of Agricultural Economics 84( 5): 1362 1370.

Johnston, R. J., S. K Swallow and T. F. Weaver. 1999. Estimating Willingness to Pay and Resource Trade offs With Different Payment Mechanisms: An Evaluation of a Funding Guarantee for Watershed Management. Journal of Environmental Economics and Management 38( 1): 97 120.

Johnston, R. J., T. F. Weaver, L. A. Smith and S. K. Swallow. 1995. Contingent Valuation Focus Groups: Insights From Ethnographic Interview Techniques. Agricultural and Resource Economics Review 24( 1): 56 69.

Johnston, R. J., T. A. Grigalunas, J. J. Opaluch, J. Diamantides, and M. Mazzotta. 2001a.   Valuing Estuarine Resource Services Using Economic and Ecological Models: The Peconic Estuary System Study,  Coastal Management 30( 1).

Johnston, R. J., J. J. Opaluch, T. A. Grigalunas, and M. J. Mazzotta. 2001b.   Estimating Amenity Benefits of Coastal Farmland,  Growth and Change 32: 305 325.

Kennish, M. J. 2002. Coastal Salt Marsh Systems in the U. S.: A Review of Anthropogenic Impacts. Journal of Coastal Research 17( 3): 731 748.

Mazzotta, Marisa J. 1996. Measuring Public Values and Priorities for Natural Resources: An Application to the Peconic Estuary System. Doctoral Dissertation, University of Rhode Island.

New York Conservationist ( anonymous). 1997. Tidal Wetlands in New York State 51 ( psupp 4 5).

Opaluch, James J., Thomas Grigalunas, Marisa J. Mazzotta, Jerry Diamantides, and Robert Johnston. 1998.   Resource and Recreational Economic Values for the Peconic Estuary,  Report prepared for Peconic Estuary  28 March 12, 2003 Program, Suffolk County Department of Health Services, Riverhead, NY, by Economic Analysis, Inc., Peace Dale, Rhode Island.

Opaluch, James J., Thomas A. Grigalunas, Jerry Diamantides and Marisa J. Mazzotta. 1995.   Environmental Economics in Estuary Management,  Maritimes Vol. 38, No. 3 ( Winter): 21 23.

Peconic Estuary Program Comprehensive Conservation and Management Plan, available at http:// www. savethepeconicbays. org/ ccmp/ .

Pate, Jennifer and John Loomis. 1997. The effect of distance on willingness to pay values: a case study of wetlands and salmon in California. Ecological Economics Vol. 20 ( 1997): 199 207.

Schkade, D. A. and J. W. Payne. 1994.   How People Respond to Contingent Valuation Questions: A Verbal Protocol Analysis of Willingness to Pay for an Environmental Regulation.  Journal of Environmental Economics and Management 26( 1): 88 109.

Schulze, W. D., R. D. Rowe, W. S. Breffle, R. R. Boyce, and G. H. McClelland. 1995. Contingent Valuation of Natural Resource Damages Due to Injuries to the Upper Clark Fork River Basin. State of Montana Natural Resource Damage Litigation Program. Prepared by RCG/ Hagler Bailly, Boulder, CO.

U. S. EPA. 2002. Cooling Water Intake Structures  Section 316( b) Proposed Section 316( b) Phase II Existing Facilities Rule Case Study Analysis. U. S. EPA Office of Water, Washington D. C., EPA 821 R 02 002, available at http:// www. epa. gov/ ost/ 316b/.

Wyda, J. C., L. A. Deegan, J. E. Hughes, and M. J. Weaver. 2002. The response of fishes to submerged aquatic vegetation complexity in two ecoregions of the Mid Atlantic Bight: Buzzards Bay and Chesapeake Bay. Esutaries, 25: 86 100.

 29 March 12, 2003 Appendix 1: The Peconic, Long Island, Estuary System CT RI Long Island Atlantic Ocean Long Island Sound Block Island Sound Riverhead Southold Southam pton East Hampton Great Peconic Bay Little Peconic Bay Gardiners Bay Plum Is.

Montauk Point Shinnecock Bay Brook haven Study Area Town Boundary Legend:

( map not drawn to scale) Shelter Island Orient Point Figure 1. Depiction of the Peconic ( Long Island) Estuary System  30 March 12, 2003 Appendix 2: The North Atlantic Region Appendix 3: Landed Shares ( all results in millions of Age 1 Equivalent Fish) C& R Landed Forage As Percent of Total Total Total C& R Landed C& R Unlanded C& R Forage Salem Impingement 3.2 1.2 0.114 2 3.6% 33.9% 62.5% Entrainment 356.3 59 10.5 297 2.9% 13.6% 83.4% Total 359.5 60.2 10.614 299 3.0% 13.8% 83.2% Tampa Impingement 0.42 0.357 0.027 0.062 6.4% 78.6% 14.8% Entrainment 7710 10.5 1.3 7700 0.0% 0.1% 99.9% Total 7710.42 10.857 1.327 7700.062 0.0% 0.1% 99.9% Seabrook Impingement 0.0131 0.0085 0.0014 0.0046 10.7% 54.2% 35.1% Entrainment 4.5 0.3 0.0327 4.2 0.7% 5.9% 93.3% Total 4.5131 0.3085 0.0341 4.2046 0.8% 6.1% 93.2% Pilgrim Impingement 0.0528 0.0512 0.0063 0.0016 11.9% 85.0% 3.0% Entrainment 14.4 2.6 0.121 11.8 0.8% 17.2% 81.9% Total 14.4528 2.6512 0.1273 11.8016 0.9% 17.5% 81.7% JR Whiting Impingement 21.5 20.7 2.62 0.768 12.2% 84.1% 3.6% Entrainment 1.8 1.7 0.166 0.144 9.2% 85.2% 8.0% Total 23.3 22.4 2.786 0.912 12.0% 84.2% 3.9% Monroe Impingement 35.8 35.4 4.4 0.37 12.3% 86.6% 1.0% Entrainment 11.6 11.2 1.2 0.392 10.3% 86.2% 3.4% Total 47.4 46.6 5.6 0.762 11.8% 86.5% 1.6% Brayton Impingement 0.0693 0.029 0.0035 0.0403 5.1% 36.8% 58.2% Entrainment 3.8 0.606 0.043 3.2 1.1% 14.8% 84.2% Total 3.8693 0.635 0.0465 3.2403 1.2% 15.2% 83.7% Aggregate of Applicable Case Studies Impingement 61.0552 57.7457 7.1722 3.2465 11.7% 82.8% 5.3% Entrainment 8102.4 85.906 13.3627 8016.736 0.2% 0.9% 98.9% Aggregate 8163.4552 143.6517 20.5349 8019.983 0.3% 1.5% 98.2% Aggregate of Case Studies ( less Great Lakes facilities of Monroe and JR Whiting) Impingement 3.7552 1.6457 0.1522 Entrainment 8089 73.006 11.9967 Aggregate 8092.7552 74.6517 12.1489 2.1085 4.05% 39.77% 0.75% 0.77% 56.15% 8016.2 0.15% 99.10% 8018.309 0.15% 99.08% Aggregate of Great Lake Case Studies ( Monroe & JR Whiting) Impingement 57.3 56.1 7.02 1.138 12.25% 85.65% 1.99% Entrainment 13.4 12.9 1.366 0.536 10.19% 86.07% 4.00% Aggregate 8041.4859 27.4167 6.5024 8014.306 0.08% 0.26% 99.66%

 31