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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

EPA requests comment on adding such a requirement.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Source: Table 4 in NMFS ( 2002).

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Source: Table 3 in NMFS ( 2002).

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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