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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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