A

The analysis captured only the so-called “use” benefits stemming from saved fish—that is, fishes’ economic value to humans for sport, food, and other such uses.9 Such a value applies to only 1.8% of the fish that would be saved.10 Nothing else entered the EPA’s main benefits calculation for any of the potentially saved fish—neither for that 1.8% nor for the remaining (totally unvalued) 98.2%.11 4. [...] The rest of the EPA’s policies— 12 For a deeper discussion of the moral case for valuing animals, see infra Part II. [...] Yet literature on benefits that were not accounted for in the benefits analysis,” “increas[ing] the numbers of [aquatic] individuals present, increas[ing] local and regional fishery populations (a subset of which was accounted for in the benefits analysis), and ultimately contribut[ing] to the enhanced environmental functioning of affected waterbodies (rivers, lakes, estuaries, and oceans) and ass. [...] It further “believes that the economic welfare of human populations is expected to increase as a consequence of the improvements in fisheries and associated aquatic ecosystem functioning due to the final. [...] 40 See, e.g., SUNSTEIN, supra note 21, at 23 (calling “pleasures and pains” “important,” albeit not the only “important” consideration, for welfarism and therefore for cost-benefit analysis); KYSAR, supra note 29, at 13 (mentioning taking “a seeming detour” to discussing “utilitarianism” as analogous to “cost-benefit analysis,” and rejecting the former on the way to rejecting the latter).