This
document
represents
the
best
judgment
of
the
EPA
staff
conducting
analyses
to
support
the
Phase
II
Section
316(
b)
rule
at
this
time.
It
does
not
represent
the
final
position
of
the
Administrator
or
EPA
on
this
rulemaking.
EPA
reserves
the
right
to
change
or
amend
any
of
the
statements
within
this
document
up
until
the
time
that
the
EPA
Administrator
takes
final
action
on
this
rule.

Page
1
(
)
Y
LSWFZ
e
k
a
j
jk
ja
a
a
a
Za
=
 


 
(
)
1
RESPONSE
TO
UWAG
QUESTIONS
RE:
PHASE
II
PROPOSAL
RECORD
Revised
December
2,
2002
Doug
Heimbuch's
Questions
1.
Yes,
there
is
a
typographical
error
in
Equation
7
of
Chapter
A5
of
EPA's
Case
Study
Document.
The
correct
equation
is:

where:

Yk
=
foregone
yield
(
pounds)
due
to
I&
E
losses
in
year
k
Ljk
=
losses
of
individual
fish
of
stage
j
in
the
year
k
Sja
=
cumulative
survival
fraction
from
stage
j
to
age
a
Wa
=
average
weight
(
pounds)
of
fish
at
age
a
Fa
=
instantaneous
annual
fishing
mortality
rate
for
fish
of
age
a
Za
=
instantaneous
annual
total
mortality
rate
for
fish
of
age
a
(
Equation
7)

As
discussed
in
Chapter
A5
of
Part
A
of
the
Case
Study
Document
(
DCN
#
4­
0003),
EPA
estimated
foregone
yield
using
the
Thompson
and
Bell
model
(
Ricker,
1975).
Example
10.1
on
page
237
of
Ricker
(
1975)
provides
an
example
of
the
calculations
that
are
pertinent
to
Equation
7
of
Chapter
A5
of
EPA's
Case
Study
Document.
The
exploitation
rate
was
defined
by
Ricker
(
1975,
page
3)
as
E
=
F/
Z.
In
this
context,
the
exploitation
rate
(
E)
defines
the
fraction
of
annual
total
deaths
(
within
a
cohort)
that
are
due
to
harvesting.

2.
EPA
estimated
production
foregone
using
the
Production
Foregone
Model
described
in
Rago
(
1984,
page
85,
Equation
5),
and
Dixon
(
1999,
page
2­
9,
Equation
2­
6).
The
formulaic
description
of
the
model
was
provided
as
Equation
8
in
Chapter
A5
of
Part
A
of
the
Case
Study
Document
(
DCN
4­
0003).

3.
As
indicated
in
Equation
8
of
Chapter
A5
of
Part
A
of
the
Case
Study
Document
(
DCN
4­
0003),
EPA
used
the
average
weight
for
individuals
of
stage
i
(
W
i)
to
estimate
production
foregone.
The
definition
of
W
i
is
taken
from
Rago
(
1984,
page
82,
last
paragraph),
which
defines
W
i
as
the
average
weight
of
individuals
of
age
i.
Stage­
specific
average
weights
used
by
EPA
for
the
calculations
of
production
foregone
are
presented
in
This
document
represents
the
best
judgment
of
the
EPA
staff
conducting
analyses
to
support
the
Phase
II
Section
316(
b)
rule
at
this
time.
It
does
not
represent
the
final
position
of
the
Administrator
or
EPA
on
this
rulemaking.
EPA
reserves
the
right
to
change
or
amend
any
of
the
statements
within
this
document
up
until
the
time
that
the
EPA
Administrator
takes
final
action
on
this
rule.

Page
2
an
appendix
to
each
case
study
report
(
Parts
B
through
I
of
the
Case
Study
Document,
DCN
4­
0003).

4.
The
calculations
of
the
instantaneous
growth
rate
for
individuals
of
stage
i
(
G
i)
used
in
the
Production
Foregone
Model,
presented
as
Equation
8
in
Chapter
A5
of
the
Case
Study
Document
(
DCN
4­
0003),
were
based
on
Equation
7a
in
Rago
(
1984,
page
85).
This
equation
is
duplicated
as
Equation
1
below:

W
i
=
W
i­
1
*
eGi
Equation
1
where:

G
i
=
the
instantaneous
growth
rate
for
individuals
of
stage
i
W
i
=
average
weight
(
in
pounds)
for
individuals
of
stage
i
W
i­
1
=
average
weight
(
in
pounds)
for
individuals
of
stage
i­
1
Based
on
Equation
1,
EPA
derived
values
for
G
i
using
the
following
equation:

G
i
=
log
e
(
W
i+
1
/
W
i
),
Equation
2
Stage­
specific
average
weights
used
by
EPA
for
the
calculations
of
G
i
are
presented
in
an
appendix
to
each
case
study
report
(
Parts
B
through
I
of
the
Case
Study
Document,
DCN
4­
0003).
Some
literature
values
for
weights
of
fish
at
successive
ages
(
primarily
larval
stages)
were
identical.
However,
EPA
determined
that
it
was
likely
that
there
would
be
a
difference
between
successive
classes
and
in
these
cases
assigned
a
small
value
to
G
i.

5.
As
indicated
in
Equation
8
of
Chapter
A5
of
Part
A
of
the
Case
Study
Document
(
DCN
4­
0003),
EPA
used
the
number
of
individuals
of
stage
i
lost
to
I&
E
(
N
i)
to
estimate
production
foregone.
The
definition
of
N
i
is
based
on
Equation
7b
of
Rago
(
1984,
page
86),
and
is
duplicated
as
Equation
3
below:

N
i
=
N
i­
1
*
e­
Zi
Equation
3
where
N
i
=
numbers
of
individuals
of
stage
i
lost
to
impingement
and
entrainment
(
I&
E)
Z
i
=
instantaneous
mortality
rate
for
individuals
of
stage
i
This
document
represents
the
best
judgment
of
the
EPA
staff
conducting
analyses
to
support
the
Phase
II
Section
316(
b)
rule
at
this
time.
It
does
not
represent
the
final
position
of
the
Administrator
or
EPA
on
this
rulemaking.
EPA
reserves
the
right
to
change
or
amend
any
of
the
statements
within
this
document
up
until
the
time
that
the
EPA
Administrator
takes
final
action
on
this
rule.

Page
3
N
i­
1
=
numbers
of
individuals
of
stage
i­
1
lost
to
I&
E
Input
data
are
provided
in
the
EXCEL
workbook
"
salem.
input.
data.
xls"
(
DCN
4­
2051).

6.
EPA
selected
constants
to
depict
trophic
transfer
efficiency
based
on
the
general
ecological
principle
that
animal
biomass
transfers
to
higher
trophic
levels
with
an
efficiency
of
about
10%
(
e.
g.,
see
discussion
of
Lindeman
efficiencies
in
Colinvaux,
1973).
A
value
of
10%
for
trophic
transfer
efficiency
is
a
widely­
used
rule
of
thumb,
but
actual
values
for
particular
systems
may
vary
somewhat
around
that
assumed
value.

Based
on
the
above
information,
EPA
estimated
a
conservative
value
of
9%
for
singlelevel
trophic
transfer
efficiency,
which
is
the
same
value
that
Public
Service
Electric
and
Gas
Company
(
PSEG)
used
as
a
trophic
transfer
efficiency
in
the
models
they
used
for
Salem's
1999
Permit
Renewal
Application
(
PSEG,
1999).
In
order
to
account
for
indirect
or
multi­
level
transfers,
EPA
estimated
an
aggregate
net
transfer
efficiency
of
only
2.5
%.
The
fraction
0.20
that
appears
in
Equation
12
of
Chapter
A5
of
the
Case
Study
Document
(
DCN
4­
0003)
is
introduced
for
illustrative
purposes
only
to
present
the
rationale
for
using
the
low
net
transfer
efficiency
of
2.5%.

7.
A
brief
description
of
the
method
used
by
EPA
to
estimate
the
number
of
fish
in
the
recreational
catch
is
presented
in
Section
A5­
3.2
of
Chapter
A5
of
Part
A
of
the
Case
Study
Document
(
DCN
4­
0003).
The
following
example
gives
a
detailed
elaboration
of
the
steps
involved
in
calculating
the
number
of
fish
in
the
recreational
catch.

Pounds
of
foregone
yield
to
the
recreational
fishery
are
based
on
the
total
foregone
fishery
yield
calculated
using
Equation
7
in
Section
A5­
3.2
of
Chapter
A5.
Results
of
the
estimation
of
the
total
foregone
fishery
yield
for
each
species
at
each
facility
are
provided
in
the
third
chapter
of
each
case
study
report,
"
Evaluation
of
I&
E
Data"
in
Parts
B
through
I
of
the
Case
Study
Document
(
DCN
4­
0003).

To
obtain
the
foregone
recreational
yield,
EPA
partitioned
the
estimates
of
total
foregone
yield
for
each
species
into
foregone
recreational
yield
and
foregone
commercial
yield,
based
on
the
relative
proportions
of
recreational
and
commercial
state­
wide
aggregate
catch
rates
of
that
species:

f
r
+
f
c
=
1
Equation
4
Y
kr
=
Y
k.
*
f
r
Equation
5
Y
kc
=
Y
k.
*
f
c
Equation
6
This
document
represents
the
best
judgment
of
the
EPA
staff
conducting
analyses
to
support
the
Phase
II
Section
316(
b)
rule
at
this
time.
It
does
not
represent
the
final
position
of
the
Administrator
or
EPA
on
this
rulemaking.
EPA
reserves
the
right
to
change
or
amend
any
of
the
statements
within
this
document
up
until
the
time
that
the
EPA
Administrator
takes
final
action
on
this
rule.

Page
4
where:

f
r
=
fraction
of
total
landings
in
recreational
sector
f
c
=
fraction
of
total
landings
in
commercial
sector
Y
kr
=
foregone
recreational
yield
(
pounds)
due
to
I&
E
losses
in
year
k
Y
k.
=
total
foregone
yield
(
pounds)
due
to
I&
E
losses
in
year
k
Y
kc
=
foregone
commercial
yield
(
pounds)
due
to
I&
E
losses
in
year
k
The
method
used
by
EPA
to
obtain
the
percentage
of
fish
allocated
to
commercial
and
recreational
harvests
is
presented
in
the
text
box
on
page
A9­
3
of
Chapter
A5
of
Part
A
of
the
Case
Study
Document
(
DCN
4­
0003).
The
fishery
sector
fractions
used
by
EPA
are
presented
in
Table
4­
1
of
each
case
study
report
(
Parts
B
through
I
of
the
Case
Study
Document,
DCN
4­
0003)
and
in
the
EXCEL
workbook
"
econvalues.
xls"
(
DCN
4­
2061).

Pounds
of
foregone
recreational
yield
were
then
re­
expressed
as
numbers
of
individual
fish
based
on
the
expected
weight
of
an
individual
harvestable
fish
according
to
the
following
equation:

N
krs
=
Y
kr
/
w
s
Equation
7
where:

N
krs
=
the
number
of
individuals
in
the
recreational
catch
in
year
k
of
species
s
w
s
=
the
expected
weight
of
a
harvestable
individual
of
species
s
The
expected
weight
at
harvest,
w
s,
was
defined
as
the
average
of
the
known
weight­
at­
age
values,
statistically
weighted
by
the
relative
fraction
of
all
harvest
that
is
comprised
of
each
particular
age
group.
The
calculation
for
a
particular
species,
s,
is:

jmax
w
s
=
 
m
js
*
w
js
Equation
8
j=
1
jmax
m
js
=
S
1,
j
*
w
js
*
V
js
/
 (
S
1,
js
*
w
js
*
V
js)
Equation
9
j=
1
where:
This
document
represents
the
best
judgment
of
the
EPA
staff
conducting
analyses
to
support
the
Phase
II
Section
316(
b)
rule
at
this
time.
It
does
not
represent
the
final
position
of
the
Administrator
or
EPA
on
this
rulemaking.
EPA
reserves
the
right
to
change
or
amend
any
of
the
statements
within
this
document
up
until
the
time
that
the
EPA
Administrator
takes
final
action
on
this
rule.

Page
5
m
js
=
weighting
factor
at
stage
j
(
fraction
of
total
harvest
comprised
of
stage
j)
w
js
=
weight
at
stage
j
S
1,
js
=
cumulative
survival
from
age
1
to
stage
j
V
js
=
the
fraction
of
individuals
vulnerable
to
fishing
mortality
at
stage
j
Table
1
below
illustrates
the
calculation
of
m
js
for
one
year
for
each
life
stage
of
a
single
species
and
the
derivation
of
the
value
2.483
kg
as
the
expected
weight
at
harvest
(
w
s).
Each
row
of
Table
1
gives
the
basic
and
derived
values
that
are
specific
for
each
life
stage.
These
data
were
taken
from
Salem's
1999
Permit
Renewal
Application
(
PSEG,
1999).
The
life
history
data
presented
in
Table
1
and
associated
references
to
the
source
documents
are
also
reported
in
Appendix
B1
of
Part
B
of
the
Case
Study
Document
(
DCN
4­
0003)
and
in
worksheets
2
to
4
of
the
EXCEL
workbook
"
salem.
input.
data.
xls"
(
DCN
4­
2051).
This
document
represents
the
best
judgment
of
the
EPA
staff
conducting
analyses
to
support
the
Phase
II
Section
316(
b)
rule
at
this
time.
It
does
not
represent
the
final
position
of
the
Administrator
or
EPA
on
this
rulemaking.
EPA
reserves
the
right
to
change
or
amend
any
of
the
statements
within
this
document
up
until
the
time
that
the
EPA
Administrator
takes
final
action
on
this
rule.

1.
Memorandum
from
Stratus
Consulting
Inc.
to
EPA,
5/
28/
02,
"
Outline
of
§
316(
b)
Case
Study
Evaluation
of
Impingement
and
Entrainment
Data
with
Examples
Drawn
from
the
Salem
Case
Study."
Page
6
Table
1.
Calculation
of
expected
weight
at
harvest,
ws
of
Equation
8,
based
on
life
history
parameters
used
in
the
Salem
case
study
to
model
weakfish.
Life
history
parameter
Life
stage
(
j)
M
j
F
j
Fraction
of
life
stage
(
j)
vulnerable
to
fishery
W
j
(
gm)
Z
j
=
M
j
+
F
j
S
j
=
e­
Zj
S1,
j
m
js
wf
js*
M
js
Age
1
0.35
0.25
0.10
117.93
0.6
0.55
0.55
0.01
0.99
Age
2
0.25
0.25
0.50
308.44
0.5
0.61
0.33
0.07
20.44
Age
3
0.25
0.25
1.00
508.02
0.5
0.61
0.20
0.13
67.25
Age
4
0.25
0.25
1.00
811.93
0.5
0.61
012
0.13
104.18
Age
5
0.25
0.25
1.00
1319.95
0.5
0.61
0.07
0.13
166.99
Age
6
0.25
0.25
1.00
2816.80
0.5
0.61
0.05
0.16
461.24
Age
7
0.25
0.25
1.00
3238.60
0.5
0.61
0.03
0.11
369.80
Age
8
0.25
0.25
1.00
4154.90
0.5
0.61
0.02
0.09
369.15
Age
9
0.25
0.25
1.00
4912.41
0.5
0.61
0.01
0.06
312.97
Age
10
0.25
0.25
1.00
5669.91
0.5
0.61
0.01
0.04
252.87
Age
11
0.25
0.25
1.00
5669.91
0.5
0.61
0.006
0.03
153.37
Age
12
0.25
0.25
1.00
5669.91
0.5
0.61
0.004
0.02
93.02
Age
13
0.25
0.25
1.00
5669.91
0.5
0.61
0.002
0.01
56.41
Age
14
0.25
0.25
1.00
5669.91
0.5
0.61
0.001
0.01
34.22
Age
15
0.25
0.25
1.00
5669.91
0.5
0.61
0.000
8
0.004
20.75
2,484
gm
8.
The
procedure
and
equations
used
by
EPA
to
estimate
Salem's
entrainment
losses
assuming
100%
through­
plant
mortality
are
provided
in
the
May
28,
2002,
memorandum
sent
to
PSEG
by
Tom
Wall
of
EPA's
316(
b)
Task
Force.
1
The
source
of
the
specific
factors
used
to
estimate
Salem's
entrainment
losses
assuming
100%
through­
plant
mortality
are
also
provided
in
the
memorandum,
and
are
duplicated
below.

EPA
obtained
species­
and
stage­
specific
mechanical
mortality
factors
from
Appendix
F,
Attachment
2,
Table
12
of
Salem's
1999
Permit
Renewal
Application
(
PSEG,
1999)
This
document
represents
the
best
judgment
of
the
EPA
staff
conducting
analyses
to
support
the
Phase
II
Section
316(
b)
rule
at
this
time.
It
does
not
represent
the
final
position
of
the
Administrator
or
EPA
on
this
rulemaking.
EPA
reserves
the
right
to
change
or
amend
any
of
the
statements
within
this
document
up
until
the
time
that
the
EPA
Administrator
takes
final
action
on
this
rule.

Page
7
(
duplicated
in
Appendix
B1
of
Part
B
of
the
Case
Study
Document,
DCN
4­
0003).
EPA
obtained
the
coefficients
used
in
the
probit
models
of
thermal
mortality
from
Table
13
of
Appendix
F,
Attachment
2,
of
Salem's
1999
Permit
Renewal
Application
(
PSEG,
1999).
EPA
estimated
the
acclimation
temperature
(
T
a)
from
Appendix
F,
Attachment
2,
Figure
3
of
Salem's
1999
Application
as
16.7
°
C.
The
exposure
duration
(
D)
was
obtained
from
Attachment
2,
Table
5
(
Unit
1)
of
Salem's
1999
Application,
and
is
equal
to
2.35
minutes.
EPA
obtained
the
temperature
change
through
the
condensers
(
T
delta)
from
Section
II
of
Appendix
F
of
Salem's
1999
Application
and
estimated
it
as
9.27
°
C,
which
is
the
mean
of
the
reported
minimum
T
delta
of
14.8
°
F
and
maximum
of
18.6
°
F.

9.
The
methods
used
to
extrapolate
the
I&
E
rates
of
nine
Ohio
River
case
study
facilities
to
other
Ohio
River
facilities
are
provided
in
Section
C3­
6
of
Chapter
C3
of
Part
C
of
the
Case
Study
Document
(
DCN
4­
0003).
The
definition
of
the
Ohio
River
pool
groups
used
by
EPA
in
its
analysis
is
provided
in
Table
C3­
16
of
Chapter
C3.

Extrapolation
was
based
on
the
judgment
that
I&
E
is
proportional
to
intake
flow,
and
that
I&
E
rates
at
the
nine
Ohio
River
case
study
facilities
are
representative
of
I&
E
at
other
facilities
in
their
respective
pools.
The
nine
case
study
facilities
are
referred
to
here
as
"
model
facilities"
and
the
other
facilities
as
"
non­
model"
facilities.
For
each
pool
separately,
EPA
scaled
each
I&
E
metric
for
the
model
facilities
to
their
respective
operational
flow
rates,
and
then
determined
the
mean
flow­
scaled
metric
for
all
the
model
facilities
located
in
that
pool.
Thus,

L'
ep
=
L
ep
/
G
ep
Equation
10
n
p
L'.
p
=
(
1/
n
p
)
*
 
L'
ep
e
=
1
L
e'p
=
G
e'p
*
L'.
p
where:

L'
ep
=
the
flow­
scaled
loss
metric
for
case
study
facility
e
located
in
pool
p
L
ep
=
a
loss
metric
for
model
facility
e
located
in
pool
p
G
ep
=
the
operational
flow
rate
(
in
million
gallons
per
day,
MGD)
for
model
facility
e
located
in
pool
p
L'.
p
=
the
mean
flow­
scaled
loss
metric
among
all
model
facilities
located
in
pool
p
This
document
represents
the
best
judgment
of
the
EPA
staff
conducting
analyses
to
support
the
Phase
II
Section
316(
b)
rule
at
this
time.
It
does
not
represent
the
final
position
of
the
Administrator
or
EPA
on
this
rulemaking.
EPA
reserves
the
right
to
change
or
amend
any
of
the
statements
within
this
document
up
until
the
time
that
the
EPA
Administrator
takes
final
action
on
this
rule.

Page
8
n
p
=
the
number
of
model
facilities
located
in
pool
p
L
e'p
=
the
extrapolated
loss
metric
for
non­
model
facility
e
located
in
pool
p
G
e'p
=
the
operational
flow
rate
(
MGD)
for
non­
model
facility
e
located
in
pool
p
Note
that
L'
ep
=
L'.
p
in
all
pools
except
for
Markland
Pool
and
Robert
C.
Byrd
Pool
because
other
pools
had
only
one
model
facility.
Some
of
the
values
listed
in
Table
C3­
28
of
Chapter
C5
are
incorrect
due
to
an
error
in
computing
L'.
p
for
Markland
Pool
and
Robert
C.
Byrd
Pool.
The
listed
values
are
lower
than
the
correct
values
for
these
two
pools.

Because
of
this
error,
correct
values
of
aggregate
losses
in
Markland
Pool
are
87%
greater
than
the
reported
values
and
correct
values
of
aggregate
losses
in
Robert
C.
Byrd
Pool
are
78%
greater
than
the
reported
values.
As
a
result,
the
values
reported
in
Table
C3­
28
for
Markland
Pool,
Robert
C.
Byrd
Pool,
and
for
the
total
are
lower
than
they
should
be.
This
error
occurs
in
all
tables
reporting
results
for
these
pools.
In
the
case
of
Table
C3­
28,
the
correct
values
for
common
carp
in
for
Markland
Pool,
Robert
C.
Byrd
Pool,
and
for
the
aggregate
total
are
179,245
lbs,
1,192,687
lbs,
and
1,506,400
lbs,
respectively.
The
correct
grand
total
in
Table
C3­
28
for
all
species
at
all
pools
is
about
49%
greater
than
the
reported
total
(
14,724,213
lbs
rather
than
9,890,223
lbs).

10.
Impinged
fish
were
estimated
to
be
age
1
only
in
cases
where
impinged
fish
were
age
>
1
or
when
ages
were
unknown.
In
cases
where
impinged
fish
were
known
to
be
younger
than
age
1,
their
known
ages
were
used
in
determining
the
loss
metrics,
so
the
effect
described
in
the
footnote
may
not
always
occur.
With
this
proviso,
the
methods
used
by
EPA
to
estimate
age­
1
equivalents
for
impingement
and
entrainment
were
equivalent
for
fish
younger
and
older
than
age
1,
including
the
calculation
of
S*.
The
calculation
of
S*
is
discussed
in
Section
A5­
3.1
of
Chapter
A5
of
the
Case
Study
Document
(
DCN
4­
0003).
The
May
28th,
2002,
memorandum
sent
to
PSEG
by
Tom
Wall
of
EPA
(
see
Footnote
1)
presents
a
detailed
example
depicting
the
calculation
of
age­
1
equivalent
weakfish
lost
to
entrainment
at
Salem
in
1981
and
1982.

11.
See
Response
4
above.

12.
See
Response
5
above.
Input
data
are
provided
in
the
EXCEL
workbook
"
salem.
input.
data.
xls"
(
DCN
4­
2051).

13.
and
14.
See
Response
7
above.
As
discussed
on
page
B4­
2
of
Chapter
B4
of
Part
B
of
the
Case
Study
Document
(
DCN
4­
0003),
recreational
yield
was
estimated
by
multiplying
the
total
lost
yield
by
the
percentage
of
yield
that
is
attributed
to
the
recreational
fishery.
The
species­
specific
percentages
used
to
calculate
recreational
yield
are
given
in
Table
B4­
1.
This
document
represents
the
best
judgment
of
the
EPA
staff
conducting
analyses
to
support
the
Phase
II
Section
316(
b)
rule
at
this
time.
It
does
not
represent
the
final
position
of
the
Administrator
or
EPA
on
this
rulemaking.
EPA
reserves
the
right
to
change
or
amend
any
of
the
statements
within
this
document
up
until
the
time
that
the
EPA
Administrator
takes
final
action
on
this
rule.

Page
9
However,
due
to
a
clerical
error
in
production
of
this
table,
the
values
for
pounds
of
recreational
yield
that
are
presented
in
Tables
B4­
2
and
B4­
3
are
incorrect.
Because
this
was
a
clerical
error
and
not
an
error
in
any
actual
calculations,
the
errors
in
Tables
B4­
2
and
B4­
3
do
not
affect
any
of
the
results
of
EPA's
benefits
analysis.
Also
note
that
pounds
of
recreational
catch
were
not
used
in
the
economic
valuations
(
only
numbers
of
recreational
fish
were
valued).
For
Table
B4­
2,
correct
values
for
pounds
of
recreational
yield
are:


American
shad
­
53
lbs

Atlantic
croaker
­
4,720
lbs

Blue
crab
­
598
lbs

Spot
­
382
lbs

Striped
Bass
­
8,040
lbs

Weakfish
­
13,613
lbs

White
perch
­
31
lbs

Non­
RIS
fishery
species
­
5,013
lbs
For
Table
B4­
3,
correct
values
for
pounds
of
recreational
yield
are:


Atlantic
croaker
­
334,986
lbs

Spot
­
480,776
lbs

Striped
bass
­
564,789
lbs

Weakfish
­
296,243
lbs

White
perch
­
223
lbs

Non­
RIS
fishery
species
­
322,383
lbs
15.
The
stages
Juvenile­
1
and
Juvenile­
2
that
EPA
used
for
modeling
losses
of
alewife
and
blueback
herring
correspond
to
stages
Juv­
E
and
Juv­
I
that
are
presented
in
PSEG
(
1999)
Table
F­
4
of
Appendix
F,
Attachment
4.
EPA
interpreted
Juv­
E
and
Juve­
I
of
Table
F­
4
to
be
sequential
stages
with
a
combined
stage
duration
of
306
days
and
with
equal
stagewise
total
mortality
rate
(
Z)
of
3.105
for
alewife
and
3.13
for
blueback
herring.
Thus,
EPA
modeled
impingement
and
entrainment
losses
of
juvenile
alewife
and
juvenile
blueback
herring
with
a
stagewise
total
mortality
rate
(
Z)
of
3.105
and
3.13,
respectively.

16.
and
17.
EPA
estimated
stage­
specific
weights
of
fish
if
they
were
not
provided
in
Salem's
1999
Permit
Renewal
Application
(
PSEG,
1999).
EPA
estimated
that
the
average
weight
of
eggs
is
0.01
gm
(
slightly
less
than
the
weights
of
larvae)
and
estimated
weights
for
stages
between
eggs
and
age
1
by
linear
interpolation
of
the
weight
of
eggs
This
document
represents
the
best
judgment
of
the
EPA
staff
conducting
analyses
to
support
the
Phase
II
Section
316(
b)
rule
at
this
time.
It
does
not
represent
the
final
position
of
the
Administrator
or
EPA
on
this
rulemaking.
EPA
reserves
the
right
to
change
or
amend
any
of
the
statements
within
this
document
up
until
the
time
that
the
EPA
Administrator
takes
final
action
on
this
rule.

Page
10
and
the
weight
at
age
1
provided
in
Salem's
1999
Permit
Renewal
Application
(
PSEG,
1999).
The
methods
and
sources
that
EPA
used
to
estimate
fish
weights
are
presented
in
footnotes
to
the
life
history
tables
presented
in
Appendix
B2
of
Part
B
of
the
Case
Study
Document
(
DCN
4­
0003).
The
simple
interpolation
used
to
estimate
the
size
at
any
stage
can
be
described
by:

W
j+
1
=
W
j
+
((
W
age1+
W
egg)
/
(
2
*
n
stage))
Equation
11
where:

W
j
=
average
weight
at
stage
j
W
j+
1
=
average
weight
at
stage
j+
1
n
stage
=
number
of
stages
between
egg
and
age
1
In
cases
where
weights
for
adult
stages
were
unknown,
EPA
used
an
ad
hoc
procedure
similar
to
a
linear
interpolation
between
known
weights
at
other
stages,
except
that
the
interpolation
was
not
strictly
linear
in
that
the
weight
increment
between
stages
was
estimated
to
decrease
with
age.

For
Atlantic
menhaden,
blue
crab,
silverside,
and
the
group
of
non­
RIS
species,
EPA
used
a
weight­
length
relationship:

W
j
=
 *
L
j
 
Equation
12
where:

 
and
 
=
growth
coefficients
W
j
=
average
weight
in
grams
of
stage
j
L
j
=
average
length
in
millimeters
of
stage
j
The
growth
coefficients
used
by
EPA
in
Equation
12
are
presented
in
worksheet
3
of
the
EXCEL
workbook
"
salem.
input.
data.
xls"
(
DCN
4­
2051).
The
length­
at­
stage
data
are
presented
in
worksheet
4.
All
of
these
data
and
their
sources
are
also
provided
in
footnotes
to
the
life
history
tables
presented
in
Appendix
B2
of
Part
B
of
the
Case
Study
Document
(
DCN
4­
0003).

Due
to
a
data
input
error,
incorrect
weights
for
Atlantic
menhaden
were
used
in
EPA's
calculations
of
Atlantic
menhaden
foregone
fishery
yield
and
production
foregone.
This
error
changes
the
benefits
associated
with
Atlantic
menhaden
losses,
but
the
magnitude
of
the
change
in
comparison
to
total
benefits
is
relatively
small
due
to
the
low
value
assigned
to
this
species.
This
document
represents
the
best
judgment
of
the
EPA
staff
conducting
analyses
to
support
the
Phase
II
Section
316(
b)
rule
at
this
time.
It
does
not
represent
the
final
position
of
the
Administrator
or
EPA
on
this
rulemaking.
EPA
reserves
the
right
to
change
or
amend
any
of
the
statements
within
this
document
up
until
the
time
that
the
EPA
Administrator
takes
final
action
on
this
rule.

Page
11
The
correct
weight
estimates
are
provided
below
in
Table
2.

Table
2.
Stage­
specific
length
and
weight
data
for
Atlantic
menhaden.
Stage
Lengths
(
mm)
Weights
(
gm)
b
Eggs
1.6
0.000027
Yolksac
larvae
3.4
0.00031
Post­
yolksac
larvae
34
0.51
Juvenile
1
92.5
12.7
Age
1+
233
247.2
Age
2+
268
387.7
Age
3+
288
488.7
Age
4+
306
593.9
Age
5+
317
665.3
Age
6+
325
720.9
Age
7+
400
1,405.6
Age
8+
470
2,361.0
18.
The
weight­
at­
age
values
for
spot
that
PSEG
(
1999)
listed
was
26.65
gm
for
stage
Juvenile­
1
and
for
Juvenile­
2.
Because
it
is
unlikely
that
there
would
be
no
weight
difference
between
these
two
age
classes,
EPA
interpreted
this
information
to
indicate
that
the
weights
were
very
similar
between
the
two
classes
(
though
not
identical).
In
order
to
facilitate
modeling
of
stagewise
growth
rates
(
Gi),
EPA
altered
the
weight
value
for
juvenile
2
from
25.65gm
to
26.0
gm
(
an
increase
of
about
1%).

19.
Please
see
response
to
Question
number
9.

20.
DCN
4­
2213
reports
waterbody
type
and
angling
days,
which
can
be
used
to
reproduce
the
angling
index.

21.
This
question
is
in
the
nature
of
a
comment
on
the
record
or
the
proposed
rule.
EPA
will
address
this
question
in
its
responses
to
public
comments
if
it
is
included
in
public
comments
on
the
proposal.

22.
Baseline
losses
for
Pittsburgh
and
Contra
Costa
(
in
$
2001)
are
estimated
in
the
case
studies
for
these
facilities
rather
than
through
extrapolation
[
see
Part
E
of
EPA's
Case
Study
Document
(
DCN
4­
0003)].
This
document
represents
the
best
judgment
of
the
EPA
staff
conducting
analyses
to
support
the
Phase
II
Section
316(
b)
rule
at
this
time.
It
does
not
represent
the
final
position
of
the
Administrator
or
EPA
on
this
rulemaking.
EPA
reserves
the
right
to
change
or
amend
any
of
the
statements
within
this
document
up
until
the
time
that
the
EPA
Administrator
takes
final
action
on
this
rule.

Page
12
23.
Refer
to
the
Economic
and
Benefits
Analysis
(
EBA),
Chapter
C3
(
DCN
4­
0002),
Federal
Register
Vol.
67,
No.
68,
page
17189­
17208,
and
docket
documents
DCN
4­
2070,
DCN
4­
2212,
and
DCN
4­
2213.

24.
Refer
to
EBA
Chapter
C3
(
DCN
4­
0002),
Federal
Register
Vol.
67,
No.
68,
page
17189­
17208,
and
docket
documents
DCN
4­
2070,
DCN
4­
2212,
and
DCN
4­
2213.

25.
The
case
study
results
were
extrapolated
to
national
estimates
of
baseline
loss
(
see
EBA
Chapter
C3
(
DCN
4­
0002)
and
Federal
Register
Vol.
67,
No.
68,
page
17189­
17208).
In
the
case
of
the
Salem
case
study,
results
are
based
on
a
single
facility.
In
the
case
of
the
Ohio
case
study,
the
results
are
based
on
several
facilities
because
the
underlying
Random
Utility
Model
(
RUM)
analysis
covered
several
facilities
within
the
river
simultaneously.

26.
This
question
is
in
the
nature
of
a
comment
on
the
record
or
the
proposed
rule.
EPA
will
address
this
question
in
its
responses
to
public
comments
if
it
is
included
in
public
comments
on
the
proposal.

27.
This
question
is
in
the
nature
of
a
comment
on
the
record
or
the
proposed
rule.
EPA
will
address
this
question
in
its
responses
to
public
comments
if
it
is
included
in
public
comments
on
the
proposal.

28.
Individual
county
estimates
were
an
intermediate
step
and
not
saved.
See
Federal
Register
Vol.
67,
No.
68,
page
17189­
17208
for
details
on
their
calculation.
See
docket
documents
DCN
4­
2070,
DCN
4­
2212,
and
DCN
4­
2213
for
facility­
level
estimates
and
waterbody
types.

Desvousges'
Questions
1.
Construction
of
the
angling
index
is
described
in
Federal
Register
Vol.
67,
No.
68,
page
17189­
17208.
Also
refer
to
EBA
Chapter
C3
(
DCN
4­
0002),
Federal
Register
Vol.
67,
No.
68,
page
17189­
17208,
and
docket
documents
DCN
4­
2070,
DCN
4­
2212,
and
DCN
4­
2213.

2.
For
those
sites
for
which
a
RUM
analysis
was
not
conducted
by
EPA,
the
benefits
transfer
(
BT)
approach
provided
the
only
estimates
used
for
recreational
angling
losses.
These
other
sites
provide
a
clear
indication
of
how
BT
is
used
in
lieu
of
RUM
results
[
e.
g.,
see
Chapters
F4
and
F6
of
Part
F
of
the
Case
Study
Document
(
DCN
4­
0003)
to
see
how
BT
results
are
used
in
the
Brayton
Point
Case
Study].
This
document
represents
the
best
judgment
of
the
EPA
staff
conducting
analyses
to
support
the
Phase
II
Section
316(
b)
rule
at
this
time.
It
does
not
represent
the
final
position
of
the
Administrator
or
EPA
on
this
rulemaking.
EPA
reserves
the
right
to
change
or
amend
any
of
the
statements
within
this
document
up
until
the
time
that
the
EPA
Administrator
takes
final
action
on
this
rule.

Page
13
3.
The
use
of
the
"
50%
rule
of
thumb"
by
Freeman
(
1979)
and
explored
by
Fisher
and
Raucher
(
1984)
provides
a
conservative
approach
to
assessing
nonuse
values
for
the
magnitude
of
the
injury
to
aquatic
species
due
to
I&
E.

4.
The
"
steady
state"
approach
is
based
on
simplification
of
the
temporal
aspects
of
how
I&
E
translates
into
a
loss
in
recreational
or
commercial
fishery
harvest.
If
the
typical
age
of
harvest
is
3
years,
then
a
change
in
I&
E
will
affect
harvest
3
years
later,
implying
a
rationale
for
discounting
the
loss
over
the
intervening
time
period.
However,
the
fishery
then
attains
a
steady
state
after
3
years
of
I&
E
controls.

5.
See
Chapter
A9
of
Part
A
of
the
Case
Study
Document
(
DCN
4­
0003)
for
an
explanation
of
the
commercial
fishery
approach.
Also,
please
see
the
explanation
provided
in
the
attached
paper,
"
Estimating
Commercial
Fishing
Losses
for
the
Phase
II
Proposal."

6.
This
question
is
in
the
nature
of
a
comment
on
the
record
or
the
proposed
rule.
EPA
will
address
this
question
in
its
responses
to
public
comments
if
it
is
included
in
public
comments
on
the
proposal.

7.
This
question
is
in
the
nature
of
a
comment
on
the
record
or
the
proposed
rule.
EPA
will
address
this
question
in
its
responses
to
public
comments
if
it
is
included
in
public
comments
on
the
proposal.

8.
This
question
is
in
the
nature
of
a
comment
on
the
record
or
the
proposed
rule.
EPA
will
address
this
question
in
its
responses
to
public
comments
if
it
is
included
in
public
comments
on
the
proposal.

9.
The
ranges
developed
by
EPA
reflect
the
range
of
values
applicable
for
many
of
the
key
parameters
and
thereby
embody
a
sensitivity
analysis
in
and
of
themselves.

10.
EPA
provided
these
files
to
UWAG
on
June
17,
2002.
Please
note
that
LIMDEP
datasets
are
not
compressed
SAS
datasets;
they
are
ASCII
files.

11.
EPA
provided
these
files
to
UWAG
on
June
17,
2002.
Please
note
that
LIMDEP
datasets
(
i.
e.,
brum.
dat
and
brips.
dat)
are
not
compressed
SAS
datasets;
they
are
ASCII
files.

12.
Document
sources:

a)
1994
Bay­
Delta
Accord:
http://
calfed.
water.
ca.
gov/
historical/
delta_
accord.
html
b)
1995
State
Water
Quality
Plan
(
California):
http://
www.
swrcb.
ca.
gov/
plnspols/
wqplans/
deltwqcp.
doc
This
document
represents
the
best
judgment
of
the
EPA
staff
conducting
analyses
to
support
the
Phase
II
Section
316(
b)
rule
at
this
time.
It
does
not
represent
the
final
position
of
the
Administrator
or
EPA
on
this
rulemaking.
EPA
reserves
the
right
to
change
or
amend
any
of
the
statements
within
this
document
up
until
the
time
that
the
EPA
Administrator
takes
final
action
on
this
rule.

Page
14
c)
Fall
Mid­
water
Trawl
Survey,
California
Dept
of
Fish
and
Game:
http://
www.
delta.
dfg.
ca.
gov/
data/
mwt99/
charts.
html
d)
Table
E2­
1
State
Water
Project
Costs
source:
Davis
et
al.
1999;
Table
E2­
2
Recent
California
Water
Transactions
source:
These
transactions
are
compiled
from
recent
issues
of
the
Water
Strategist
journal
(
http://
www.
waterchat.
com);
Table
E2­
3
Summary
of
Uses
and
Values
of
Foregone
Production
to
SWP
and
CVP
Water
Users
source:
Davis
et
al.
1999.

13.
This
question
is
in
the
nature
of
a
comment
on
the
record
or
the
proposed
rule.
EPA
will
address
this
question
in
its
responses
to
public
comments
if
it
is
included
in
public
comments
on
the
proposal.

14.
The
subject
of
this
study
was
I&
E.
No
other
environmental
stressors
were
evaluated.

15.
This
information
was
provided
in
PG&
E
(
1998)
as
indicated
on
page
E1­
6
of
Chapter
E1
of
Part
E
of
the
Case
Study
Report
(
DCN
4­
0003).
A
copy
of
this
document
is
provided
in
the
docket
(
DCN
4­
1904).

16.
a)
There
are
nine
special
status
fish
species
identified
under
the
Ecosystem
Restoration
Program
Plan
(
ERPP)
with
a
goal
of
recovering
each
species.
These
species
are
delta
smelt,
longfin
smelt,
green
sturgeon,
Sacramento
splittail,
Sacramento
winter­
run
chinook
salmon,
Central
Valley
spring­
run
chinook
salmon,
late­
fall­
run
chinook
salmon,
fall­
run
chinook
salmon,
and
Central
Valley
steelhead
[
see
page
E5­
2
of
Chapter
E5
of
Part
E
of
the
Case
Study
Document
(
DCN
4­
0003)].

b)
No
adjustments
were
made.

c)
The
revealed
preference
approach
is
one
of
two
methods
used
to
estimate
the
cost
of
restoring
threatened
and
endangered
(
T&
E)
fish
species
in
the
Bay­
Delta
region.
The
other
is
the
direct
costing
approach.
Roughly
the
same
value
was
obtained
using
each
method.
For
the
revealed
preference
approach,
three
estimates
for
the
ratio
of
program
costs
attributable
to
T&
E
species
are
assumed.
These
ratios
are
assumed
because
of
a
lack
of
available
data.
At
the
low
end,
it
is
assumed
that
over
the
life
of
the
program
40%
of
the
ERPP
funds,
40%
of
the
money
spent
on
environmental
water
quality,
and
90%
of
the
Environmental
Water
Account
(
EWA)
benefit
special
status
fish.
At
the
other
end
of
the
spectrum,
it
is
estimated
that
80%
of
the
ERPP
funds
and
the
environmental
water
quality
element
benefit
special
status
species,
and
that
10%
of
each
of
the
other
CALFED
program
elements
also
benefit
special
status
species,
except
the
EWA,
where
the
90%
benefit
level
is
maintained.
A
scenario
that
generally
This
document
represents
the
best
judgment
of
the
EPA
staff
conducting
analyses
to
support
the
Phase
II
Section
316(
b)
rule
at
this
time.
It
does
not
represent
the
final
position
of
the
Administrator
or
EPA
on
this
rulemaking.
EPA
reserves
the
right
to
change
or
amend
any
of
the
statements
within
this
document
up
until
the
time
that
the
EPA
Administrator
takes
final
action
on
this
rule.

Page
15
represents
a
mid­
point
of
rates
assumed
in
the
low
and
high
scenarios
for
allocation
of
total
CALFED
program
costs
to
special
status
species
fish
holds
that
60%
of
the
ERPP
and
environmental
water
quality
funds,
90%
of
the
EWA
funds,
and
10%
of
the
other
program
categories
directly
benefit
special
status
species
fish
[
see
page
E5­
3
of
Chapter
E5
of
Part
E
of
the
Case
Study
Document
(
DCN
4­
0003)].

d)
This
question
is
in
the
nature
of
a
comment
on
the
record
or
the
proposed
rule.
EPA
will
address
this
question
in
its
responses
to
public
comments
if
it
is
included
in
public
comments
on
the
proposal.

17.
This
question
is
in
the
nature
of
a
comment
on
the
record
or
the
proposed
rule.
EPA
will
address
this
question
in
its
responses
to
public
comments
if
it
is
included
in
public
comments
on
the
proposal.

18.
The
value
of
I&
E
losses
of
special
status
species
fish
was
not
estimated
for
case
studies
other
than
the
San
Francisco
Bay/
Delta.
EPA
did
not
extrapolate
these
values
to
the
national
level
to
estimate
benefits.

19.
Attached
is
a
CD
containing
electronic
files
for
the
economic
analysis
that
do
not
contain
confidential
business
information
(
CBI)
or
information
that,
with
minimal
analysis,
could
lead
to
the
disclosure
of
CBI.
EPA
conducted
the
economic
analyses
in
Excel,
not
in
SAS.
Therefore,
the
submitted
files
are
in
Excel
format.
The
CD
contains
the
following
files:
AEO
Data.
xls
(
4­
3008),
Tax
Rates.
xls
(
4­
3027),
316b_
ICR_
Opt.
3.
xls
(
4­
4042),
316b_
ICR_
Opt.
1.
xls
(
4­
4043),
Market
Analysis
­
NERC
Level.
xls
(
4­
3052),
and
Transmission
Analysis
1d
3d.
xls
(
4­
4053).
EPA
is
continuing
to
review
additional
files
you
requested
to
determine
whether
some
of
the
information
they
contain
could
be
released
in
a
manner
that
would
not
disclose
CBI.

Kristy
Bulleit's
Questions
1.
a)
The
energy
penalty
input
into
the
IPM
are
the
mean
annual
energy
penalties
estimated
by
EPA.
The
energy
penalty
consists
of
two
components:
(
1)
a
reduction
in
unit
efficiency
due
to
increased
turbine
back­
pressure
and
(
2)
an
increase
in
auxiliary
power
requirements
to
operate
the
new
system
(
e.
g.,
for
pumping
and
fanning).
EPA
estimated
energy
penalties
for
different
types
of
generators
(
nuclear,
combined­
cycle,
and
fossil
fuel)
and
different
geographic
regions
(
northeast,
south,
mid­
west,
west,
and
U.
S.
average).
See
Table
B1­
1
of
the
Economic
and
Benefits
Analysis
document,
reproduced
below.
This
document
represents
the
best
judgment
of
the
EPA
staff
conducting
analyses
to
support
the
Phase
II
Section
316(
b)
rule
at
this
time.
It
does
not
represent
the
final
position
of
the
Administrator
or
EPA
on
this
rulemaking.
EPA
reserves
the
right
to
change
or
amend
any
of
the
statements
within
this
document
up
until
the
time
that
the
EPA
Administrator
takes
final
action
on
this
rule.

Page
16
Table
B1­
1:
Annual
Energy
Penalty
(%
of
Plant
Capacity)
by
Facility
Type
and
Geographic
Region
Region
Nuclear
Fossil
Fuel
Combined­
Cycle
Turbin
e
Aux.
Power
Total
Turbin
e
Aux.
Power
Total
Turbin
e
Aux.
Power
Total
Recirculating
Systems
with
Wet
Cooling
Towers
Northeas
t
(
MA)
0.73%
0.85%
1.58
%
0.88%
0.77%
1.65
%
0.14%
0.26%
0.39
%

South
(
FL)
1.03%
0.85%
1.88
%
0.93%
0.77%
1.69
%
0.18%
0.26%
0.44
%

Midwest
(
IL)
0.96%
0.85%
1.82
%
1.00%
0.77%
1.77
%
0.16%
0.26%
0.41
%

West
(
WA)
0.67%
0.85%
1.52
%
0.74%
0.77%
1.51
%
0.11%
0.26%
0.37
%

U.
S.
Average
0.85%
0.85%
1.70
%
0.89%
0.77%
1.65
%
0.15%
0.26%
0.40
%

At
the
time
the
IPM
inputs
were
finalized,
energy
penalties
for
the
West
were
not
available.
The
IPM
analysis
therefore
used
the
U.
S.
average
for
plants
located
in
California,
which
overestimate
the
energy
penalty
for
these
facilities.

b)
No,
only
one
energy
penalty
estimate,
the
total
mean
annual
penalty,
is
used
per
plant.

c)
This
question
is
in
the
nature
of
a
comment
on
the
record
or
the
proposed
rule.
EPA
will
address
this
question
in
its
responses
to
public
comments
if
it
is
included
in
public
comments
on
the
proposal.

2.
The
Agency
used
those
facilities
for
which
it
believed
it
had
the
best
basis
for
making
an
extrapolation
to
other
case
study
facilities
in
the
same
waterbody
category.
For
example,
Salem
was
used
for
non­
Gulf
estuaries
because
of
the
extent
of
I&
E
data
available
for
Salem
and
the
Salem
results
included
the
RUM
analysis,
which
allows
for
a
more
comprehensive
and
robust
assessment
of
recreational
fishing
losses.

DTE
Energy
Questions
This
document
represents
the
best
judgment
of
the
EPA
staff
conducting
analyses
to
support
the
Phase
II
Section
316(
b)
rule
at
this
time.
It
does
not
represent
the
final
position
of
the
Administrator
or
EPA
on
this
rulemaking.
EPA
reserves
the
right
to
change
or
amend
any
of
the
statements
within
this
document
up
until
the
time
that
the
EPA
Administrator
takes
final
action
on
this
rule.

Page
17
1.
Chapter
I4
of
Part
I
of
the
Case
Study
Document
(
DCN
4­
0003)
refers
the
reader
to
Section
I3­
4
of
Chapter
I3
for
data
sources.
The
chapter
also
explains
that
foregone
recreational
yield
in
pounds
was
converted
to
numbers
of
fish
for
valuation
purposes.
Details
on
how
yield
in
pounds
was
derived
from
annual
I&
E
loss
rates
are
provided
in
Chapter
A5
of
Part
A
of
the
Case
Study
Document
(
DCN
4­
0003).

2.
All
AFS
(
1993)
values
are
derived
from
a
1989­
1990
survey
of
public,
private,
and
tribal
hatcheries.

3.
The
methods
for
converting
forage
species
to
species
which
may
be
commercially
or
recreationally
valued
are
described
in
Chapter
A5
of
Part
A
of
the
Case
Study
Document
(
DCN
4­
0003).

4.
This
question
is
in
the
nature
of
a
comment
on
the
record
or
the
proposed
rule.
EPA
will
address
this
question
in
its
responses
to
public
comments
if
it
is
included
in
public
comments
on
the
proposal.

Mirant
Questions
1.
EPA's
rationale
for
averaging
all
available
I&
E
data
is
given
on
page
E3­
17
of
Chapter
E3
of
Part
E
of
the
Case
Study
Document
(
DCN
4­
0003).

2.
EPA
obtained
the
striped
bass
I&
E
data
presented
in
Chapter
E3
of
Part
E
of
the
Case
Study
Document
(
DCN
4­
0003)
from
the
facility
§
316b
documents
prepared
by
Ecological
Analysts,
Inc.
(
1981a,
b),
as
listed
in
the
reference
list
below
and
in
the
reference
list
for
the
Case
Study
Document.

3.
EPA
classified
as
delta
smelt
all
fish
recorded
as
"
Osmeridae"
in
facility
documents.
Annual
impingement
records
at
Contra
Costa
were
obtained
from
Table
3­
20
of
the
Multispecies
Habitat
Conservation
Plan
(
Southern
Energy
Delta,
LLC,
2000).
That
report
lists
annual
chinook
salmon
losses
(
for
all
runs
combined)
as
1,083
fish,
and
annual
steelhead
losses
as
38
fish.

4.
The
methods
used
to
estimate
age
1
equivalents
are
provided
in
Section
A5­
3.1
of
Chapter
A5
of
Part
A
of
the
Case
Study
Document
(
DCN
4­
0003).

5.
Complete
descriptions
of
how
EPA
estimated
foregone
yield
and
production
foregone
are
provided
in
Chapter
A5
of
Part
A
of
the
Case
Study
Document
(
DCN
4­
0003).
The
striped
bass
life
history
data
used
to
calculate
these
metrics
are
provided
in
Table
E1­
5
of
Appendix
E1
of
Part
E
of
the
Case
Study
Document
and
in
worksheets
2
to
4
of
the
This
document
represents
the
best
judgment
of
the
EPA
staff
conducting
analyses
to
support
the
Phase
II
Section
316(
b)
rule
at
this
time.
It
does
not
represent
the
final
position
of
the
Administrator
or
EPA
on
this
rulemaking.
EPA
reserves
the
right
to
change
or
amend
any
of
the
statements
within
this
document
up
until
the
time
that
the
EPA
Administrator
takes
final
action
on
this
rule.

Page
18
EXCEL
workbooks
"
contracosta.
input.
data.
xls"
(
DCN
4­
2041)
and
"
pittsburg.
input.
data"
(
DCN
4­
2050).

6.
See
Response
7
to
Doug
Heimbuch's
questions
for
an
explanation
of
EPA's
methods
for
converting
pounds
of
foregone
recreational
yield
to
numbers
of
fish.

7.
This
question
is
in
the
nature
of
a
comment
on
the
record
or
the
proposed
rule.
EPA
will
address
this
question
in
its
responses
to
public
comments
if
it
is
included
in
public
comments
on
the
proposal.

8.
The
spreadsheets
are
not
used
to
calculate
anything.
The
workbooks
"
contracosta.
input.
data.
xls"
(
DCN
4­
2041)
and
"
pittsburg.
input.
data"
(
DCN
4­
2050)
simply
contain
tables
of
the
input
data
used
for
the
calculations
discussed
in
Chapter
A5
of
Part
A
of
the
Case
Study
Document
(
DCN
4­
0003).
Within
each
workbook,
worksheet
1
("
losses01")
contains
the
annual
I&
E
losses,
worksheet
2
("
lifehistory02")
contains
stagespecific
natural
mortality
rates,
fishing
mortality
rates,
and
the
fraction
vulnerable
to
the
fishery
for
each
species,
worksheet
3(
"
lbs.
from.
mm03")
contains
species­
specific
data
used
in
length­
weight
conversions,
Worksheet
4
("
species.
growth04")
contains
stagespecific
weight
and
length
data,
and
Worksheet
5
("
species.
growth04")
contains
stagespecific
fecundity
data
and
the
fraction
mature
at
each
stage
for
each
species
considered.

9.
This
question
is
in
the
nature
of
a
comment
on
the
record
or
the
proposed
rule.
EPA
will
address
this
question
in
its
responses
to
public
comments
if
it
is
included
in
public
comments
on
the
proposal.

10.
This
question
is
in
the
nature
of
a
comment
on
the
record
or
the
proposed
rule.
EPA
will
address
this
question
in
its
responses
to
public
comments
if
it
is
included
in
public
comments
on
the
proposal.

PSEG'S
Questions
1.
The
calculations
are
not
based
on
pages
19
through
21
of
Norton
et
al.
(
1983).
The
analysis
is
based
on
methods
and
empirical
results
in
pages
38
through
44
of
Norton
et
al.
(
1983),
as
well
as
by
research
by
Holt
and
Bishop
(
2002)
and
R.
Bishop,
pers.
comm.
(
2002).

2.
See
response
to
1
above.

3.
See
response
to
1
above.

4.
See
response
to
1
above.
This
document
represents
the
best
judgment
of
the
EPA
staff
conducting
analyses
to
support
the
Phase
II
Section
316(
b)
rule
at
this
time.
It
does
not
represent
the
final
position
of
the
Administrator
or
EPA
on
this
rulemaking.
EPA
reserves
the
right
to
change
or
amend
any
of
the
statements
within
this
document
up
until
the
time
that
the
EPA
Administrator
takes
final
action
on
this
rule.

Page
19
5.
Please
see
the
explanation
provided
in
the
attached
paper,
"
Estimating
Commercial
Fishing
Losses
for
the
Phase
II
Proposal."

6.
Please
see
the
explanation
provided
in
the
attached
paper,
"
Estimating
Commercial
Fishing
Losses
for
the
Phase
II
Proposal."

7.
All
relevant
communications
between
EPA
or
its
contractors
and
Dr.
Bishop
used
by
EPA
to
estimate
the
total
economic
surplus
associated
with
commercial
fishery
landings
for
the
proposal
are
contained
in
the
public
record
for
the
rule.
As
noted
in
the
attached
paper
"
Estimating
Commercial
Fishing
Losses
for
the
Phase
II
Proposal,"
some
of
Dr.
Bishop's
empirical
work
is
not
available
for
public
distribution.
The
empirical
work
of
relevance
is
presented
in
the
attachment.

8.
The
BT
results
are
in
Chapter
B4
of
Part
B
of
the
Case
Study
Document
(
DCN
4­
0003),
while
the
RUM
analysis
results
are
in
Chapter
B5.
Per
fish
values
used
in
the
BT
analysis
are
provided
in
Table
B4­
5
and
values
used
in
the
RUM
analysis
are
in
Table
B5­
8.
The
footnote
to
the
"
Total"
row
states
that
totals
are
based
on
summing
results
of
the
RUM
analysis
for
weakfish
and
striped
bass
and
the
BT
results
are
for
"
other
species."

9.
The
per
fish
values
for
the
RUM
analysis
and
the
BT
analysis
differ.
Per
fish
values
used
in
the
BT
analysis
are
stated
in
Table
B4­
5
of
Chapter
B4
of
Part
B
of
the
Case
Study
Document
(
DCN
4­
0003)
and
values
used
in
the
RUM
analysis
are
stated
in
Table
B5­
8
of
Chapter
B5.

10.
EPA
did
not
quantify
the
percentage
change
in
fish
populations
due
to
Salem
I&
E.

11.
EPA
did
not
conduct
any
primary
research
on
the
nonuse
(
e.
g.,
bequest
and
existence)
values
for
the
physical
injuries
sustained
by
fish
and
other
aquatic
species
due
to
I&
E
at
Salem.

12.
EPA
did
not
conduct
any
primary
research
on
the
nonuse
(
e.
g.,
bequest
and
existence)
values
for
the
physical
injuries
sustained
by
fish
and
other
aquatic
species
due
to
I&
E
at
Salem.

13.
The
values
from
Chapter
B6
of
Part
B
of
the
Case
Study
Document
(
DCN
4­
0003)
are
the
final
values
for
purposes
of
the
case
study
analyses
for
the
proposed
rule.
EPA
reserves
the
right
to
revise
these
analyses
based
on
public
comment
and
other
information
prior
to
taking
final
action
on
the
rule.
This
document
represents
the
best
judgment
of
the
EPA
staff
conducting
analyses
to
support
the
Phase
II
Section
316(
b)
rule
at
this
time.
It
does
not
represent
the
final
position
of
the
Administrator
or
EPA
on
this
rulemaking.
EPA
reserves
the
right
to
change
or
amend
any
of
the
statements
within
this
document
up
until
the
time
that
the
EPA
Administrator
takes
final
action
on
this
rule.

Page
20
14.
One
set
of
values
shows
the
results
obtained
from
the
BT
approach
and
the
other
set
of
values
incorporates
the
values
for
recreational
fishing
obtained
by
the
RUM
approach.

15.
Chapter
B6
of
Part
B
of
the
Case
Study
Document
(
DCN
4­
0003)
addresses
results
for
all
in­
scope
facilities.
Salem­
specific
results
are
presented
in
Chapter
B4
for
the
BT
analysis
and
in
Chapter
B5
for
the
RUM
analysis.

First
Energy
Questions
1.
Because
the
facility
checked
the
general
CBI
box
at
the
beginning
of
the
questionnaire,
the
velocity
documented
on
page
C2­
10
was
taken
from
another
available
source.
These
velocities
were
provided
for
information
only.
Velocities
were
not
used
in
any
modeling
for
estimation
of
losses.

2.
These
facilities
received
short
technical
questionnaires.
EPA
only
requested
average
annual
cooling
water
intake
flows
on
the
short
technical
questionnaires.
Therefore,
EPA
estimated
design
flows
for
these
facilities
using
a
model.
Data
in
section
C2
were
not
used
in
estimating
any
losses.
The
attached
memorandum,
"
Model
for
Estimating
Power
Plant
Design
Intake
Capacities,"
provides
the
methodology
EPA
used
to
estimate
design
flows
for
facilities
that
received
a
short
technical
questionnaire.

3.
No
data
were
available
in
facility
reports
to
determine
if
facility
impingement
counts
required
adjustment
for
gizzard
shad
that
may
have
been
more
susceptible
to
impingement
because
they
were
already
in
a
weakened
state.
Note
that
forage
fish
were
included
in
the
benefits
estimates
(
see
Chapter
C4
of
Part
C
of
the
Case
Study
Document,
DCN
4­
0003).

4.
All
of
the
data
input
files
used
to
evaluate
I&
E
losses
are
included
in
a
CD­
ROM
located
at
DCN
4­
1305.
There
is
one
EXCEL
workbook
for
each
case
study
facility.
The
workbooks
have
file
names
that
correspond
to
the
name
of
the
facility
(
e.
g.,
for
the
Beckjord
facility
in
the
Ohio
River
Case
Study
the
workbook
of
input
data
is
named
"
beckjord.
input.
data").

Kyle
Hartman's
Questions
1.
Individual
plant
data
was
used
to
obtain
case
study
results,
which
were
then
used
for
estimating
national
benefits.

2.
Extrapolation
results
were
based
on
facility
flow,
estimated
angling
activity,
and
an
average
of
these
two.
Refer
to
Federal
Register
Vol.
67,
No.
68,
page
17189­
17208.
No
other
sensitivity
analyses
were
performed.
This
document
represents
the
best
judgment
of
the
EPA
staff
conducting
analyses
to
support
the
Phase
II
Section
316(
b)
rule
at
this
time.
It
does
not
represent
the
final
position
of
the
Administrator
or
EPA
on
this
rulemaking.
EPA
reserves
the
right
to
change
or
amend
any
of
the
statements
within
this
document
up
until
the
time
that
the
EPA
Administrator
takes
final
action
on
this
rule.

Page
21
3.
Absent
information
to
the
contrary,
EPA
estimated
that
species
were
similar
within
the
same
waterbody
type.

4.
EPA
estimated
that
fish
killed
by
impingement
were
age
1
only
in
cases
where
fish
ages
were
originally
reported
as
age
1
or
greater,
or
if
the
original
records
did
not
specify
the
ages
of
impinged
fish.
If
the
original
records
specified
that
impinged
fish
were
less
than
age
1,
then
EPA
used
their
reported
ages.

5.
This
question
is
in
the
nature
of
a
comment
on
the
record
or
the
proposed
rule.
EPA
will
address
this
question
in
its
responses
to
public
comments
if
it
is
included
in
public
comments
on
the
proposal.

6.
This
question
is
in
the
nature
of
a
comment
on
the
record
or
the
proposed
rule.
EPA
will
address
this
question
in
its
responses
to
public
comments
if
it
is
included
in
public
comments
on
the
proposal.

7.
This
question
is
in
the
nature
of
a
comment
on
the
record
or
the
proposed
rule.
EPA
will
address
this
question
in
its
responses
to
public
comments
if
it
is
included
in
public
comments
on
the
proposal.

8.
Nonuse
values
are
not
doubled,
but
are
based
on
a
conservative
approach
that
uses
half
of
the
recreational
fishing
values
estimated.
Nonuse
values
stated
on
page
B4­
11
are
one
half
of
the
recreation
fishing
values
estimated.

Connectiv
Questions
1.
EPA
provided
these
files
to
UWAG
on
June
17,
2002.
Please
note
that
LIMDEP
datasets
are
not
compressed
SAS
datasets;
they
are
ASCII
files.

2.
According
to
the
Delaware
River
Basin
website
(
DRBC,
1996
at
DCN
4­
1474),
Hay
Road
does
take
in
water.
However,
because
it
was
not
in
scope,
it
was
not
included
in
the
benefits
analysis.

Tampa
Electric
Questions
1.
There
is
a
typographic
error
on
page
D1­
11.
The
correct
value
of
the
recreational
fishery
catches
is
5,411,292.
The
correct
value
(
5,411,292)
was
used
in
the
analysis.
This
value
is
reported
in
Table
D5­
11
of
the
Case
Study
Report.

2.
Carrying
capacity
is
not
a
variable
in
any
of
the
analyses
conducted
by
EPA
for
this
study.
This
document
represents
the
best
judgment
of
the
EPA
staff
conducting
analyses
to
support
the
Phase
II
Section
316(
b)
rule
at
this
time.
It
does
not
represent
the
final
position
of
the
Administrator
or
EPA
on
this
rulemaking.
EPA
reserves
the
right
to
change
or
amend
any
of
the
statements
within
this
document
up
until
the
time
that
the
EPA
Administrator
takes
final
action
on
this
rule.

Page
22
3.
As
described
in
Section
D3­
3
of
Chapter
D3
of
Part
D
of
the
Case
Study
Document
(
DCN
4­
0003),
EPA
obtained
entrainment
monitoring
data
from
Conservation
Consultants
Inc.
(
1977)
for
the
years
1976­
1977
and
from
U.
S.
EPA
(
1981)
for
the
years
1979­
1980.
Section
D3­
3
describes
the
methods
used
by
EPA
to
derive
annual
entrainment
estimates
from
these
data.
To
estimate
annual
entrainment
at
Big
Bend
for
the
period
1976­
1977,
EPA
added
all
of
the
monthly
totals
from
January
1976
to
December
1976
that
were
reported
in
Appendix
5C
and
6C
of
Conservation
Consultants
Inc.
(
1977)
and
multiplied
these
annual
entrainment
estimates
by
1.33
to
represent
the
annual
entrainment
of
the
three
units
with
data
and
a
fourth
unit
of
equal
flow.
These
estimates
are
presented
in
Table
D3­
6
of
Chapter
D3
of
EPA's
Case
Study
Document.
EPA
obtained
annual
entrainment
estimates
for
the
period
1979­
1980
from
Table
6­
51
in
U.
S.
EPA
(
1981).
These
numbers
are
also
presented
in
Table
D3­
6.

4.
UWAG
did
not
consider
this
question
to
be
one
of
its
priority
questions
and
EPA
did
not
prepare
a
response.

5.
This
question
is
in
the
nature
of
a
comment
on
the
record
or
the
proposed
rule.
EPA
will
address
this
question
in
its
responses
to
public
comments
if
it
is
included
in
public
comments
on
the
proposal.

6.
This
question
is
in
the
nature
of
a
comment
on
the
record
or
the
proposed
rule.
EPA
will
address
this
question
in
its
responses
to
public
comments
if
it
is
included
in
public
comments
on
the
proposal.

7.
This
question
is
in
the
nature
of
a
comment
on
the
record
or
the
proposed
rule.
EPA
will
address
this
question
in
its
responses
to
public
comments
if
it
is
included
in
public
comments
on
the
proposal.

8.
This
question
is
in
the
nature
of
a
comment
on
the
record
or
the
proposed
rule.
EPA
will
address
this
question
in
its
responses
to
public
comments
if
it
is
included
in
public
comments
on
the
proposal.

9.
Carrying
capacity
is
not
a
variable
in
the
calculation
of
production
foregone
(
see
Chapter
A5
of
Part
A
of
the
Case
Study
Document,
DCN
4­
0003).
This
question
is
in
the
nature
of
a
comment
on
the
record
or
the
proposed
rule.
EPA
will
address
this
question
in
its
responses
to
public
comments
if
it
is
included
in
public
comments
on
the
proposal.

10.
EPA
used
design
intake
flows
from
its
detailed
questionnaire
for
its
benefit
case
studies
and
national
benefit
analysis.
EPA
used
a
model
to
estimate
design
intake
flow
for
facilities
that
received
a
short
technical
questionnaire.
(
See
response
to
First
Energy
This
document
represents
the
best
judgment
of
the
EPA
staff
conducting
analyses
to
support
the
Phase
II
Section
316(
b)
rule
at
this
time.
It
does
not
represent
the
final
position
of
the
Administrator
or
EPA
on
this
rulemaking.
EPA
reserves
the
right
to
change
or
amend
any
of
the
statements
within
this
document
up
until
the
time
that
the
EPA
Administrator
takes
final
action
on
this
rule.

Page
23
question
#
2
above.)
EPA
used
average
operational
flows
from
its
detailed
questionnaire
for
its
benefit
case
studies
and
national
benefit
analysis
with
two
exceptions:
1)
for
the
Delaware
Case
Study,
EPA
used
the
flow
data
described
in
footnote
b
to
Tables
B3­
12
through
17
(
see
Figure
B2­
2
for
Salem
flow
data);
and
2)
For
the
Brayton
Point
case
study,
EPA
used
the
flow
data
described
in
section
F3­
4
on
page
F3­
11.

11.
The
observed
difference
in
percentages
is
not
necessarily
a
discrepancy.
Table
D1­
2
lists
the
capacity
utilization
of
the
cooling
water
intake
structure;
Tables
D2­
1
through
D2­
3
list
the
capacity
utilization
of
the
generators.

12.
As
noted
above,
there
is
a
typographical
error
on
page
D1­
11.
The
correct
value
of
the
recreational
fishery
catches
for
seatrout
is
5,411,292.
The
correct
value
(
5,411,292)
is
reported
in
Table
D5­
11
of
the
Case
Study
Report;
this
value
was
used
in
the
analysis.

13.
The
RUM
model
includes
the
effect
of
substitute
sites
on
site
values.
For
any
particular
site,
assuming
that
it
is
not
unique
in
nature,
the
availability
of
substitutes
makes
the
value
for
that
site
(
or
group
of
sites)
lower
than
it
would
be
without
available
substitutes.
Chapters
A10
and
D5
of
the
case
study
report
discuss
the
model's
assumptions
in
detail.
The
remainder
of
this
question
is
in
the
nature
of
a
comment
on
the
record
or
the
proposed
rule.
EPA
will
address
this
question
in
its
responses
to
public
comments
if
it
is
included
in
public
comments
on
the
proposal.

14.
Table
D1­
13
provides
the
total
number
of
recreational
fishing
days
per
year
in
the
case
study
area.
A
breakdown
by
regions
of
bay
is
unnecessary
for
the
RUM
model,
because
the
model
evaluates
fishing
quality
changes
at
the
visited
site
and
the
available
substitute
sites.
As
noted
above,
the
geographic
area
of
the
Tampa
Bay
case
study
is
relatively
small;
it
includes
fishing
sites
in
five
counties
only.
Thus,
we
assumed
that
anglers
can
potentially
visit
any
of
the
52
fishing
locations
included
in
the
analysis.

15a.
This
question
is
in
the
nature
of
a
comment
on
the
record
or
the
proposed
rule.
EPA
will
address
this
question
in
its
responses
to
public
comments
if
it
is
included
in
public
comments
on
the
proposal.

15b.
Chapter
D1
provides
background
information
for
the
Tampa
Bay
Case
study.
The
Agency
collected
background
information
to
paint
a
broad
picture
of
the
study
area
and
to
assess
applicability
of
various
data
sources
to
the
case
study
analysis.
Please
note
that
some
data
(
e.
g.,
information
on
wildlife
refuge)
were
not
used
in
subsequent
analyses.

16.
UWAG
did
not
consider
this
question
to
be
one
of
its
priority
questions
and
EPA
did
not
prepare
a
response.
This
document
represents
the
best
judgment
of
the
EPA
staff
conducting
analyses
to
support
the
Phase
II
Section
316(
b)
rule
at
this
time.
It
does
not
represent
the
final
position
of
the
Administrator
or
EPA
on
this
rulemaking.
EPA
reserves
the
right
to
change
or
amend
any
of
the
statements
within
this
document
up
until
the
time
that
the
EPA
Administrator
takes
final
action
on
this
rule.

Page
24
17.
UWAG
did
not
consider
this
question
to
be
one
of
its
priority
questions
and
EPA
did
not
prepare
a
response.

18.
As
described
in
Section
D3­
3
of
Chapter
D3
of
Part
D
of
the
Case
Study
Document
(
DCN
4­
0003),
EPA
obtained
impingement
monitoring
data
from
Conservation
Consultants
Inc.
(
1977,
Table
7.2)
for
the
years
1976­
1977
and
from
U.
S.
EPA
(
1981,
Table
6­
36)
for
the
years
1979­
1980.
Single
unit
rates
reported
in
Conservation
Consultants
Inc.(
1977)
were
based
on
operational
flow.
Annual
impingement
estimates
reported
in
U.
S.
EPA
(
1981)
were
based
on
calculations
assuming
100%
load
according
to
Section
7.1.3
of
Stone
and
Webster
(
1980).
Section
D3­
3
of
Chapter
D3
of
Part
D
of
EPA's
Case
Study
Document
(
DCN
4­
0003)
describes
the
methods
used
by
EPA
to
estimate
annual
impingement
from
these
data.

19.
As
described
in
Section
D3­
3
of
Chapter
D3
of
Part
D
of
the
Case
Study
Document
(
DCN
4­
0003),
EPA
obtained
entrainment
monitoring
data
from
Conservation
Consultants
Inc.
(
1977,
Appendix
5C
and
6C)
for
the
years
1976­
1977
and
from
U.
S.
EPA
(
1981,
Table
6­
51)
for
the
years
1979­
1980.
The
monthly
totals
reported
in
Conservation
Consultants
Inc.
(
1977)
were
based
on
operational
flow.
Annual
entrainment
estimates
reported
in
U.
S.
EPA
(
1981)
were
based
on
calculations
assuming
100%
load
according
to
Section
7.1.3
of
Stone
and
Webster
(
1980).
Section
D3­
3
of
Chapter
D3
(
DCN
4­
0003)
describes
the
methods
used
by
EPA
to
estimate
annual
entrainment
from
these
data.

20.
This
question
is
in
the
nature
of
a
comment
on
the
record
or
the
proposed
rule.
EPA
will
address
this
question
in
its
responses
to
public
comments
if
it
is
included
in
public
comments
on
the
proposal.

21.
EPA
extrapolated
Big
Bend's
I&
E
rates
to
other
facilities
of
Tampa
Bay
based
on
the
annual
operational
flows
reported
by
the
facilities
in
EPA's
Detailed
Industry
Questionnaire.
Flow
rates
were
not
reported
in
EPA's
Case
Study
Document
(
DCN
4­
0003)
because
the
facilities
declared
that
this
information
is
Confidential
Business
Information.

22.
Carrying
capacity
is
not
a
variable
in
the
calculation
of
production
foregone
(
see
Chapter
A5
of
Part
A
of
the
Case
Study
Document,
DCN
4­
0003).
This
question
is
in
the
nature
of
a
comment
on
the
record
or
the
proposed
rule.
EPA
will
address
this
question
in
its
responses
to
public
comments
if
it
is
included
in
public
comments
on
the
proposal.

23a.
The
recent
ambient
larval
density
data
are
provided
in
an
MS­
Excel
workbook
that
is
included
in
the
docket
(
DCN4­
1513).
This
document
represents
the
best
judgment
of
the
EPA
staff
conducting
analyses
to
support
the
Phase
II
Section
316(
b)
rule
at
this
time.
It
does
not
represent
the
final
position
of
the
Administrator
or
EPA
on
this
rulemaking.
EPA
reserves
the
right
to
change
or
amend
any
of
the
statements
within
this
document
up
until
the
time
that
the
EPA
Administrator
takes
final
action
on
this
rule.

Page
25
23b.
EPA
did
not
sort
Peebles
plankton
data
by
depth.

23c.
A
record
of
the
sample
dates
is
provided
in
the
EXCEL
workbook
indexed
in
the
docket
as
DCN
4­
1513.

23d.
Although
the
sources
of
the
annual
estimates
of
I&
E
rates
stem
from
substantially
different
sampling
regimes,
the
definition
of
age
1
equivalents
was
the
same
for
both
data
series.
The
methods
used
to
determine
age
1
equivalents
are
described
in
Chapter
A5
of
Part
A
of
the
Case
Study
Document
(
DCN4­
0003.)
The
means
reported
in
Table
D3­
18
are
simply
the
mean
value
of
age
1
equivalent
losses
across
years
within
each
data
series.
EPA
did
not
determine
the
magnitude
of
between­
sample
variance
because
the
Agency
did
not
have
sufficient
data
to
do
so.
This
question
is
in
the
nature
of
a
comment
on
the
record
or
the
proposed
rule.
EPA
will
address
this
question
in
its
responses
to
public
comments
if
it
is
included
in
public
comments
on
the
proposal.

23e.
Please
note
that
Table
D3­
18
does
not
report
larval
densities.
The
benefits
assessment
did
not
analyze
temporal
correlations
between
foregone
fishery
catch
rates
and
larval
density
(
or
other
loss
metrics).

23f.
No.
The
analysis
of
recent
ambient
larval
density
was
not
directly
incorporated
into
the
economic
benefits
analysis
for
the
proposed
rule.

24.
The
rationale
is
explained
in
Section
D3­
10
of
Chapter
D3
of
Part
D
of
the
Case
Study
Document
(
DCN4
­
0003).

25.
This
question
is
in
the
nature
of
a
comment
on
the
record
or
the
proposed
rule.
EPA
will
address
this
question
in
its
responses
to
public
comments
if
it
is
included
in
public
comments
on
the
proposal.

References
Cited
AFS
(
American
Fisheries
Society).
1993.
Sourcebook
for
Investigation
and
Valuation
of
Fish
Kills.
American
Fisheries
Society,
Bethesda,
MD.

Colinvaux,
P.
A.
1973.
Introduction
to
Ecology.
Wiley
&
Sons,
Inc.
New
York
Conservation
Consultants
Inc.
1977.
Ecological
Studies
at
Big
Bend
Steam
Electric
Station
(
Tampa
Electric
Company):
An
Analysis
and
Summary
of
Studies
on
the
Effects
of
the
Cooling
Water
System
on
Aquatic
Fauna:
A
316
Demonstration
Biological
Study.
Volume
III
(
Volume
3
of
Final
Report
of
Biological
Surveys
of
the
Big
Bend
Area).
This
document
represents
the
best
judgment
of
the
EPA
staff
conducting
analyses
to
support
the
Phase
II
Section
316(
b)
rule
at
this
time.
It
does
not
represent
the
final
position
of
the
Administrator
or
EPA
on
this
rulemaking.
EPA
reserves
the
right
to
change
or
amend
any
of
the
statements
within
this
document
up
until
the
time
that
the
EPA
Administrator
takes
final
action
on
this
rule.

Page
26
Davis,
G.,
M.
D.
Nichols,
and
T.
M.
Hannigan.
1999.
Management
of
California
State
Water
Project.
Department
of
Natural
Resources.
Bulletin
231­
98.
November.

Dixon,
D.
A.
1999.
Catalog
of
Assessment
Methods
for
Evaluating
the
Effects
of
Power
Plant
Operations
on
Aquatic
Communities.
Final
Report.
Report
number
TR­
112013.

DRBC
(
Delaware
River
Basin
Commission).
1996.
1996
Delaware
River
Withdrawal
and
Consumptive
Use
Estimates
(
Tidal
Estuary
Portion).
http://
www.
state.
nj.
us/
drbc/
withdrawals96.
htm.

Ecological
Analysts,
Inc.
1981a.
Pittsburg
Power
Plant
Cooling
Water
Intake
Structures
316b
Demonstration.
Prepared
for
PG&
E.

Ecological
Analysts,
Inc.
1981b.
Contra
Costa
Power
Plant
Cooling
Water
Intake
Structures
316b
Demonstration.
Prepared
for
PG&
E.

Fisher,
A.
and
R.
Raucher.
1984.
Intrinsic
benefits
of
improved
water
quality:
Conceptual
and
empirical
perspectives.
Advances
in
Applied
Micro­
Economics
3:
37­
66.

Freeman,
A.
M.,
1979.
The
Benefits
of
Air
and
Water
Pollution
Control:
A
Review
and
Synthesis
of
Recent
Estimates.
Council
on
Environmental
Quality
Report,
December.

Holt,
M.
T.
and
R.
C.
Bishop.
2002.
A
semiflexible
normalized
quadratic
inverse
demand
system:
An
application
to
the
price
formation
of
fish.
Empirical
Economics.
Forthcoming.

Norton,
V.,
T.
Smith,
and
I.
Strand
(
eds.).
1983.
Stripers:
The
Economic
Value
of
the
Atlantic
Coast
Commercial
and
Recreational
Striped
Bass
Fisheries.
Maryland
Sea
Grant
Publication.
UM_
SG_
TS_
83_
12.

PG&
E
(
Pacific
Gas
and
Electric
Company).
1998.
Multispecies
Habitat
Conservation
Plan,
Pittsburg
and
Contra
Costa
Power
Plant.
Draft
Revision
3.

PSEG
(
Public
Service
Electric
and
Gas
Company).
1999.
Permit
Renewal
Application
NJPDES
Permit
No.
NJ0005622.
Public
Service
Electric
and
Gas
Company
Salem
Generating
Station.

Rago,
P.
J.
1984.
Production
forgone:
An
alternative
method
for
assessing
the
consequences
of
fish
entrainment
and
impingement
losses
at
power
plants
and
other
water
intakes.
Ecological
Modeling
24:
79­
111.

Ricker,
W.
E.
1975.
Computation
and
interpretation
of
biological
statistics
of
fish
populations.
Fisheries
Research
Board
of
Canada,
Bulletin
191.
This
document
represents
the
best
judgment
of
the
EPA
staff
conducting
analyses
to
support
the
Phase
II
Section
316(
b)
rule
at
this
time.
It
does
not
represent
the
final
position
of
the
Administrator
or
EPA
on
this
rulemaking.
EPA
reserves
the
right
to
change
or
amend
any
of
the
statements
within
this
document
up
until
the
time
that
the
EPA
Administrator
takes
final
action
on
this
rule.

Page
27
Southern
Energy
Delta,
LLC.
2000.
Multispecies
Habitat
Conservation
Plan,
Pittsburg
and
Contra
Costa
Power
Plants.
Draft­
Revision
5,
June
30,
2000.
Prepared
for
the
U.
S.
Fish
&
Wildlife
Service,
Sacramento,
CA,
and
the
National
Marine
Fisheries
Service,
Santa
Rosa,
CA.

Stone
&
Webster
Engineering
Corporation.
1980.
316(
A)
and
(
B)
Demonstration
Big
Bend
Station
 
Unit
4.
Volume
I
and
Volume
II,
Appendices.
Prepared
for
Tampa
Electric
Company.

U.
S.
EPA
(
U.
S.
Environmental
Protection
Agency).
1981.
Environmental
Impact
Statement,
Tampa
Electric
Company
Big
Bend
Unit
4.
Technical
Reference
Document
Volume
II.
Draft.,
EPA
904/
9_
81_
070b.
