
1
The
comprehensive
list
of
facilities
that
have
conducted
biological
surveys
included
facilities
that
completed
a
short
technical
industry
questionnaire
(
STQ).
The
survey
question
regarding
the
studies
is
substantially
less
detailed
than
the
questions
in
the
detailed
industry
questionnaire.
As
such,
Westat
included
all
STQ
facilities
that
indicated
they
had
conducted
a
biological
study
or
provided
contact
information
for
a
facility
official
regarding
biological
studies.
Of
the
403
facilities,
214
are
STQ
facilities.

1
MEMO
To:
Martha
Segall,
USEPA
From:
Kelly
Meadows,
Tetra
Tech
Date:
June
7,
2004
RE:
Facility
Callbacks
for
Requesting
Impingement
and
Entrainment
Studies
In
mid­
June
2003,
EPA
requested
that
Tetra
Tech
identify
and
contact
facilities
to
request
copies
of
biological
studies
that
a
facility
had
performed
in
order
to
supplement
the
biological
data
used
for
estimating
baseline
impingement
and
entrainment
rates.
Tetra
Tech
contacted
Westat
for
a
list
of
all
facilities
that
responded
in
their
industry
survey
as
having
conducted
a
biological
study.
The
result
was
a
preliminary
list
of
403
facilities1.
Tetra
Tech
also
coordinated
with
Stratus
Consulting
to
determine
which
studies
from
this
list
were
already
present
in
the
316(
b)
"
library"
and
made
every
attempt
to
not
request
studies
from
these
facilities.

The
process
of
calling
facilities
was
ultimately
divided
into
three
successive
phases.
These
are
described
below.
Generally,
Tetra
Tech
staff
called
the
contact
person
listed
in
the
industry
questionnaire
and
requested
a
copy
of
the
study
identified
in
the
questionnaire.
Tetra
Tech
made
at
least
two
attempts
to
contact
the
facility
(
including
voice
mails,
etc.).
Facilities
that
did
not
respond
or
that
did
not
send
copies
of
the
requested
study
were
identified
to
EPA
and
a
formal
letter
requesting
the
study
was
issued
under
EPA's
authority
as
provided
in
Section
308
of
the
Clean
Water
Act
(
a
"
308
letter").

Round
1
The
first
set
of
calls
focused
on
facilities
that
are
located
on
inland
waterbodies
(
specifically
the
"
INL"
region
in
the
benefits
analysis)
and
have
high
actual
intake
flows
(
AIF,
the
three
year
daily
average
flows).
Additional
facilities
were
selected
on
the
basis
of
being
located
on
Lake
Michigan
and
the
Columbia
River.
All
of
the
facilities
selected
were
facilities
that
completed
a
detailed
industry
questionnaire,
as
there
was
some
initial
concern
over
the
depth
of
the
information
available
from
which
to
select
facilities
to
be
called
(
see
footnote
1).

From
the
initial
list
of
facilities,
a
group
of
104
facilities
was
identified
as
being
located
on
an
inland
waterbody
and,
of
these,
the
29
facilities
with
the
highest
AIF
were
contacted.
All
6
Lake
Michigan
facilities
with
detailed
questionnaires
that
responded
as
having
conducted
a
biological
study
were
contacted.
The
only
facility
with
a
detailed
questionnaire
that
responded
as
having
2
conducted
a
biological
study
on
the
Columbia
River
was
contacted.

Total
facilities
called:
36
(
33
Phase
II
facilities,
3
Phase
III
facilities)
Dates:
Initial
calls
were
placed
in
late
July
2003
Main
criteria:
Detailed
questionnaires,
inland
waterbodies,
high
AIF,
Lake
Michigan,
Columbia
River
Studies
received:
29
(
26
Phase
II,
3
Phase
III).
One
facility
was
determined
to
actually
be
located
on
an
estuary
and
the
study
was
not
requested.
The
remaining
6
facilities
are
operated
by
the
Tennessee
Valley
Authority
(
TVA)
and
these
studies
were
requested
via
interagency
means.
308
letters
sent:
19
(
9
were
requested
by
the
facility
for
their
records)

Round
2
The
second
set
of
calls
focused
on
facilities
located
in
a
certain
fish
region,
as
determined
by
the
US
Fish
and
Wildlife
Service
(
FWS)
and
used
by
EPA
in
the
calculation
of
benefits
for
the
rule.
A
majority
of
these
facilities
were
Phase
III
facilities
and
all
were
located
on
inland
waterbodies
and
Great
Lakes.

A
group
of
36
facilities
was
identified
as
being
located
in
the
FWS
regions
of
interest:
Bass,
North;
Bass,
South;
Trout,
NE;
and
Walleye.
Five
facilities
from
each
of
the
first
three
regions
and
7
Walleye
facilities
were
contacted
for
a
total
of
22
facilities.
In
cases
where
there
were
more
than
5
facilities
to
choose
from,
preference
was
given
to
facilities
whose
studies
had
conducted
both
impingement
and
entrainment
analyses,
or
to
facilities
whose
studies
had
been
completed
more
recently
than
others.

Total
facilities
called:
22
(
1
Phase
II
facility,
21
Phase
III
facilities)
Dates:
Initial
calls
were
placed
in
mid­
September
2003
Main
criteria:
Detailed
questionnaires,
FWS
region,
focus
on
Phase
III,
preference
for
more
complete
or
more
recent
data
Studies
received:
14
(
all
Phase
III).
The
studies
from
7
facilities
were
determined
to
be
unavailable
due
to
a
variety
of
reasons:
facility
closure
or
sale,
limited
quality
of
data
contained
within
the
study,
or
the
inability
to
locate
the
study.
308
letters
sent:
11
(
5
were
requested
by
the
facility
for
their
records).
One
facility
did
not
respond.

Round
3
The
third
set
of
calls
focused
on
Phase
III
facilities.
Nearly
every
remaining
Phase
III
facility
that
indicated
that
it
had
completed
a
biological
study
was
contacted.
This
group
included
facilities
that
had
received
either
a
detailed
or
short
technical
industry
questionnaire
and
included
facilities
located
on
a
variety
of
waterbody
types.
It
was
determined
that
2
of
the
facilities
had
fallen
out
of
3
scope
of
the
regulation
and
3
facilities
had
been
reclassified
as
Phase
II
facilities,
but
all
5
facilities
were
still
contacted
for
studies.

Total
facilities
called:
32
(
3
Phase
II
facilities,
27
Phase
III
facilities,
2
out
of
scope
facilities)
Dates:
Initial
calls
were
placed
in
late
January
2004
Main
criteria:
Phase
III
facilities
Studies
received:
20
(
2
Phase
II
facilities,
16
Phase
III
facilities,
2
out
of
scope
facilities).
This
information
is
as
of
mid­
April
2004,
so
additional
studies
may
have
been
received
since
then.
The
studies
from
2
facilities
were
determined
to
be
unavailable
and
4
facilities
have
requested
308
letters
be
sent
to
them.
308
letters
sent:
None.

Totals
for
All
3
Rounds
of
Calls
Facilities
called:
90
(
37
Phase
II,
51
Phase
III,
2
out
of
scope)
Studies
received:
63
(
28
Phase
II,
33
Phase
III,
2
out
of
scope)
