Draft
Peer
Review
Charge
Review
of
Environmental
Impact
Modeling
for
Phase
III
of
the
Section
316(
b)
Rulemakings
for
Cooling
Water
Intake
Structures
Introduction
The
purpose
of
this
peer
review
is
to
solicit
input
from
an
expert
panel
on
the
use
of
a
population
projection
matrix
(
PPM)
model
to
support
the
national
benefit
analysis
for
Phase
III
of
the
316(
b)
rulemakings.
EPA
used
a
static
yield
per
recruit
(
YPR)
model
(
also
referred
to
as
the
foregone
yield
model)
to
estimate
benefits
from
Phase
II
of
the
316(
b)
regulations
and
has
used
the
same
approach
for
a
draft
version
of
the
Phase
III
benefits
analysis.
EPA
is
now
considering
whether
the
use
of
a
PPM
model
would
produce
more
reliable
and
scientifically
defensible
estimates
of
population
changes
associated
with
regulatory
options
for
the
Phase
III
analysis.
The
following
website
contains
information
about
the
three
phases
of
the
regulations
and
the
supporting
analysis:

http://
www.
epa.
gov/
waterscience/
316b/
basic.
htm
Attachments
include:


The
report
describing
the
models
you
are
to
review:
"
Population
Level
Impacts
on
Fish
of
Cooling
Water
Intake
Withdrawals."
(
2005
03
10
Population
level
impacts
of
I&
E.
pdf)


The
actual
fish
population
models
in
Matlab.
(
b316models.
zip)

For
more
background,
we
also
included:


A
memo
titled
"
Background
Information
for
Peer
Review
of
Aspects
of
Benefit
Analysis
for
Phase
III
of
the
316(
b)
Rulemakings."
(
background
memo
030905.
wpd)


Chapters
5
and
6
from
the
Phase
2
report.
(
chapter
5
Phase
II
report.
pdf
AND
chapter
6
Phase
II
report.
pdf)


Strange,
Lipton,
Beltman,
and
Snyder.
2002.
"
Scientific
and
Societal
Considerations
in
Selecting
Assessment
Endpoints
for
Environmental
Decision
Making."
TheScientificWorldJournal
2(
S1):
12­
20.
(
Ecological.
Endpoints.
SciWorld.
pdf)


Myers,
Bowen,
and
Barrowman.
1999.
"
Maximum
Reproductive
Rate
of
Fish
at
Low
Population
Sizes."
Canadian
Journal
of
Fisheries
and
Aquatic
Sciences
56:
2404­
2419.
(
Myers
et
al
1999
Max
reproductive
rate
of
fish.
pdf)

To
facilitate
the
review
process,
we
have
organized
the
peer
review
charges
under
three
main
categories
(
1)
comparing
the
PPM
model
to
the
YPR
model,
(
2)
appropriateness
of
the
PPM
approach
to
support
the
316(
b)
national
rulemaking,
and
(
3)
technical
review
and
recommendations
for
alternative
modeling
approaches
or
improvements/
enhancements
to
the
PPM
model.
Under
each
category
heading,
we
have
provided
specific
peer
review
charges
that
we
believe
will
be
useful
in
guiding
your
review.
2
Comparing
the
PPM
to
the
YPR
Model
An
earlier
peer
review
examined
EPA's
use
of
the
YPR
model
for
Phase
II
of
the
316(
b)
regulations
and
provided
input
with
regard
to
several
technical
deficiencies
of
the
modeling
approach.
EPA
made
modifications
to
its
approach
in
response
to
this
review.
Therefore,
under
this
category,
we
request
that
you
focus
your
comments
on
the
predictive
capabilities
of
the
PPM
model
relative
to
the
YPR
model.
We
anticipate
that
the
panel
will
establish
explicit
criteria
within
the
context
of
the
Phase
III
national
benefits
analysis
to
determine
whether
the
PPM
model
constitutes
a
significant
improvement
over
the
YPR
model.
We
regard
the
establishment
of
explicit
criteria
to
compare
the
two
models
(
as
well
as
other
approaches)
as
a
critical
component
of
this
review
process
and
encourage
the
panel
to
consider
these
criteria
in
developing
recommendations.

Charge
#
1
­
Given
the
intended
purpose
of
predicting
population
changes
and
environmental
impacts
associated
with
impingement
and
entrainment
under
the
316(
b)
regulations,
what
should
be
the
minimal
requirements
for
biological
realism
and
precision
for
the
population
model?
Please
consider
data
availability
as
well
as
treatment
of
significant
sources
of
uncertainty
in
developing
your
response.

Charge
#
2
­
What
are
the
principle
advantages
of
the
PPM
over
the
YPR
with
respect
to
the
predictive
ability
of
the
respective
models?
Does
the
PPM
model
have
any
limitations
relative
to
the
YPR
model?
Do
you
think
the
PPM
model
approach
should
be
used
to
complement
predictions
by
the
YPR
model
for
the
analysis,
or
should
the
PPM
model
be
used
to
replace
the
YPR
model?
Please
consider
the
following
factors
in
your
response:

 
feasibility
of
implementing
the
model
for
a
national
benefits
analysis
 
the
types
of
species
impacted
by
cooling
water
intake
structures
 
model
structure
 
data
availability
 
treatment
of
uncertainty
Appropriateness
of
the
PPM
Model
to
the
Phase
III
316(
b)
National
Benefit
Analysis
In
developing
the
PPM
model,
we
recognized
that
there
were
a
number
of
alternative
approaches
and
models
that
could
also
satisfy
the
goals
for
the
Phase
III
316(
b)
national
benefit
analysis.
Consequently,
we
are
soliciting
feedback
on
the
appropriateness
of
the
overall
technical
approach
and
PPM
model
described
in
the
supporting
documentation
that
was
provided.

Charge
#
3
­
Given
the
intended
purpose
of
the
population
model
in
supporting
the
Phase
III
316(
b)
benefit
analysis,
is
the
PPM
model
the
most
appropriate
choice
to
predict
population
impacts
associated
with
impingement
and
entrainment?
For
example,
does
the
fact
that
the
PPM
model
is
not
a
spatially
explicit
model
represent
a
significant
weakness
in
our
approach?
Put
3
another
way,
does
the
PPM
model
satisfy
the
minimal
requirements
for
biological
realism
and
expected
accuracy
for
this
application?

Charge
#
4
­
Are
sufficient
data
available
for
commercially
important
species
(
i.
e.,
species
that
are
harvested)
to
conduct
a
national
analysis
of
impingement
and
entrainment
impacts
using
the
PPM
model?
For
the
species
affected
by
impingement
and
entrainment,
do
you
think
percent
change
in
harvest
can
be
an
appropriate
index
for
percent
change
in
population
for
the
purposes
of
a
national
benefits
analysis?

Charge
#
5
­
Is
the
PPM
model
formulation
appropriate
given
the
accuracy
and
precision
of
available
data?
Given
available
data
and
current
biological
understanding
of
aquatic
ecosystems,
how
would
you
characterize
the
reasonableness
of
the
model's
main
assumptions?

Technical
Review
and
Recommendations
Under
this
category,
the
panel
is
encouraged
to
provide
recommendations
to
improve
and
enhance
the
proposed
PPM
model
assuming
that
such
changes
would
ensure
that
the
PPM
model
satisfies
the
minimum
requirements
for
biological
realism
and
accuracy.
We
are
seeking
feedback
on
specific
technical
issues;
however,
the
panel
should
not
feel
constrained
by
these
charges
in
developing
its
recommendations.

Charge
#
6
­
Taking
into
account
both
model
structure
and
the
available
data,
can
you
comment
on
the
uncertainty,
accuracy,
and
precision
of
the
results
from
the
model?
How
amenable
is
the
PPM
modeling
approach
to
a
representation
of
uncertainty?

Charge
#
7
­
Based
on
your
knowledge
of
the
species
that
are
impinged
and
entrained
at
cooling
water
intake
structures,
what
is
your
opinion
of
the
importance
of
density
dependence
dynamics
of
the
affected
populations?
What
is
the
importance
of
including
density
dependence
in
the
impingement
and
entrainment
assessment
for
the
national
benefits
analysis?
How
sensitive
do
you
think
model
results
are
to
assumptions
about
density
dependence?

Charge
#
8
­
For
the
purposes
of
the
national
benefits
analysis,
could
the
PPM
model,
or
some
variation
thereof,
address
impingement
and
entrainment
impacts
for
harvested
species
and
forage
species?
What
changes
to
the
PPM
model
would
be
required
to
predict
changes
in
forage
fish
populations
due
to
impingement
and
entrainment?
Is
appropriate
data
available
for
forage
species
for
such
a
model?

Charge
#
9
­
Do
you
think
any
particular
data
uncertainties
will
have
a
substantial
effect
on
the
utility
or
reliability
of
the
model
for
a
national
benefits
analysis?
When
empirical
data
are
unavailable,
are
appropriate
calibration
methods
used
for
the
unknown
parameters
in
the
PPM
model
(
i.
e.,
R,
b)?
How
sensitive
do
you
think
model
results
are
to
parameter
estimation
techniques?
4
Charge
#
10
­
The
national
benefits
analysis
for
Phase
III
of
the
316(
b)
rulemakings
must
be
completed
within
the
next
several
months
and
a
final
rule
issued
by
June
1,
2006.
Do
you
see
any
sources
of
systematic
bias
in
the
model?
Can
they
be
addressed?
Are
there
improvements
to
the
PPM
modeling
approach
that
would
be
feasible
to
implement
within
the
available
time
frame?
If
more
time
was
available,
how
would
your
answer
change?
