Section 316(b) of the Clean Water Act requires that cooling-water intake structures (CWIS) use Best Technology Available (BTA) to minimize adverse environmental impacts (AEI). The U.S. EPA has not defined AEI, and there is no clear consensus regarding its definition. Nonetheless, operational definitions are necessary to evaluate design alternatives and to measure the success of mitigative measures. Rather than having to develop measures of aquatic health that are highly site-specific, controversial, and often unlikely to elicit agreement from all sides of the environmental &#x201C;fence&#x201D;, it may be more productive to use existing ecological assessment tools. Aquatic Life Uses (ALU) already provide a regulatory framework to assess the quality (health) of the aquatic community in various habitats (e.g., warmwater habitat, exceptional warmwater habitat). Attainment of the ALU indicates that further point source controls are unnecessary, whereas nonattainment indicates that those pollutants or stressors causing the nonattainment must be reduced. A similar approach for existing water intakes is recommended. That is, attainment of the designated ALU will be taken as an indication that there is no AEI. Although attainment of the ALU may not be a foolproof indicator of a lack of AEI, this approach seems more reasonable that using scarce monetary resources to fix problems that likely do not exist, or having both regulators and the regulated community expend their resources debating whether various observed biological responses do or do not constitute AEI.

Greg Seegert

Using Attainment of the Designated Aquatic Life Use to Determine Adverse Environmental Impact

We evaluated the impacts of entrainment and impingement at the Salem Generating Station on fish populations and communities in the Delaware Estuary. In the absence of an agreed-upon regulatory definition of &#x201C;adverse environmental impact&#x201D; (AEI), we developed three independent benchmarks of AEI based on observed or predicted changes that could threaten the sustainability of a population or the integrity of a community.Our benchmarks of AEI included: (1) disruption of the balanced indigenous community of fish in the vicinity of Salem (the &#x201C;BIC&#x201D; analysis); (2) a continued downward trend in the abundance of one or more susceptible fish species (the &#x201C;Trends&#x201D; analysis); and (3) occurrence of entrainment/impingement mortality sufficient, in combination with fishing mortality, to jeopardize the future sustainability of one or more populations (the &#x201C;Stock Jeopardy&#x201D; analysis).The BIC analysis utilized nearly 30 years of species presence/absence data collected in the immediate vicinity of Salem. The Trends analysis examined three independent data sets that document trends in the abundance of juvenile fish throughout the estuary over the past 20 years. The Stock Jeopardy analysis used two different assessment models to quantify potential long-term impacts of entrainment and impingement on susceptible fish populations. For one of these models, the compensatory capacities of the modeled species were quantified through meta-analysis of spawner-recruit data available for several hundred fish stocks.All three analyses indicated that the fish populations and communities of the Delaware Estuary are healthy and show no evidence of an adverse impact due to Salem. Although the specific models and analyses used at Salem are not applicable to every facility, we believe that a weight of evidence approach that evaluates multiple benchmarks of AEI using both retrospective and predictive methods is the best approach for assessing entrainment and impingement impacts at existing facilities.

Lawrence W. Barnthouse

Douglas G. Heimbuch

Vaughn C. Anthony

Ray W. Hilborn

Ransom A. Myers

Indicators of AEI Applied to the Delaware Estuary

The difference between management objectives focused on sustainability of fish populations and the indigenous aquatic community, and a management objective focused on minimizing entrainment and impingement losses accounts for much of the ongoing controversy surrounding &#x00A7;316(b). We describe the EPA&#x2019;s ecological risk assessment framework and recommend that this framework be used to more effectively address differences in management objectives and structure &#x00A7;316(b) determinations. We provide a blueprint for the problem formulation phase of EPA-type ecological risk assessments for cooling-water intake structures (CWIS) at existing power plant facilities. Our management objectives, assessment endpoints, conceptual model, and generic analysis plan apply to all existing facilities. However, adapting the problem formulation process for a specific facility requires consideration of the permitting agency&#x2019;s guidelines and level of regulatory concern, as well as site-specific ecological and technical differences. The facility-specific problem formulation phase is designed around the hierarchy of biolo   gical levels of organization in the generic conceptual model and the sequence of cause-effect events and risk hypotheses represented by this model. Problem formulation is designed to be flexible in that it can be tailored for facilities where &#x00A7;316(b) regulatory concern is low or high. For some facilities, we anticipate that the assessment can be completed based on consideration of susceptibility alone. At the other extreme, a high level of regulatory concern combined with the availability of extensive information and consideration of costly CWIS mitigation options may result in the ecological risk assessment relying on analyses at all levels. Decisions on whether to extend the ecological risk assessment to additional levels should be based on whether regulatory or generator concerns merit additional analyses and whether available information is adequate to support such analyses. In making these decisions, the functional dependence between levels of analysis must be considered in making the transition to the analysis phase and risk estimation component of the ecological risk assessment. Regardless of how the generic analysis plan is modified to develop a facility-specific analysis plan, the resulting plan should be viewed as a tool for comparing representative species and alternative CWIS options by focusing on relative changes (i.e., proportional or percent changes) in various measures. The analysis plan is specifically designed to encourage consideration of multiple lines of evidence and to characterize uncertainties in each line of evidence. Multiple lines of evidence from different levels of analysis, obtained using both prospective and retrospective techniques, provide a broader perspective on the magnitude of potential effects and associated uncertainties and risks. The implications of the EPA&#x2019;s recent (April 2002) proposed regulations for existing facilities on the applicability of this blueprint are briefly considered.

Webster Van Winkle

William P. Dey

Steve M. Jinks

Mark S. Bevlhimer

Charles C. Coutant

A Blueprint for the Problem Formulation Phase of EPA-Type Ecological Risk Assessments for 316(b) Determinations

Since passage of the Clean Water Act in 1972, there has been a long, unresolved struggle to define a key phrase in Section 316(b) of the act: &#x201C;adverse environmental impact&#x201D; (AEI). Section 316(b) requires that the best technology available be used in cooling-water intake structures to minimize AEI due to entrainment and impingement of aquatic organisms. Various attempts were made to evaluate and define AEI, including focused national conferences on impact assessment. Unresolved arguments regarding AEI were reinvigorated following the 1995 Consent Decree requiring EPA to propose new rules to implement Section 316(b). This article reviews and compares eight proposed definitions of AEI. Six of the definitions define AEI as impact expressed at the population or higher level of biological organization. The two remaining definitions are unrelated to populations: a 1% cropping of the near-field organisms and &#x201C;one fish equals AEI&#x201d;. The latter definition is based on the desire of some stakeholders to define AEI as the loss of any public trust resources. Equating loss of public trust resources with AEI hampers consensus on a definition because a societal-based policy concept (public trust resources) is commingled with science-based definitions based on population effects. We recommend that a population-based definition of AEI be incorporated into Section 316(b) guidance and observe that this will not preclude a state from exercising its law and policy to protect public trust resources.

David A. Mayhew

Paul H. Muessig

Loren D. Jensen

Adverse Environmental Impact: 30-Year Search for a Definition

We examined the consequences of ignoring the distinction between measurement error and natural variability in an assessment of risk to the Hudson River stock of striped bass posed by entrainment at the Bowline Point, Indian Point, and Roseton power plants. Risk was defined as the probability that recruitment of age-1&#x2B; striped bass would decline by 80&#x25; or more, relative to the equilibrium value, at least once during the time periods examined (1, 5, 10, and 15 years). Measurement error, estimated using two abundance indices from independent beach seine surveys conducted on the Hudson River, accounted for 50&#x25; of the variability in one index and 56&#x25; of the variability in the other. If a measurement error of 50&#x25; was ignored and all of the variability in abundance was attributed to natural causes, the risk that recruitment of age-1&#x2B; striped bass would decline by 80&#x25; or more after 15 years was 0.308 at the current level of entrainment mortality (11&#x25;). However, the risk decreased almost tenfold (0.032) if a measurement error of 50&#x25; was considered. The change in risk attributable to decreasing the entrainment mortality rate from 11 to 0&#x25; was very small (0.009) and similar in magnitude to the change in risk associated with an action proposed in Amendment #5 to the Interstate Fishery Management Plan for Atlantic striped bass (0.006)&#x2014; an increase in the instantaneous fishing mortality rate from 0.33 to 0.4. The proposed increase in fishing mortality was not considered an adverse environmental impact, which suggests that potentially costly efforts to reduce entrainment mortality on the Hudson River stock of striped bass are not warranted.

Dennis J. Dunning

Quentin E. Ross

Stephan B. Munch

Lev R. Ginzburg

Measurement Error Affects Risk Estimates for Recruitment to the Hudson River Stock of Striped Bass

Two multimetric indices have been developed to help address fish community (reservoir fish assemblage index [RFAI]) and individual population quality (sport fishing index [SFI]) in Tennessee River reservoirs. The RFAI, with characteristics similar to the index of biotic integrity (IBI) used in stream fish community determinations, was developed to monitor the existing condition of resident fish communities[1,2,3]. The index, which incorporates standardized electrofishing of littoral areas and experimental gill netting for limnetic bottom-dwelling species, has been used to determine residential fish community response to various anthropogenic impacts in southeastern reservoirs.The SFI is a multimetric index designed to address the quality of the fishery for individual resident sport fish species in a particular lake or reservoir[4]. The SFI incorporates measures of fish population aspects and angler catch and pressure estimates. This paper proposes 70% of the maximum RFAI score and 10% above the average SFI score for individual species as &#x201C;screening&#x201D; endpoints for balanced indigenous populations (BIP) or adverse environmental impact (AEI). Endpoints for these indices indicate: (1) communities/populations are obviously balanced indigenous populations (BIP) indicating no adverse environmental impact (AEI), or are &#x201C;screened out&#x201D;; (2) communities/populations are considered to be potentially impacted; and (3) where the resident fish community/population should be considered adversely impacted. Suggestions are also made concerning how examination of individual metric scores can help determine the source or cause of the impact.

Gary D. Hickman

Mary L. Brown

Proposed Methods and Endpoints for Defining and Assessing Adverse Environmental Impact (AEI) on Fish Communities/Populations in Tennessee River Reservoirs

A study to determine the effects of entrainment by the Diablo Canyon Power Plant (DCPP) was conducted between 1996 and 1999 as required under Section 316(b) of the Clean Water Act. The goal of this study was to present the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) and Central Coast Regional Water Quality Control Board (CCRWQCB) with results that could be used to determine if any adverse environmental impacts (AEIs) were caused by the operation of the plant&#x2019;s cooling-water intake structure (CWIS). To this end we chose, under guidance of the CCRWQCB and their entrainment technical working group, a unique approach combining three different models for estimating power plant effects: fecundity hindcasting (FH), adult equivalent loss (AEL), and the empirical transport model (ETM). Comparisons of the results from these three approaches provided us a relative measure of confidence in our estimates of effects. A total of 14 target larval fish taxa were assessed as part of the DCPP 316(b). Example results are presented here for the kelp, gopher, and black-and-yellow (KGB) rockfish complex and clinid kelpfish. Estimates of larval entrainment losses for KGB rockfish were in close agreement (FH is approximately equals to 550 adult females per year, AEL is approximately equals to 1,000 adults [male and female] per year, and ETM = larval mortality as high as 5% which could be interpreted as ca. 2,600 1 kg adult fish). The similar results from the three models provided confidence in the estimated effects for this group. Due to lack of life history information needed to parameterize the FH and AEL models, effects on clinid kelpfish could only be assessed using the ETM model. Results from this model plus ancillary information about local populations of adult kelpfish suggest that the CWIS might be causing an AEI in the vicinity of DCPP.

C.P. Ehrler

J.R. Steinbeck

E.A. Laman

J.B. Hedgepeth

J.R. Skalski

D.L. Mayer

A Process for Evaluating Adverse Environmental Impacts by Cooling-Water System Entrainment at a California Power Plant

Equivalent loss models encompass a variety of life table-based approaches that can be used to convert age- and life stage-specific estimates of entrainment and impingement loss to a common, easily understood currency. This common currency can be expressed in terms of numbers of individuals, yield to the fishery, or biomass to the ecosystem. These models have at least two key uses in the Section 316(b) assessment process: screening for adverse environmental impact (AEI) and determination of environmental benefits associated with intake alternatives. This paper reviews the various forms of equivalent loss models, their data input requirements, and their assumptions and limitations. In addition, it describes how these models can be used as a second-level screening tool as part of the assessment of the potential for AEI. Given their relative simplicity and ease of use, equivalent loss models should prove to be an important tool in the arsenal of impact assessment methods for Section 316(b).

William Dey

Use of Equivalent Loss Models Under Section 316(b) of the Clean Water Act

This paper develops a comparative framework for policy proposals involving fish protection and Section 316(b) of the Clean Water Act (CWA). Section 316(b) addresses the impingement and entrainment of fish by cooling-water intake structures used principally by steam electric power plants. The framework is motivated by examining the role of adverse environmental impacts (AEIs) in the context of Section 316(b) decision making. AEI is mentioned in Section 316(b), but not defined. While various AEI options have been proposed over the years, none has been formalized through environmental regulations nor universally accepted. Using a multiple values approach from decision analysis, AEIs are characterized as measurement criteria for ecological impacts. Criteria for evaluating AEI options are identified, including modeling and assessment issues, the characterization of ecological value, regulatory implementation, and the treatment of uncertainty. Motivated by the difficulties in defining AEI once and for all, a framework is introduced to compare options for 316(b) decision making. Three simplified policy options are considered, each with a different implicit or explicit AEI approach: (1) a technology-driven rule based on a strict reading of the 316(b) regulatory text, and for which any impingement and entrainment count as AEI, (2) a complementary, open-ended risk-assessment process for estimating population effects with AEI characterized on a site-specific basis, and (3) an intermediate position based on proxy measures such as specially constructed definitions of littoral zone, sensitive habitat, or water body type. The first two proposals correspond roughly to responses provided, respectively, by the Riverkeeper environmental organization and the Utility Water Act Group to the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA)&#x2019;s proposed 316(b) new facilities rule of August 2000; the third example is a simplified form of the EPA&#x2019;s proposed August 2000 new facilities rule itself. The simplified policy positions are compared using the three dimensions of the comparative policy framework: (1) the role of CWA philosophy or vision, such as the use of technology-forcing rules, (2) regulatory policy implementation, and (3) the role for scientific information and the knowledge base. Strengths and weaknesses of all three 316(b) policy approaches are identified. The U.S. EPA&#x2019;s final new facilities rule of November 2001 is briefly characterized using the comparative policy framework and used to further illustrate the approach.

John Kadvany

Comparing Clean Water Act Section 316(b) Policy Options

Initially, regulation of cooling water intakes under &#x00A7;316(b) was extremely conservative due to the rapid increase predicted for generating capacity, and to the uncertainty associated with our knowledge of the effects of entrainment and impingement. The uncertainty arose from four main sources: estimation of direct plant effects; understanding of population regulatory processes; measurement of population parameters; and predictability of future conditions. Over the last quarter-century, the uncertainty from the first three sources has been substan-tially reduced, and analytical techniques exist to deal with the fourth. In addition, the dire predictions initially made for some water bodies have not been realized, demonstrating that populations can successfully withstand power plant impacts. This reduced uncertainty has resulted in less conservative regulation in some, but not all venues. New York appears to be taking a more conservative approach to cooling water intakes. The conservative approach is not based on regulations, but in a philosophy that power plant mortality is an illegitimate use of the aquatic resources. This philosophy may simplify permitting decisions, but it does not further the development of a science-based definition of adverse environmental impact.

John R. Young

Uncertainty and Conservatism in Assessing Environmental Impact under &#x00A7;316(b): Lessons from the Hudson River Case

About this journal

The Scientific World Journal publishes original research and review articles&nbsp;covering a wide range of subjects in science, technology, and medicine.

Journal profile

Meet the editorial board

The Scientific World Journal maintains an Editorial Board of practicing researchers from around the world, to ensure manuscripts are handled by editors who are experts in the field of study.

Editor spotlight

Submit your proposal

Do you think there is an emerging area of research that really needs to be highlighted? Or an existing research area that has been overlooked or would benefit from deeper investigation? Raise the profile of a research area by leading a Special Issue.

Special Issues

Author guidelines

Editorial board

Databases and indexing

title

The Scientific World Journal publishes original research and review articles covering a wide range of subjects in science, technology, and medicine.

description

https://images.hindawi.com/journals/tswj/tswj.banner.jpg

twitter:card

twitter:description

twitter:site

twitter:title

twitter:url

twitter:image

The Scientific World Journal | Hindawi

The Scientific World Journal

This Issue is now open for submissions.
Papers are published upon acceptance, regardless of the Special Issue publication date.