
Quantification
of
Impingement
and
Entrainment
Impacts
at
Cooling
Water
Intake
Structures
Presented
by:

Ashley
L.
Allen
U.
S.
EPA,
Office
of
Water
Washington,
DC
(
202)
566­
1012
Presented
to:

NOAA
National
Workshop
on
LNG
and
Related
Facilities
Silver
Spring,
MD
July
20,
2004
Scope
of
Environmental
Impact
Analysis
for
Cooling
Water
Intake
Structures
°
550
Phase
II
facilities
°
~
600
Phase
III
facilities
°
Facilities
occur
on
all
types
of
waterbodies:

 
Lakes
and
reservoirs
 
Great
Lakes
 
Rivers
and
streams
 
Estuaries
 
Oceans
°
Hundreds
of
fish
species
(>
300)
as
well
as
many
other
types
of
aquatic
organisms
impacted
Distribution
of
Phase
II
and
Phase
III
Existing
Facilities*

Phase
II
Facilities

Phase
III
Facilities

*
Surveyed
facilities
only
What
is
"
Environmental
Impact"?

°
Section
316(
b)
of
the
CWA
requires
that
"
the
location,

design,
construction,
and
capacity
of
cooling
water
intake
structures
reflect
the
best
technology
available
for
minimizing
adverse
environmental
impact"

°
EPA
believes
it
is
reasonable
to
interpret
adverse
environmental
impact
as
including
loss
of
aquatic
organisms
to
impingement
and
entrainment
°
Reductions
in
impingement
and
entrainment
is
a
useful
metric
for
determining
performance
at
facilities
Four
Objectives
for
316(
b)

Environmental
Impact
Analysis:

A.
Develop
a
national
estimate
of
magnitude
of
impingement
and
entrainment
B.
Standardize
impingement
and
entrainment
rates
using
common
biological
metrics
so
that
rates
can
be
compared
across
species,
years,
facilities,
and
geographical
regions
C.
Calculate
changes
in
metrics
associated
with
various
regulatory
options
D.
Provide
data
for
estimating
national
economic
benefits
of
reducing
impingement
and
entrainment
Impingement
and
Entrainment
Data
Availability
°
46
out
of
550
Phase
II
facilities
with
useful
studies
°
Extrapolation
used
to
cover
facilities
without
data
°
Phase
II
facility
universe
divided
into
regions
on
the
basis
of
waterbody
type
and
geography
 
Freshwater
°
Great
Lakes
°
Inland
 
Saltwater
°
North
Atlantic
°
Mid
Atlantic
°
South
Atlantic
°
Gulf
of
Mexico
°
California
Modeling
Foregone
Fishery
Yields
°
EPA
used
the
Thompson­
Bell
equilibrium
yield
model
to
calculate
yields
foregone
due
to
I&
E
of
commercial
and
recreational
fish
Y
k
=
foregone
yield
(
pounds)
due
to
I&
E
losses
in
year
k
L
jk=
losses
of
individual
fish
of
stage
j
in
the
year
k
S
ja=
cumulative
survival
fraction
from
stage
j
to
age
a
W
a
average
weight
(
pounds)
of
fish
at
age
a
F
a=
instantaneous
annual
fishing
mortality
rate
for
fish
of
age
a
Z
a
=
instantaneous
annual
total
mortality
rate
for
fish
of
age
a
(
)

Y
LSWFZ
e
k
a
j
jk
ja
a
a
a
Za
=
 



 

(
)
1
°
Model
assumptions:

 
I&
E
losses
result
in
reductions
in
the
number
of
harvestable
adults
 
Fishing
mortality
and
natural
mortality
remain
constant
°
Foregone
yield
was
divided
among
recreational
and
commercial
harvests
according
to
state­
wide
aggregate
catch
rates
in
each
category
for
each
species
 
Commercial
yield
foregone
expressed
as
pounds
 
Recreational
yield
translated
into
numbers
of
individual
fish
using
expected
weight
of
a
harvestable
fish
Harvest
Yield
Foregone .
continued
Additional
Loss
Metrics:

°
"
Production
Foregone"

 
Total
expected
growth
(
pounds)
lost
due
to
I&
E
 
All
species:
commercial,
recreational,
forage
°
"
Secondary
Yield
Foregone"

 
Uses
a
trophic
transfer
efficiency
factor
to
convert
production
foregone
of
forage
fish
into
additional
production
foregone
of
commercial
and
recreational
fish
 
Additional
production
foregone
of
commercial
and
recreational
fish
is
processed
through
Thompson­
Bell
to
calculate
foregone
fishery
yield
Additional
Loss
Metrics 
continued
°
Equivalent
Adult
Model
(
EAM)

 
Expressed
losses
at
all
life
stages
as
Age
1
equivalents
 
Useful
for
comparing
loss
rates
among
species,

years,
facilities,
and
regions
Final
Results 

°
The
metrics
do
not
require
knowledge
of
the
size
of
an
existing
fish
population
for
purposes
of
calculation
°
Metrics
examine
only
the
incremental
yield
foregone
due
to
I&
E
°
Outputs
for
economic
benefits
analysis:

 
Pounds
of
commercial
fish
harvest
foregone
 
Number
of
harvested
recreational
fish
foregone
 
Production
foregone
(
in
pounds)
of
all
fish
Monetization
of
Benefits
Associated
with
Reducing
Environmental
Impacts
at
Cooling
Water
Intake
Structures
Presented
by:

Erik
Helm,
Ph.
D.

U.
S.
EPA,
Office
of
Water
Washington,
DC
(
202)
566­
1066
Presented
to:

NOAA
National
Workshop
on
LNG
and
Related
Facilities
Silver
Spring,
MD
July
20,
2004
Commercial
Benefits
°
EPA
used
a
literature
search
and
benefits
transfer
to
produce
monetized
values
°
Producer
surplus
(
welfare)
as
a
percentage
of
gross
revenues
°
It
was
assumed
that
the
small
changes
in
catch
would
not
affect
market
prices
°
The
commercial
fishing
benefits
of
the
rule
were
estimated
to
be
40%
(
average
value
from
literature)
of
the
market
value
of
the
increased
fish
catch
produced
through
I&
E
reductions
Recreational
Benefits
°
EPA
used
NMFS
data
to
estimate
regional
(
saltwater)
random
utility
models
°
The
models
were
estimated
in
two
stages
1.
site
choice
model
2.
trip
frequency
model
°
Inland
(
fresh
water)
values
were
estimated
with
a
central
tendencies
benefits
transfer
Nonuse
Benefits
°
EAD
used
Benefits
Transfer
(
meta­
analysis)

to
estimate
nonuse
benefits
°
A
Least
Squares
regression
was
estimated
based
on
81
obs.
taken
from
33
studies
°
Estimated
coefficients
were
multiplied
by
assigned
mean
values
and
weights
based
on
economics
literature
and
best
professional
judgment
to
estimate
nonuse
WTP
values
Issues
Raised
with
Meta­
Analysis
°
There
were
insufficient
primary
data
sources
giving
nonuse
WTP
estimates
for
fish
in
the
literature
°
Studies
in
the
nonuse
database
were
too
far
removed
from
the
316(
b)
policy
scenario
°
Nonuse
values
can't
exist
without
a
fish
population
change
°
Determining
the
relevant
population
of
nonuser
households
was
insufficiently
addressed.
