specifying endpoints and associated measures and decision criteria on a
site-specific basis. Thus, a formal definition codifying AEI once and for all
may not be needed or even constructive.
In concluding this section, we should recognize that the entire approach
of site-specific, risk-based environmental assessments can be rejected.
For example, the Riverkeeper position on 316(b) is that the Clean Water
Act uses technological criteria, not environmental outcomes, to improve
wastewater-effluent quality. Thus, such criteria should be used to regulate
CWISs without exception (Riverkeeper et al. 2000). This rejection of a
risk-based environmental perspective is a legitimate, if potentially costly,
response to the predicament of balancing regulatory effort and environmental protection. The Riverkeeper approach explicitly notes the risk of an
open-ended, site-specific process being co-opted by the regulated community (Riverkeeper et al. 2000). A credible approach to CWIS regulation,
therefore, may depend on a compromise between regulatory uniformity
and local flexibility that avoids such pitfalls.
3.6 Challenge of Agreeing on Management Objectives,
Endpoints, and Associated Measures and Decision
Criteria for 316(b) Assessments
Management goals have typically not been the focus of disagreement in
316(b) decision making (see Sidebar 3.2). For example, the goal of preserving aquatic organisms and the ecosystems they inhabit in waters used
by CWISs is sufficiently broad and vague that all parties can safely agree
with it. As a result, such a goal by itself is of limited value for decision
making. Disagreement is common, however, when management objectives,
endpoints, and associated measures and decision criteria are selected to
make a management goal operational (see Sidebar 3.2).
For example, given a management objective that focuses on selected fish
populations as the endpoint, should the measure for the preservation of
these fish populations be in terms of the number of fish killed by entrainment and impingement or the population-level consequences of these
losses (Anderson and Gotting 2001; May and van Rossum 1995; Utility
Water Act Group 2000)? If the latter, what population-level measure
should be used? As described previously, two possible, but quite different, measures that could be selected from the “tree” of possible
measures are the number of equivalent adults lost and the population
projections of the risk of population decline over the lifetime of the power
plant (see Figure 3.3). The latter can be predicted only by using a stochastic simulation model involving projections far into the future and will
appear by some parties to be too complicated and uncertain. However,
62
Webb Van Winkle and John Kadvany
site-specific basis. Thus, a formal definition codifying AEI once and for all
may not be needed or even constructive.
In concluding this section, we should recognize that the entire approach
of site-specific, risk-based environmental assessments can be rejected.
For example, the Riverkeeper position on 316(b) is that the Clean Water
Act uses technological criteria, not environmental outcomes, to improve
wastewater-effluent quality. Thus, such criteria should be used to regulate
CWISs without exception (Riverkeeper et al. 2000). This rejection of a
risk-based environmental perspective is a legitimate, if potentially costly,
response to the predicament of balancing regulatory effort and environmental protection. The Riverkeeper approach explicitly notes the risk of an
open-ended, site-specific process being co-opted by the regulated community (Riverkeeper et al. 2000). A credible approach to CWIS regulation,
therefore, may depend on a compromise between regulatory uniformity
and local flexibility that avoids such pitfalls.
3.6 Challenge of Agreeing on Management Objectives,
Endpoints, and Associated Measures and Decision
Criteria for 316(b) Assessments
Management goals have typically not been the focus of disagreement in
316(b) decision making (see Sidebar 3.2). For example, the goal of preserving aquatic organisms and the ecosystems they inhabit in waters used
by CWISs is sufficiently broad and vague that all parties can safely agree
with it. As a result, such a goal by itself is of limited value for decision
making. Disagreement is common, however, when management objectives,
endpoints, and associated measures and decision criteria are selected to
make a management goal operational (see Sidebar 3.2).
For example, given a management objective that focuses on selected fish
populations as the endpoint, should the measure for the preservation of
these fish populations be in terms of the number of fish killed by entrainment and impingement or the population-level consequences of these
losses (Anderson and Gotting 2001; May and van Rossum 1995; Utility
Water Act Group 2000)? If the latter, what population-level measure
should be used? As described previously, two possible, but quite different, measures that could be selected from the “tree” of possible
measures are the number of equivalent adults lost and the population
projections of the risk of population decline over the lifetime of the power
plant (see Figure 3.3). The latter can be predicted only by using a stochastic simulation model involving projections far into the future and will
appear by some parties to be too complicated and uncertain. However,
62
Webb Van Winkle and John Kadvany