Opinion ID: 785093
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: The EPA's focus on impingement and entrainment

Text: 49 UWAG first argues that the EPA [a]rbitrarily [a]ssumed that [a]ll [i]mpingement and [e]ntrainment [a]re `[a]dverse.' UWAG Br. at 14. After all, the industry group argues, many species are nuisance[s] that we are better off eradicat[ing], and some species respond to losses by increasing their reproduction to compensate. Id. at 15. Some intake structures, especially in winter, remove fish that were dead or dying even before they reached the intake, id., and thriving fish populations in cooling ponds show that some organisms survive entrainment, id. at 15-16. Because removing large numbers of fish or eggs is not, by itself, an `adverse impact,' the EPA should only have sought to regulate impingement and entrainment where they have deleterious effects on the overall fish and shellfish populations in the ecosystem, which can only be determined through a case-by-case, site-specific regulatory regime. Id. at 16. Furthermore, by focusing on impingement and entrainment, the EPA ignored other adverse environmental impacts and failed to consider whether its regulations will yield a net environmental benefit. 50 We think that the EPA's focus on the number of organisms killed or injured by cooling water intake structures is eminently reasonable. See Final Rule, 66 Fed. Reg. at 65,262-63, 65,292. As discussed above with respect to restoration measures, Congress rejected a regulatory approach that relies on water quality standards, which is essentially what UWAG urges here in focusing on fish populations and consequential environmental harm. As for other environmental impacts, UWAG does not attempt to demonstrate what the EPA overlooked, except through vague and speculative references to local air quality, water resources, [and] energy markets (which, as noted in the discussion of dry cooling, supra, the EPA did consider) and the suggestion that closed-cycle cooling may require increased land use and have undesirable aesthetic impacts. UWAG Br. at 20. The EPA considered all of the factors that UWAG now raises, 28 and we are inclined to defer to the EPA's judgment of how best to define and minimize adverse environmental impact. See Nat'l Wildlife Fed'n, 286 F.3d at 570; BP Exploration, 66 F.3d at 802. 51