7914 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

1<0 b\ Y"\ S~ n r' . " ! ct tL/ >,. "";':l'~t!'l~\;::,ji" ,.~~ ",,:tC'f;~';:;")c:'_"',"~,_! 'IP "Olqq,,;,q @ Instream Flow Chronicle April, 1984 Vol. 1 No.1 CSU Conferences & Institutes Utilization of The Instream Flow Incremental Methodology by J. Mark Robinson FERC INSTREAM FLOW PERSPECTIVE The Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC) licenses non-Federal hydroelectric projects that utjlize navigable streams or are located on Federal lands. Projects are numbered sequentially as :.hey are brought to the attention of FERC, and over 8,100 applications for preliminary permit, license, or ex- emption from licensing have been filed. One issue common to practically every FERC project--regardless of location, natural resourceS involved, size of development, or time on-line--is the instream flow requirements necessary to protect downstream aquatic rt!sources. FERC has a long history of providing for necessary in- stream flows, and since the mid-1970's an evaluation of project impacts on downstream resources has been accepted. These evaluations usually result in staff recommendations for special conditions in any license issued that require some action by the developer to ensure protection of instream values. For example, during the period of January 1980 to March 1983, 59 percent of the 157 licenses issued by FERCincluded a special license article dealing with flow concerns. The other 41 percent included projects that discharge directly into downstream reservoirs, projects at dams where operations are controlled by entities other than the Licensee, true run-of-river operation with no diversion, and other projects requiring no action to ensure the protection of instream flow values. Basically, current practices ensure that instream flow requirements, whether brought to FERC's attention by resource agencies, conservation groups, or FERC's own staff of ecologists, are addressed during every li- censing process. Contents Page Utilization of the Instream Flow Incremental Methodology by J. Mark Robinson.. ......... 1 Instream Flow Training Philosophy by Clair B. Stalnaker..................... 2 I FG T r a i n i n g .. . .. . .. . . .. . .. . . . .. .. . . .. .. .. .. 3 Computerized List of IFG Training Graduates. 4 The Purpose of the Instream Flow Chronicle.. 4 J. Mark Robinson has been with the FERC for six years. He is presently the Chief of Biology of the Resources Branch, Division of Hydropower Licenses. INSTREAM FLOW INCREMENTAL METHODOLOGY (IFIM) IFIM and other developed procedures for providing decision-makers with information adequate to set flow schedules at hydoelectric projects are utilized at FERC. Loar and Sale (1981) describe nine distinct methods for evaluating instream flow needs for fishery resources. However, the IFIM, developed at the Western Energy and Land Use Team (WELUT) by special- ists representing several agencies and disciplines is the most commonly used procedure for studying flow needs. Usually the flow question associated with the develop- ment of a hydroelectric project is the one environ- mental issue that can dictate the financial feasi- bility of the venture. For example, the potential flow requirements of the proposed 1,620 MW Susitna Hydroelectric Project (Alaska, FERC No. 7114) may reduce the net benefits of this $5.2 billion invest- ment by as much as 50 percent. Where the costs are so great, relative to small modifications of flow, there is no mystery in the selection of an instream flow methodology that lends itself to incremental problem solving. Where there are no single correct answers, the method of incremental narrowing of differences is chosen. The utility of IFIM has not been limited to large, very costly projects. The method has been appl ied across the spectrum of hydro development. Small (<5MW) exemption projects are commonly supported by instream flow assessments entailing the use of IFIM.