7914 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

... A Case History IFIM has particular promise for leading to the resolu- tion of instream flow issues where both the developer and the resource agency have a genuine desire to evaluate the need for flows and to provide for that need while allowing hydro development. The Terror lake Project, FERC No. 2743, exemplifies such a situation. The Terror lake Project on Kodiak Island Alaska involved the diversion of the majority of t~e Terro; Rive~ flows to the Kizhuyak River. Originally, the Appllcant for the project had proposed that 60 cubic feet per second Ccfs) be maintained in the Terror River for the protection of aquatic resources. The 60 cfs ~as based on a synthesized hydrologic record. Inspectlon of the proposed project by FERC staff indicated that the 60 cfs would result in severe dewatering of a significant portion of the river used ~y spaw~ing pink and chum salmon. Following the field lnspectlon, FERC staff required the Applicant to assess the instream flow needs of the Terror River. The Applicant originally attemped to fulfill this requirement by use of the Tennant Method but folloWing discussions with the FERC staff, turned to IFIM. IFIM was employed over approximately a 2-year period on both the Terror and Kizhuyak Rivers. The results were then. utilized in successful negotiations among the Appllcant, the Alaska Department of Fish and Game, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service and several conservation groups. An instream dow schedule provi di ng for the needs of the fi shery resources of the two streams resulted. FERC later concurred with and approved the negotiated flows. Other Example~ O~er 35 other FERC hydroe 1 ectri c projects have uti- l1zed IFIM to assess instream flow needs. Most of these projects are located in the Western United States. However, the utilization of IFIM in the Eastern States is increasing as more people are exposed to the procedure. FERC staff i~ .curren.tly involved in a proceeding before an Admlnlstratlve Law Judge, whose decision may spur or stymie the use of IFIM in some Eastern States. This hearing asks: Should IFIM be utilized on the Susquehanna River a warm water stream and principal tributary to the' Chesapeake Bay to assess t~e .need for instream flows? This is' the first aJudlcatory hearing involving FERC on the selection of a methodology to determine instream flow require- ment~. FERC staff has taken the position in this h~arlng that IFIM is the appropriate procedure. The Llcense~ in this case opposes the use of IFIM. The Judge wlll have the final word. SUMMARY I FIM ha s proven its utili ty in the reso 1 ut i on of instream flow issues at FERC hydroelectric projects. The procedure has equal applicability to large and small streams in all regions of the country. Surely as hyd:o development continues throughout the nation, IFI~ wlll assume a major role in providing the infor- matlon necessary to ensure the protection of aquatic resources. T~e FERC currently utilizes training in IFIM pro- vlded by Colorado State University, Department of Conferences and Institutes, and the Instream Flow Group of the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Western Energy and land Use Team (WELUT). This training Il'~,-x:-:';;' c'-..:_):"" provides an understanding of the phil applicability of this valuable tool for use management. REFERENCES loar, J. M., and Michael J. Sale. 1981. Analysis of Environmental Issues Related to Small Scale Hydro"" electric Development v. Instream Flow Needs .for Fi shery Resources. Oakri dge Nat 1 ona 1 laboratory. ORNl/TM-7861. 123 pp. Olive, S. W., and B. l. Lamb. 1983. (in Press.) Con- ducting a FERC Environmental Assessment: A Case Study and Recommendations From the Terror lake Project. U.S. Fish Wild. Servo W/IFG-83/W23. 63 pp. Instream Flow Training Philosophy by Dr. Clair B. Stalnaker The Instream Flow Incremental Methodology (IFIM) 1s offered as a valuable and efficient water management tool. It is designed to provide a systematic approach for water managers when evaluating changes in a stream system and its habitat. Under such e~aluatlons managers are often faced with problems of bewilder1ng scope and complexity. The IFIM is not a standard setting approach designed to recommend flows for resource protection. The emphasis of the methodology is on managing change rather than setting a flow standard for maintenance of the status quo. In the larger arena of water-planning and administration, standard setting and incremental methodologies should not be considered as competitive but are indeed complimentary. For one to grasp the management perspective .of IFlM and to become proficient in its application requ1res a commitment to training. A minimal investment of one month of training is recommended. The IFG 200 1 evel courses are very structured and ilre set up sequentially to provide an intense and systematic program. Participants in these courses are assumed to have completed the appropriate prerequisites and should expect little review with the expectation that the courses be taken sequentially. A minimum of three courses in thi s 200 category is requi red to assure efficient application of the IFIM. These ~re: IFG 200 - Designing and Conducting Studies Using IFIM; IFG 205 - Field Techniques for Stream H~b1tat Analysis: and/or IFG 210 - Use of the Computer Based Physical Habitat Simulation System (PHABSIM); and IFG 215 - Problem Solving With the Instream Flow Incrementa 1 Methodology. Wi thi n organ i zat ions whi eh desire a team approach to IFIM application different individuals may be assigned to the IFG 205 and 210 courses. However, it is recommended that a 11 team members take the IFG 200 and 215 courses. If organizations are unsure of the appropriateness of the IFIM to their general instream flow concerns, the Instream Flow and Aquatic Systems Group is pleased to * Dr. Clair Stalnaker has been the Group Leader of the Instream Flow Group, Fort Collins, CO since 1976. 2 l!.e. \ ( ro ~ .; ,f ....,aJO..... p)l.t.~ o~ IAI\Q.~