7843 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

8 BIOLOGICAL REPORT 29 Chapter 2. Choosing the Appropriate Assessment Tools Every water management decision that includes instream flow protection offers a unique challenge. Instream flow decisions may include a federal per- mit or license, an operating schedule for a water storage project, a state instream flow water right, or an element in a state water management plan. No matter which of these decisions is being ad- dressed, each requires an understanding of several factors before an appropriate instream flow assess- ment technique can be chosen. Several considerations guide the choice of tech- nology for instream flow needs assessments, in- cluding statutory authority, history of water use, technical orientation, available fiscal resources, and time allowed to complete studies. In addition, there is an ongoing debate about the relative sci- entific merits of competing instream flow assess- ment technologies (Granholm et al. 1985; Mathur et al. 1985; Estes and Orsborn 1986). All factors heighten the challenge of selecting the right tech- nology to guide establishment of stream flow pro- tection. When choosing a technology, the analysts' concentration is often initially directed to the technical details of the procedures, such as meas- urement of stream transects or operation of com- puter models. However, experienced professional biologists and engineers responsible for assess- ments recognize that harder policy questions must first be answered. Analysts ul1:imately de- cide to use a technique as much because it fits the political and environmental problems they face as because the technology meets scientific standards (Lamb 1986). A Dichotomy of Techniques Political and environmental problems can be conveniently divided into two categories depending on the objectives of the decision process: standard- setting or incremental. In a standard-setting prob- lem, the analyst is called on to recommend an instream flow requirement to guide general and, usually, low-intensity decisions setting a limit below which water cannot be diverted (Trihey and Stalnaker 1985). This process might be called pre- liminary planning. An incremental problem refers to a high-intensity, high-stakes negotiation over a specific development project. The term incremental implies the need to answer the following question: What happens to the variable of interest (e.g., aquatic habitat, recreation value) when the flow changes? Rather than a clear dichotomy, it may be appro- priate to picture these two types of decisions on a continuum ranging from the setting ofnoncontro- versial standards for overall planning to conflict over establishing incremental differences in flow levels. No matter where on the continuum a prob- lem falls, there is an additional question: How many variables are important? The answer to this question may be as simple as saying the problem is one species offish or one type of recreation. The answer may also be expressed as a flow regime that meets the needs of several decision variables. For example, a flow regime may be instituted to satisfy channel and riparian maintenance, fish habitat, and recreational uses of the water. Al- though it is most common for incremental prob- lems to present themselves as multi-purpose questions, it is not uncommon for standard-set- ting questions to require answers for more than one decision variable. Whether a problem falls under the category of standard-setting or incremental is not a question of scientific credibility; defensible scientific analy- sis is always required because answers to both types of questions must be trustworthy. Moreover, expert judgement is required in both standard- setting and incremental problems. This judge- ment comes into play in reaching conclusions based on the technology that is chosen, as well as in choosing the appropriate method. There is one other consideration. Standard-setting techniques are inappropriate for brokered decisions because brokered decisions require the exploration of al- ternatives. In other words, the standard that has