|
<br />32 CLAIR B. STALNAKER
<br />
<br />generally a multiyear process. Adopting the sug-
<br />gested hierarchical approach can lead to greater
<br />understanding among the resource agencies, the ap-
<br />plicant, and the general public, leading to negotiated
<br />conditions for the license. Specifically, the recon-
<br />naissance study identifies the stream segments of
<br />potential impact, the project location configuration,
<br />and possible operating scheme. With- and without-
<br />project hydrologic conditions are compared to deter-
<br />mine whether the project seems to be "benign" and
<br />compatible with resource agency policies. In other
<br />words, there is little change in the flow pattern
<br />below the project. In the feasibility study, the use
<br />of a previously set standard can be quite advan-
<br />tageous. At this level of analysis, comparison is made
<br />between the projected stream flow conditions and
<br />the stream flow maintenance standard to identify
<br />major issues and periods of incompatibility. Stan-
<br />dard setting methods (such as the New England
<br />Flow Method and the Arkansas and North Carolina
<br />methods) were discussed during this workshop; they
<br />and the optimum flow proposed for western Virginia
<br />are excellent examples by which one can screen for
<br />hydro projects that seem to be incompatible with
<br />agency policy and environmental protection goals.
<br />When it becomes obvious that project operations and
<br />the maintenance of stream flow standards are in-
<br />compatible, impacts need to be quantified and
<br />mitigation measures agreed on. Then much more
<br />detailed operational level studies are appropriate.
<br />Only during this third study phase do the incremen-
<br />tal methods become useful and, in fact, necessary.
<br />The majority of States now recognize instream
<br />flows and have identified procedures for incor-
<br />porating such uses in water planning (Reiser et al.
<br />1989). Adoption of a standard setting approach by
<br />the State Water Resources and Fisheries Manage-
<br />ment agencies greatly facilitates identification of
<br />incompatible water development projects during fea-
<br />sibility studies. Stream flow assessment methods,
<br />such as the Instream Flow Incremental Methodology
<br />used by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, have con-
<br />sequently evolved to become environmental assess-
<br />ment techniques and are used for evaluating the
<br />effects of proposed reservoir construction, water
<br />diversions, or hydroelectric operations on down-
<br />stream fish habitats. Quite often such impact as-
<br />sessments become a matter of comparison among
<br />several possible, but not always measurable, water
<br />management schemes, leading to the necessity of
<br />simulation modeling for making these comparisons.
<br />Only the physical-chemical aspects of the habitat are
<br />evaluated, and comparisons are judged on the poten-
<br />tial habitat limitations that may result from a pro-
<br />posed change in the way stream flows are controlled
<br />
<br />and routed through stream segments. It is impor-
<br />tant to realize that minimum flows, optimal flows,
<br />and even stream flow standards are not impact
<br />assessment tools. When it comes to relicensing of
<br />hydroelectric projects, the questions really are
<br />focused on the effects that may result from a change
<br />in project operations. Minimum flow has no logical
<br />argument in such an institutional process and, in
<br />fact, as hydro projects go to increased peaking
<br />operations (involving daily and hourly rapid fluctua-
<br />tions in the tailwater releases), it is often the high
<br />flows that are of more concern from a biological
<br />standpoint than the low or minimum flows.
<br />The challenge now before us is to progress beyond
<br />the minimum flow and even habitat impact assess-
<br />ment and to focus on scientific principles in under-
<br />standing riverine systems. Management biologists
<br />must get involved with water management in river-
<br />ine environments. By definition, management is a
<br />designed and directed change in a system. The im-
<br />provement of basic understanding of ecology of our
<br />stream systems, coupled with the use of engineer-
<br />ing tools and simulation modeling, provides an op-
<br />portunity for fisheries to be enhanced downstream
<br />of the many hydroelectric projects coming up for
<br />relicensing in the 1990's. This will occur only if
<br />fishery managers and natural resource agencies do
<br />the designing and directing of the change in the
<br />operating systems, working hand-in-hand with the
<br />hydro project applicants and the Federal Energy
<br />Regulatory Commission.
<br />
<br />Information Sources
<br />
<br />Bovee, K. D. 1982. A guide to stream analysis using the
<br />Instream Flow Incremental Methodology. Instream
<br />Flow Information Paper 12. U.S. Fish WildI. Serv.,
<br />FWS/OBS 82/26. 248 pp.
<br />Bovee, K. D. 1985. Evaluation of the effects of hydro peak-
<br />ing on aquatic macroinvertebrates using PHABSIM.
<br />Pages 236-241 in F. W. Olson, R. G. White, and R. H.
<br />Hamre, eds. Proceedings of the symposium on small
<br />hydropower and fisheries. American Fisheries Society,
<br />Bethesda, Md. 497 pp.
<br />Bovee, K. D. 1986. Development and evaluation of habitat
<br />suitability criteria for use in the Instream Flow Incre-
<br />mental Methodology. Instream Flow Information Paper
<br />21. U.S. Fish WildI. Serv., BioI. Rep. 86(7). 235 pp.
<br />Bovee, K. D., and J. R. Zuboy. 1988. Proceedings of a
<br />workshop on development and evaluation of habitat
<br />suitability criteria. U.S. Fish WildI. Serv., BioI. Rep.
<br />88(11). 407 pp.
<br />Connell, J. H., and W. P. Sousa. 1983. On the evidence
<br />needed to judge ecological stability or persistence. Am.
<br />Nat. 121(6):789-824.
<br />Estes, C. C. 1984. Evaluation of methods for recommend-
<br />ing instream flows to support spawning by salmon. M.S.
<br />thesis, Washington State University, Pullman. 156 pp.
<br />
<br />J
<br />
|