Laserfiche WebLink
scenarios. One scenario may offer an ideal <br />power- generating regime, but less than ideal <br />fish habitat or whitewater boating. Another <br />scenario may offer the highest quality <br />whitewater, but less ideal power generation <br />and a shorter season for non - whitewater <br />boating. <br />The initial array of scenarios may seem so <br />numerous to be overwhelming, but negotiation <br />and decision - making face a number of <br />constraints. These may include physical <br />constraints such as the amount of water <br />available or the operational limits of a dam <br />(assuming the river is regulated), legal or <br />administrative constraints such a legislative or <br />agency mandates, and political constraints such <br />as long - established positions that are unlikely <br />to change. These realities of the "flow <br />negotiation environment" may quickly narrow <br />the field to a more manageable set of <br />alternative scenarios. <br />7 <br />It is then necessary to determine the <br />relative merits of different scenarios, a process <br />which involves valuation, optimization, and a <br />final management decision. Technical <br />information will need to be integrated with <br />social value judgments. For example, is it <br />better to provide minimal boating conditions <br />for extended periods of time, or optimum <br />conditions for shorter times? Should riparian <br />conditions or fish habitat be altered to <br />accommodate flood control or power <br />generation? Should family boating <br />opportunities be provided at the expense of <br />whitewater boating? In all cases, instream <br />flow studies that permit the evaluation of <br />alternative flow scenarios representing realistic <br />combinations of resource outputs are more <br />useful than studies that use some "formula" to <br />develop a single flow regime. Chapter 7, <br />Trade -offs and Flow Scenarios, further explores <br />the central issues of this integration process. <br />