Flows and Recretion: A guide to studies for river professionals

Home Browse Search

A Progression of Study Options Deciding upon the appropriate "degree of resolution" is a major issue in flow - recreation studies. Some rivers have extensive recreation use that is clearly flow - dependent and affected by project operations; here more intensive and detailed efforts are necessary. On other rivers, the potential for a recreation use may be unknown (e.g., whitewater boating on a bypass reach, fishing for a species that could be reintroduced), or the use may be only marginally affected by flows that the project does not substantially affect. In these cases, less intensive studies may be required. Given the potential diversity of situations, it is difficult to specify a single set of standards for a "sufficient" study. Instead, we recommend a progressive approach with "phased" efforts of increasing resolution. All studies have to provide similar initial information about recreation opportunities, their likely dependency on flows, and potential project effects. However, more intensive or detailed studies will only be prescribed in situations that merit them. To be effective, this approach needs 1) a clear sequential framework; 2) standardized terminology for various study options; 3) agreement about which study options provide which degree of resolution; and 4) explicit decision criteria to help determine whether the study needs to continue to the next level. The following framework suggests three levels of resolution, with distinct study options generally linked to each level: • Level I — "desk -top" options: This is the initial information collection and integration phase. It usually focuses on "desk -top" methods using existing information, or limited interviews with people familiar with flows and recreation on the reach. • Level 2 — limited reconnaissance options: This increases the degree of resolution through limited reconnaissance -based 8 I Flows and Recreation: A Guide for River Professionals studies, more intensive analysis of existing information, or more extensive interviews. • Level 3 — intensive studies: This substantially increases the degree of resolution through more intensive studies, which may include multiple flow reconnaissance, flow comparison surveys, or controlled flow studies. This framework has been applied successfully in FERC relicensing proceedings, and it has the potential to improve studies or applications in several ways. First, it focuses resources on those river reaches with greater interest to the recreation community or with greater impacts from project operations, while reducing workloads on reaches with less interest and lesser project effects. This streamlines costs by prioritizing reaches more "deserving" of additional study. This is especially useful at hydropower projects with multiple dams, powerhouses, and river reaches, where prioritization and efficiency are particularly important. Second, it provides a transparent and defensible record for all entities (e.g, Licensees, stakeholder groups, and agencies) regarding the "sufficiency" of effort. This should lead to more efficient licensing or adjudication proceedings, and limit challenges. Third, it helps standardize methodologies and improves comparability across situations. This should improve the quality of study products and allow them to be more efficiently used in license proceedings or other decision - settings. Fourth, the increased transparency of the phased approach allows information to be shared earlier in the process, particularly across resources. This allows an earlier discussion of potential conflicts between flow needs for different resources, which may help researchers design studies that address solutions to those conflicts. Integrating information across resources is a major challenge in licensing proceedings; the earlier potential conflicts are articulated, the more likely researchers can provide information about trade -offs or potential ways to address them. Finally, there are efficiencies in conducting coordinated studies, particularly if controlled flow releases are part of the study design. Although it is beyond the scope of this report, there appear to be similar benefits of using a progressive approach with aesthetics, fisheries, or other resource studies, with parallel types of work at the desk -top, initial reconnaissance, and intensive study levels. Formally recognizing these levels and coordinating study needs can help reduce the costs of studies and encourage inter- disciplinary exchanges throughout the study process. The remainder of this guide reviews elements for each study option, including 1) objectives; 2) typical approaches; 3) products; 4) typical responsibilities of agencies, utilities, and advocacy groups; 5) "additional issues" to highlight challenging tasks or suggest protocols that characterize more successful efforts; and 6) "cautions or limitations" that may restrict use of an option or require additional information from other study options.