Flows and Recretion: A guide to studies for river professionals

Home Browse Search

Documentation Needs and Explicit Criteria for Progressing to Level 2 Studies A Level 1 report should integrate findings from the study options above, clearly documenting information sources, summarizing findings, and linking those to raw data when appropriate. The report should identify recreation opportunities along the river, suggest whether there are flow - dependent attributes for each, and assess whether project operations are likely to have impacts on those opportunities. When there are multiple opportunities or reaches with potential project effects, these should be prioritized from those requiring more to less information. Agency and stakeholder review is critical, but how that is accomplished depends on the licensing model in use (traditional, collaborative, or integrated; see sidebar). In general, the earlier this report can be completed and distributed, the better. This allows more time to develop intensive studies (if or when those are necessary), and can help direct resources to the opportunities and reaches that need them most. It also can serve as an "early warning" to work groups in other resource areas (e.g., fisheries, cultural) about which recreation opportunities are likely to have flow - related impacts, and it may lead to early articulation of likely flow regime requests. The exchange of information between resource work groups is among the most challenging aspects of relicensing efforts, and early Level 1 information allows that to begin sooner. One output of the report should be explicit decisions about whether additional study is necessary for each opportunity and reach. While the utility and consultants typically make the case for these decisions in their report, review by agencies and stakeholders (via working groups) can make those decisions more collaborative, or allow early identification of disputes. This should limit additional information requests later in the process. Ultimately, the decision is whether Level 1 information is sufficient, or if additional study is necessary. This decision rests on answers to several questions: • Are there flow- dependent recreation opportunities on the river segments? • Are flow - dependent opportunities affected by project operations? • Are flow - dependent recreation opportunities "important" relative Some fishing opportunities are less flow - dependent than others. Shore -based fish- ing with spinning gear on Alaska's Kenai River (left) is excellent through a wide range, from mid - summer high flows to lower fall flows. In these situations, a well - documented Level l effort may be sufficient. to other resources or foregone power generation? If certain recreation opportunities will not be considered when determining project operation decisions (e.g., if agencies and stakeholders agree that flow releases will be primarily driven by biological needs for an endangered species), more detailed information about flows may be unnecessary, and Level l information may be sufficient (assuming it documents stakeholder and agency agreement about this evaluation). Does Level 1 information precisely define flow ranges and potential project effects for each flow- dependent opportunity? For example, flow ranges for a commonly boated whitewater reach may be sufficiently well -known and agreed upon, and there may be no need for additional study. If none of these questions are answered affirmatively, Level l information is probably not sufficient, and more intensive study (Level 2 or 3) may be necessary. Flows and Recreation: 13 A Guide for River Professionals