Report No. 9 - Analysis of Methods for Determining Minimum Instream Flows for Recreation

Analysis of Methods

for Determining

Minimum Instream Flows

for Recreation

Idaho Forest, Wildlife and Range Policy Analysis Group

Report No. 9

Troy Merrill¹

and

Jay O'Laughlin²

March 1993

__________________________

¹Research Assistant, Idaho Forest, Wildlife and Range Policy Analysis Group, University of Idaho, Moscow, ID 83843

²Director, Idaho Forest, Wildlife and Range Policy Analysis Group, University of Idaho, Moscow, ID 83843.

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

The efforts of the Technical Advisory Committee, listed below, are gratefully acknowledged. These individuals provided guidance on the design of the plan for this study, and provided technical review of the final draft of the report.

Chuck Harris, Ph.D. Associate Professor Dept. of Resource Recreation and Tourism University of Idaho	Bill Graham Idaho Dept. of Water Resources Boise, Idaho
Bo Shelby, Ph.D. Professor of Recreation Resources Dept. of Forest Resources Oregon State University Corvallis, Oregon	Rinda Just, J.D. Idaho Attorney General's Office Idaho Dept. of Parks and Recreation Boise, Idaho
Douglas L. Grant, J.D. Professor College of Law University of Idaho

Two others provided technical review of portions of the final draft of the report:

David J. Walker, Ph.D.
Professor of Resource Economics
Department of Agricultural Economics and Rural Sociology
University of Idaho

Joel R. Hamilton, Ph.D.
Professor of Resource Economics
Department of Agricultural Economics and Rural Sociology
University of Idaho

We especially would like to thank the 68 individuals who took time from their busy schedules to respond to our survey questionnaire.

TABLE OF CONTENTS

Acknowledgements	i
List of Tables and Figures	iv
Foreword	v
Executive Summary	1
Introduction	2
Profile of Survey Respondents	2
Laws and Regulations for Protecting Instream Flow	6
Survey Results	6
Water Law Terminology	7
Prior Appropriation Doctrine	7
Public Trust Doctrine	7
Protection of Instream Flows in Idaho	8
Historical Development	8
Current Idaho Law	9
Declaration	9
Authorization	10
State Comprehensive Outdoor Recreation Plan	10
Federal Statutes and Regulations	10
FERC Regulation and Permitting	10
Federal Statutes	11
Endangered Species Act	11
National Environmental Policy Act	12
Federal Reserved Rights	12
Deciding What to Protect	12
Subjective Evaluation and Conflict Resolution	12
Survey Results	14
Recreation Activities and Experiences	15
Survey Results	15
Recreation Activities	15
Recreation Experiences	16
Instream Flow as an Element of the Recreation Experience	17
Survey Results	20
Protecting Elements of the Stream Environment	21
Survey Results	23
Interdisciplinary Process	23
Economic Valuation	25
Economic Analysis Primer	25
Methods for Estimating Recreation Value	27
Instream Flow Valuation Studies	28
Estimating recreational fishery value	28
Estimating recreation value	29
Estimating preservation value	30
Strengths and weaknesses	30
Methods for Quantifying Instream Flow: Literature Review	31
Fisheries-based Methods	31
Recreation-based Methods	32
Single Cross-Section Method	32
Incremental Method	33
Recreation Streamflow Criteria	34
Probability of Use	35
Limitations	35
Survey-based Quantification Methods	35
Survey of Users	35
Survey of Experts	36
Photographic Comparison	36
Canoeing Zero Flow Method	36
Systematic Field Evaluation	36
Survey Results: Methods for Quantifying Instream Flow	37
Which Methods are used Most Often?	37
Which Methods are Most Reliable?	38
Defending Recommended Instream Flow Quantities	38
Conclusions	40
Literature Cited	42

LIST OF TABLES

Table 1. Variables affecting canoeing and aesthetics on two slow-moving rivers in east Texas	19
Table 2. Instream flow regimens for fish, wildlife, recreation, and related environmental resources	31
Table 3. Required stream width and depth minima for various recreation craft as determined by the single cross section method	33
Table 4. Recreation streamflow criteria by activity: safety range and optimal range for stream depth and velocity	34

LIST OF FIGURES

Figure 1. Which organizations responded to the survey on instream flows?	2
Figure 2. In which states have respondents been involved with instream flow protection?	4
Figure 3. Which organizations perceive the need to protect instream flows?	5
Figure 4. Existing laws and regulations used to protect instream flows for recreation.	6
Figure 5. Approaches to reduce controversy over instream flow protection and the relative likelihood of their success	14
Figure 6. Recreation activities used to justify establishing minimum instream flow	16
Figure 7. Importance of protecting the recreation experience	17
Figure 8. Importance of protecting different elements of the stream environment for the recreation experience	20
Figure 9. Adequacy of protection for different elements of the stream environment offered by various quantification methods	23
Figure 10. Frequency of use of different methods of quantifying instream flow	37
Figure 11. Which is the most reliable method of quantifying instream flow?	38
Figure 12. How confident are you in defending the quantity of water at different levels of review?	39

FOREWORD

The Idaho Forest, Wildlife and Range Policy Analysis Group (PAG) was created by the Idaho legislature in 1989 to provide Idaho decision makers with timely and objective data and analyses of pertinent natural resource issues. A standing nine-member advisory committee (see inside cover) suggests issues and priorities for the PAG. Results of each analysis are reviewed by a technical advisory committee selected separately for each inquiry (see the acknowledgements on page i). Findings are made available in a policy analysis publication series. This is the ninth report in the series. The other eight reports are listed in the inside cover.

This analysis was requested by the Director of the Idaho Department of Parks and Recreation and, at the inception of the project, the request was endorsed by the Director of the Idaho Department of Water Resources.

The report does not address the political question of whether or not minimum instream flows for recreation should be established on various streams and rivers in Idaho. The legislature has designed a process for that purpose. This report provides an analysis of existing methods for determining or quantifying instream flows for recreation purposes, an important and timely topic because several different methods are being applied in this evolving field. The results of this analysis should provide useful information.

John C. Hendee, Dean
College of Forestry, Wildlife and Range Sciences
University of Idaho

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

What methods are available for determining or quantifying instream flows for recreation purposes? Several methods are described in the literature. Respondents to a survey we conducted used survey-based quantification methods most often, and said they were the most reliable methods.

To put the results of this analysis in context, we briefly describe the legal process whereby minimum instream flows for recreation are established in Idaho, along with a capsule history of the recognition of instream flows as a beneficial use of Idaho's water by the state legislature.

Accompanying the decision to establish an instream flow for recreation purposes is the question, how much water should be protected? To help answer this question, we reviewed pertinent literature, developed a questionnaire based on the literature, and sent it to the 114 people who attended an instream flow conference in Corvallis, Oregon, in March 1991. We received 68 responses from people throughout the West with experience determining instream flow quantities. The complete questionnaire and responses to it are published separately (see Merrill and O'Laughlin 1992). Survey results are summarized as follows.

Most of the 68 respondents work for federal agencies, but a wide variety of state and private organizations also responded (see Figure 1, page 2). Fishing and boating are, not surprisingly, the recreation activities most often used to justify establishing minimum instream flows (Fig. 6, p. 16). The most frequently used laws and regulations for instream flow protection are state water appropriations and federal hydropower permits (Fig. 4, p. 6). Instream flow appropriations are controversial, and the quantification of flows is necessary as proof of beneficial use for any appropriation. Flow quantification studies along with public education are the approaches most likely to reduce controversy over instream flow determination (Fig. 5, p. 14).

The term "minimum instream flow for recreation" is somewhat misleading because there is no single minimum flow for recreation. Each recreation activity has different requirements (Table 4, p. 34), and recreation is an experience, not just an activity. To provide opportunities for satisfactory recreational experiences over a long time period, the stream environment needs to be protected, not just the activities presently occurring within that environment. Both the literature review and our survey results reinforce this point (Fig. 7, p. 17). As a practical matter, then, various elements of the stream environment that contribute to the recreation experience require protection, including (in the order ranked by the survey respondents (Fig. 8, p. 20), water quality, riparian vegetation, natural channel features, adjacent wetlands, and the opportunity to see and hear moving water. Of these stream features, water quality, riparian vegetation, and adjacent wetlands are, according to the respondents, not very adequately considered for protection by the various quantification methods (Fig. 9, p. 23). Which is the most reliable method of quantifying instream flow needs for recreation? Respondents have used a variety of methods (Fig. 10, p. 37). Of the 53 replies to this question, 22 said a survey of experts and 14 said a survey of users were the most reliable methods. The rather technical incremental method ranked in third place, receiving only 4 votes (Fig. 11, p. 38).

Establishing minimum instream flows is neither a legal problem nor an overwhelmingly difficult technical problem. It is a political problem. A legal process for appropriating instream flows in Idaho was established in 1978. A variety of technical methods are available for quantifying the amount of water for recreation activities and relating streamflow to environmental attributes of the stream that contribute to the recreation experience. The political challenge in allocating water is determining which uses of water and water courses are in the best interests of society.

PAG Report List

PAG Home Page