Recreational Instream Flows in Idaho

Home Browse Search

Parks has been able to obtain two licenses. One permit is being litigated, and one application remains pending. Since the minimum streamflow statute became effective in July 1978, a total of 51 minimum flow applications have been filed. Parks has used the statute to seek instream flow rights in 17 stream reaches throughout the state. Three of these appropriations have been licensed, eight permits have been issued, and six are in the application stage. This banquet of appropriations serves a variety of recreational tastes. Substantial sum- mertime flows in the North Fork (1,400 cfs in one reach and 1,800 cfs in another) and South Fork of the Payette River (1,100 cfs in one reach and 1,350 cfs in another) serve white water users such as rafters and kayakers. Appropriations at Niagara Springs, Crystal Springs, Blue Heart Springs, and Minnie Miller Springs preserve the aesthetics of natural springs in the Snake River Canyon. An appropriation on Elk Creek near the town of Elk River in Clearwater County protects a series of falls, including the highest falls in northern Idaho. The appropriation on Henry's Fork of the Snake River protects the aesthetics of a historic ranch through which it flows, a blue ribbon trout stream, a wildlife refuge, and the spectacular upper and lower Mesa Falls. In a new twist on the minimum streamflow statute, a permit was recently granted for the flows necessary to maintain the level of Round Lake in Round Lake State Park near Sandpoint. Recreational instream flows differ from habitat maintenance flows in two significant ways. Whether these differences are advantages or disadvantages will depend upon one's point of view. The first difference, and one that is generally perceived as an advantage, is that recreational flows often involve large blocks of water —much higher quantities than could be appropriated for purposes of maintaining one particular aquatic species. This is certainly the case for white water recreation, where instream flow rights much more closely approximate natural flows of a river, in quantity, if not seasonally. A second difference, and one that can cut both ways, is that aesthetic and recreational flows seems to be less susceptible to quantification than do habitat maintenance flows. Many scholars have devoted the major portion of their professional lives to determining the meaning of "minimum flow" as it pertains to aquatic species. Minimum flows for recreation and aesthetics have not benefited (or suffered ?) from such research and janalysis. In my opinion it has been beneficial to the recreational instream flow program that no widely accepted methodology has been available for determining minimum flows. This lack of a scientific basis has allowed petitioning agencies, such as Parks, 1 some latitude in making a case for a particular instream flow. This has been crucial in light of Idaho's statutory requirement that an instream flow be a "true minimum," as opposed to an optimum flow. This has allowed Parks to use testimony from experts to support requests for minimum flows that are in excess of the lowest flow at which a particular stream segment could be utilized for a specified purpose. This expert testimony has allowed Parks to distinguish minimum flows for navigation from minimum flows necessary for recreational use. For example, some white water river segments can be navigated by raft or kayak at flows significantly less than the requested minimum flow. However, at flows below those requested, the river may become unsafe for the majority of users, or the recreational experience may be so diminished that some segment of recreational users will no longer seek to use the stream. One methodology that has been used by Parks to determine a true minimum recre- ational flow for white water has been to interview a variety of different users of a stream segment. On a given stretch of stream, this may include individual kayakers, rafters, tubers, canoeists, and professional outfitters. They are asked to identify both the highest and the lowest flow at which they will use the river segment. They are also asked to identify the time of year that they will begin, and cease, using the stream. The infor- mation obtained is compared with the historical flow data for the stream, and a flow is selected that represents the wishes of all of the users and can be met or exceeded the majority of the time. Determining acceptable minimum flows where aesthetics are of primary concern has been more difficult. Where instream appropriations involved natural springs in the Snake River Canyon, Parks was able to argue that the springs in question were merely IN - 310 Rivers • Volume 1, Number 4 October 1990