Laserfiche WebLink
<br />" <br /> <br />I <br /> <br />. <br /> <br />. <br /> <br />.".,o'''.~ <br />~ . ~ <br />,S;~~V~~~~~~~~~~N'V/NV \" . J ~~/'NVV^VVV,~~~E~~:~v <br /> <br />. l~l1' <br /> <br /> <br />. <br /> <br />review notice is <br /> <br />Protected BeneficiallJses of Instream Flows <br /> <br />Alaska's Instream Flow Law recognizes a variety of protected instream uses. including uses associated with <br />recreation. AI( ST 46. 15. 145(a) expressly recognizes the following: <br />. Protection of fish and wildlife habitat. migration, and propagation; <br />. Recreation and pm puIpOses; <br />. Navigation and transportation purposes; and <br />. Sanitary and water quality purposes. <br /> <br />The Alaska DNR bas further defined these statutory uses in a formal intOlpretation. [AK ADC 93.141] Among the <br />interpretations is a very broad definition of 'recreation and pm purposes' including the "quantity or level of water <br />necessary to maintain suitable conditions for contact and secondary recreation, including wading, swimming, <br />fisbin ,beatin ,or hootin or for m ses, includin scenic, natural. historic, or cultural values." Id. a <br /> <br /> <br />. Flow Qu.antification Methods . - -- <br /> <br />. <br /> <br />No single method is specified by ONR regulation. Most methods used to date bave been the IFIM or Tennant. <br />(McKinney and Taylor 191\1\) <br />Alaska's varied approacbes to quantification are an area of great contention. Establishing a uniform <br />methodology has proven difficult given Alaska's variety of climatic zones and stream cbaracteristics. <br />Alaska also lacks biological data collection as required by statute. (Researching pending ]egislation on this <br />issue arle and Estes 1993 <br /> <br />. <br /> <br />. <br /> <br />M9nitorjng an~ Enforcement --_ -- - - -- - <br /> <br />. <br /> <br />In comparison to other western states, Alaska's available streamflow data for monitoring ]SF reservations is <br />sparse. Over 99 percent of the rivers and streams in A]aska are oogaged (Harle and Estes ]993). The USGS, <br />ONR, FWS, and BLM collect hydrologic data, but are limited by funding and access (inadequate road systems <br />and extreme climates make collection difficult). Because the majority of instream flows are being appropriated <br />by agencies (individuals are constrained by application fees and an expensive documentation process), <br />monitoring contributions from individuals is limited. <br />Along with the lack of biological data, Alaska's limited monitoring has been one of the biggest barriers to the <br />finalization of reservations for ISFs. <br /> <br />. <br /> <br /> <br />-Federa\.and-N<;O i';;olvenlenL~- - __ --.- _ ._---- -- --~ - -_ .::-"-- -~ -__ <br /> <br />. <br /> <br />BLM filed application in 191\9 for ISF on Beaver Creek National Wild River, granted by ONR (Harle and Estes <br />1993) <br />The ]egislature amended the Alaska Water Use Act in 1986 to establish procedures for state court basin-wide <br />adjudication of federal reserved water rights. They also established procedures for DNR 10 conduct <br />administrative basin-wide adjudication, including federal reserved water rights, if the federal agency consents to <br />have its federal reserved water rights administratively adjudicated by ONR. Almost 49% of lands are federal <br />reserved lands. <br />http://www.dnr.state.ak.us/mlw/factshtJw1r fslfed rsv.pdfFederal Reserved Water Rights Fact Sheet contains <br />more detailed information. <br /> <br />. <br /> <br />. <br /> <br />Alaska <br /> <br />DRAFT <br /> <br />3 <br />