Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutInstream Flow Production in AK 1999-2009 2011Special Publication No. 11-01 Instream Flow Protection in Alaska, 1999-2009 by Joe Klein February 2011 Alaska Department of Fish and Game Divisions of Sport Fish and Commercial Fisheries Weights and measures (metric) centimeter deciliter gram hectare kilogram kilometer liter meter milliliter millimeter Weights and measures (English) cubic feet per second foot gallon inch mile nautical mile ounce pound quart yard Time and temperature day degrees Celsius degrees Fahrenheit degrees kelvin hour minute second Physics and chemistry all atomic symbols alternating current ampere calorie direct current hertz horsepower hydrogen ion activity (negative log of) parts per million parts per thousand volts watts ft'/s gal in nmi AC cal Symbols and Abbreviations The following symbols and abbreviations, and others approved for the Systéme International d'Unités (SI), are used without definition in the following reports by the Divisions of Sport Fish and of Commercial Fisheries: Fishery Manuscripts, Fishery Data Series Reports, Fishery Management Reports, and Special Publications. All others, including deviations from definitions listed below, are noted in the text at first mention, as well as in the titles or footnotes of tables, and in figure or figure captions. General Alaska Administrative Code all commonly accepted abbreviations all commonly accepted professional titles at compass directions: east north south west copyright corporate suffixes: Company Corporation Incorporated Limited District of Columbia et alii (and others) et cetera (and so forth) exempli gratia (for example) Federal Information Code id est (that is) latitude or longitude monetary symbols (U.S.) months (tables and figures): first three letters registered trademark trademark United States (adjective) United States of America (noun) US.C. US. state AAC e.g., Mr., Mrs., AM, PM, etc. e.g., Dr., Ph.D., RN., etc. @ O<s4zm eg. FIC ie. lat. or long. 5,¢ Jan,...,Dec US. USA United States Code use two-letter abbreviations (e.g., AK, WA) Mathematics, statistics all standard mathematical signs, symbols and abbreviations alternate hypothesis base of natural logarithm catch per unit effort coefficient of variation common test statistics confidence interval correlation coefficient (multiple) correlation coefficient (simple) covariance degree (angular ) degrees of freedom expected value greater than greater than or equal to harvest per unit effort less than less than or equal to logarithm (natural) logarithm (base 10) logarithm (specify base) minute (angular) not significant null hypothesis percent probability probability of a type I error (rejection of the null hypothesis when true) probability of a type II error (acceptance of the null hypothesis when false) second (angular) standard deviation standard error variance population sample Ha e CPUE cv (F, t, X, etc.) cl R cov df > HPUE In log logo, etc. NS % 2m sD SE Var Var SPECIAL PUBLICATION NO. 11-01 INSTREAM FLOW PROTECTION IN ALASKA, 1999-2009 by Joe Klein Division of Sport Fish, Anchorage Alaska Department of Fish and Game SF, Research and Technical Services 333 Raspberry Road, Anchorage, Alaska, 99518-1565 This investigation was partially financed by the Federal Aid in Sport Fish Restoration Act (16 U.S.C. 777- 777K) under Project F-10-14 through F-10-25, Job Number H-1. The Special Publication series was established by the Division of Sport Fish in 1991 for the publication of techniques and procedures manuals, informational pamphlets, special subject reports to decision-making bodies, symposia and workshop proceedings, application software documentation, in-house lectures, and became a joint divisional series in 2004 with the Division of Commercial Fisheries. Special Publications are intended for fishery and other technical professionals. Special Publications are available through the Alaska State Library, Alaska Resources Library and Information Services (ARLIS) and on the Internet: http://www.sf.adfg.state.ak.us/statewide/divreports/html/intersearch.cfm. This publication has undergone editorial and peer review. Joe Klein Alaska Department of Fish and Game, Division of Sport Fish, Research and Technical Services 333 Raspberry Road, Anchorage, Alaska, USA This document should be cited as: Klein, J. 2011. Instream Flow Protection in Alaska, 1999-2009. Alaska Department of Fish and Game, Special Publication No. 11-01, Anchorage. The Alaska Department of Fish and Game (ADF&G) administers all programs and activities free from discrimination based on race, color, national origin, age, sex, religion, marital status, pregnancy, parenthood, or disability. The department administers all programs and activities in compliance with Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973, Title Il of the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) of 1990, the Age Discrimination Act of 1975, and Title LX of the Education Amendments of 1972. If you believe you have been discriminated against in any program, activity, or facility please write: ADF&G ADA Coordinator, P.O. Box 115526, Juneau, AK 99811-5526 U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, 4401 N. Fairfax Drive, MS 2042, Arlington, VA 22203 Office of Equal Opportunity, U.S. Department of the Interior, 1849 C Street NW MS 5230, Washington DC 20240 The department’s ADA Coordinator can be reached via phone at the following numbers: (VOICE) 907-465-6077, (Statewide Telecommunication Device for the Deaf) 1-800-478-3648, (Juneau TDD) 907- 465-3646, or (FAX) 907-465-6078 For information on alternative formats and questions on this publication, please contact: ADF&G SF, Research and Technical Services, 333 Raspberry Road, Anchorage AK 99518 (907) 267-2375. TABLE OF CONTENTS LIST OF FIGURES LIST OF TABLES.. LIST OF APPENDICES ...........csssssssssesssssssssessssessessssessessessssssscsnsssssucssssesssssessessssssscenscussesessusssssssnsenssesseasesssansssensssensness ii ABSTRACT 0... cccccccsescsesessesesessesseseeseseesesssesssesscscsssvsuescscssscscaauceesscsusnsscsusacscacsusneacsesucaearsssaesususasacsesucacsesieaneacaneneeeneneeets 1 INTRODUCTION ......c.cccsccssssesssssssssssessssseesesessesssssssecsesnssussessssussessussucsucsessessssussesessussessssucsecsessesussussessesnesesseenssneaeeneeees 1 BA CR GROUND irrsiccssvonssertscautertarvssstavsscsstcsasedvaasetoeactacusveat/usactobasasnushobons n¥esssnn5asusnssusleussonusvsexastsedsateusosdecsdoctstaidiesasesss 2 Reservations of Water ... Nominations Data Compilation, Collection, and Analysis Biological Data Hydrological Data . Instream Flow Analysis Adjudication PROGRAM ACTIVITIES RESET VAUONS: OF W ACT rece ra osm ese rexeeucesccurensceasctedorercsasdcadocsideasotseseneietriqusuepauedeatusaaed qi0rsevtstatasacoistpetiatysects ctereieacsiceserts 5 Hydrologic Investigations..........cccsssssesesesesesssesscsesesscsesucscsesenesesessesuenesusnesesueuesesesueseseensuesesueneaeseeneaeeeeaeaueneneseeeseaenenees 6 Region I Peterson Creek. Sitkoh Creek... Chilkoot River. Cowee Creek Lost River. Region II.. Lower Talarik Creek . Sheep Creek .............. MatSu Instream Flow Project (Fish, Meadow, Wasilla and Moose Creeks).. Meadow and Fish Creeks Wasilla Creek ... Moose Creek.. 10 Stariski Creek..... 10 Little Campbell Creek .. 10 Region III. 11 Chatanika River.. Hydroelectric Project Licensing..... 11 State Jurisdiction of Small Hydroelectric Projects Alaska Clean Water Actions Program Instream Flow Education, Training & Outreach Program OBSTACLES TO INSTREAM FLOW PROTECTION Hydrological Data Limitations .........c.ccccccscsesssssssesesessssesnenesnesesesesesesesescecseseacscsescacacacscsescasscsesssesesescscseacacscseacetseeeeaatee 14 DNR Adjudications .........ceeecessssessessesessesessneseseenesesesnenesesnesesessesesesucaesueacensasssenessseansssssasanenssssueacanauesesesueseseseseeacacaceuenees 15 RECOMMENDATION G.........ccssssssesssssssssssecesesescscscssscsesescscsesesesesesescseseseseseeseuesssasasasasasaeseseseseseseseseseseseacacasasseeeseeaeates 15 ACKNOWLEDGMENTS ........cessesssssssssssesesssescscscscscscsescscscsesesesesesessenssesesssucsssesssssasssasseseseseseseseseseseseaesescacacaeseessneas 16 REFERENCES CITED ...........ssssscssssssssoonssrsscssssscesasesesssscosesssacasassvscnsonsssscssosssssosessssssssasasaeasscssneseasensssensasacssacacacscesecess 17 FIGURES AND TABLES......cesessesssessssssssssecsesesesesesesesesesesenesesesesesesesescsesesesesusssuesasasasaacscaeseaeacseseaeacscacsescacacecaeeaeaeasas 19 TABLE OF CONTENTS (Continued) Page APPENDIX A DIVISION OF SPORT FISH REGION I PRIORITIZATION PROCESS... 39 APPENDIX B DIVISION OF SPORT FISH REGION II AND III PRIORITIZATION PROCESS...... 45 APPENDIX C LITTLE CAMPBELL CREEK LIST OF FIGURES Figure 1. Location of ADF&G reservation of water sites in Alaska except Southeast.. 2. Location of ADF&G reservation of water sites in Southeast Alaska. ........ 3. Location of ADF&G certificates of reservation in Alaska except Southeast. Ns 4. Location of ADF&G certificates of reservation sites in Southeast Alaska. ..........ceecssceseeseseseeteseeetesteteneseenes 23 6. Location of Statewide Aquatic Resources Coordination Unit hydrologic projects in Alaska except SOUMMCASE Mere st. isceteslcssserssnseroutdssecgiecssstitrasdstboatitenssueccutesescndstenttiicasteedsedeendetracteetontisdecsheteersetnasittheallttneateae 25 s Location of Statewide Aquatic Resources Coordination Unit hydrologic projects in Southeast Alaska 9. Annual Alaska Clean Water Actions grant funds provided for state fiscal years 2002-2009 LIST OF TABLES Table Page 1. Summary of reservation of water applications filed with the Department of Natural Resources as of December 2009. . +28 2. Summary of ADF&G reservation of water applications filed with the Department of Natural Resources 88/Of December 2009. Lcinscsscressnssarsnrenseaserossstnoatutteotossesusinsssnedesuspaccsseresusstnonsereatveteotuesacntaresttteadtiteentisscesnse 29 3. Summary of ADF&G reservation of water applications that have been adjudicated by the Department of Natural Resources as of December 2009. ........cecssssssssssesessssesessesesesessscseeesnsuesesesueaeseseeeacaeseeeseeeeeeneeeeeees 33 4. Summary of hydrologic investigations performed by the Statewide Aquatic Resources Coordination Unit as of December 2009... 234 5. Summary of Federal Energy Regulatory Commission hydroelectric and hydrokinetic projects in Alaska monitored by ADF&G as of December 2009. .........ccescssessesesseseessscsescsescsesesnsecseseencsescsesueaseeseeseeaneneaeeeeeees 36 6. Summary of U.S. Geological Survey stream gage sites in Alaska from 1908 to September 30, 2009 and FOR |W ASCr | Y Car 20 Ooi ell leassttdsentanaeesetsrssdeneonsnstnsetanssatinnooussesustisesttensnsstaceasesassiearestnenestrarsesserseetesteatuena seed 38 LIST OF APPENDICES Appendix Page Al. _ Division of Sport Fish Region I prioritization process B1. Division of Sport Fish Regions II and III Prioritization Process. Cl. Little Campbell Creek Mean Daily Flows in cubic feet per second for Water Year 2006. C2. Little Campbell Creek Mean Daily Flows in cubic feet per second for Water Year 2007. C3. Water Quality Results for Little Campbell Creek at site LCC1. ... C4. Water Quality Results for Little Campbell Creek at site LCC2. ... C5. Water Quality Results for North Fork Campbell Creek at site NFLCC.. D1. ADF&G Division of Sport Fish Instream Flow Training Program. ........ “46 56 ii ABSTRACT This report summarizes instream flow protection and related activities of the Alaska Department of Fish and Game (ADF&G) from 1999 through 2009. The status of reservation of water applications by other agencies and the private sector in Alaska is also presented. Alaska Department of Natural Resources (DNR) received 359 applications for reservations of water from ADF&G, federal agencies, and the private sector as of December 2009. ADF&G completed reservation of water applications on 112 river systems and 1 lake. DNR issued certificates of reservations for 26 ADF&G applications for rivers and one for a lake; one BLM application for a river; and for one river and lake under the water export provision. In 2002, a Memorandum of Understanding was signed between DNR and ADF&G to assist with the increasing backlog of reservation of water applications needing adjudication and to improve the overall process. Staff from the Statewide Aquatic Resources Coordination Unit (SARCU) performed hydrologic investigations on 72 sites. Investigations were generally performed to provide the necessary data to complete reservation of water applications. Stream gages were operated at 44 sites, discharge measurements were collected at 27 sites, and stage readings were collected from one site. ADF&G monitored 68 existing and proposed Federal Energy Regulatory Commission hydroelectric and hydrokinetic projects. SARCU serves as ADF&G’s representative for the Alaska Clean Waters Actions program which is a collaboration with Alaska Department of Environmental Conservation and DNR to protect, assess, and restore Alaska’s waters and aquatic habitat. SARCU also supports an instream flow training, education and outreach program to empower the public to be good stewards of Alaska’s water resources. Key words: instream flow, reservation of water, water rights, adjudication, Alaska Water Use Act, Peterson Creek, Sitkoh Creek, Chilkoot River, Cowee Creek, Lost River, Lower Talarik Creek, Sheep Creek, Fish Creek, Meadow Creek, Wasilla Creek, Moose Creek, Stariski Creek, Little Campbell Creek, Chatanika River, Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, hydroelectric, hydrokinetic, Alaska Clean Water Actions, instream flow education, training, and outreach. INTRODUCTION The State of Alaska has abundant and diverse sport fisheries that are of considerable recreational importance to anglers and others. To date, approximately 17,000 water bodies in Alaska have been identified as supporting anadromous and resident fish species (Johnson and Klein 2009). It is assumed there are many others that have yet to be investigated. In 2008, an estimated 477,281 anglers fished 2,315,601 days and harvested approximately 3 million fish of over 7 million caught in Alaska (Jennings et al. 2010). The continued production of these fishery resources depends, in part, upon sufficient amounts of good quality water to maintain seasonal fish habitat requirements in rivers, lakes, and related habitats. Fish and other aquatic and terrestrial organisms have adapted to natural streamflow regimes that provide essential seasonal habitats utilized by the various life stages of each species. For fish species using freshwater and estuarine habitats, the various life history activities of migration, feeding, rearing, reproduction, and incubation require different seasonal quantities of flowing waters or lake volumes to sustain aquatic habitat needs (Hynes 1970; Estes 1984; Hill et al. 1991; Poff et al. 1997; Bovee et al. 1998; Annear et al. 2004). Water uses such as hydroelectric power, mining, petroleum production, water supply (including out-of-state water export), forestry, and agriculture, have the potential to change both the riparian and aquatic habitat conditions needed to support productive fish and wildlife populations. These developments may adversely impact fish production and passage unless sufficient amounts of water are maintained within water bodies during appropriate time periods to provide for important habitat functions and waterway access. BACKGROUND The Fish and Game Act (AS 16) requires Alaska Department of Fish and Game (ADF&G), to "\.manage, protect, maintain, improve, and extend the fish, game and aquatic plant resources of the state in the interest of the economy and general well-being of the state” (AS 16.05.020). ADF&G has the authority to use a variety of legal, regulatory and administrative options to quantify and acquire water rights that will protect water quantities within lotic’ and lentic” water bodies to sustain fish and wildlife resources (AS 16.05.050). Fish habitat permits (AS 16.05.841 and .871) are issued by the department as one of the tools to retain sufficient amounts of water in lotic and lentic fish-bearing systems. Fish habitat permitting authority also provides equal footing to the department with respect to departmental recommendations to the Alaska Department of Natural Resources (DNR) to balance public interest considerations (under AS 46.15.080) if the water allocation in question has the potential to impact a fish-bearing water body. ADF&G and DNR have agreed to coordinate water right and fish habitat permits to ensure permit conditions are consistent. These two agencies’ statutory tools pertaining to consideration and protection of instream flows in rivers and water levels in lakes were complimented by passage of an amendment to the Alaska’s Water Act in 1980, commonly called the Instream Flow Law. Alaska’s water laws treat the term instream flow more broadly than most states’ jurisdictions because the term may be used to refer to the rate or volume of flow in a river, the volume of water in a lake, or a related physical attribute such as water depth for identified resource(s) and value(s). Water rights to retain water in lentic and lotic habitats can be acquired from DNR by a private individual, group, or government agency for one or a combination of four purposes: e protection of fish and wildlife habitat, migration, and propagation; e recreation and park purposes; e navigation and transportation purposes; and e sanitation and water quality purposes. Alaska’s water law follows the prior appropriation doctrine which assigns seniority of water rights in the order they are filed (Alaska Constitution, Article VIII, Section 13). Under Alaska water law (AS 46.15.145) and regulations (11 AAC 93.970), an appropriation of water to retain water within a water body for any of these purposes may also be defined as a “reservation of water”. The term, “reservation of water” is often used to differentiate between retaining water within lotic or lentic water bodies versus out of stream withdrawals.* It is important to note that passage of the instream flow amendment expanded the meaning of appropriation to represent all water rights uses. However, an appropriation is still more commonly associated with out-of- stream and diversionary uses/water rights while the term reservation typically refers to retention of water within a lotic and lentic water body (Estes 1998). Further information related to Lotic refers to flowing waters such as rivers and streams. Lentic refers to still waters such as lakes and ponds. > Memorandum from F. Rue, ADF&G Director of the Division of Habitat to G. Gustafon, DNR Director of Division of Land and Water Management, August 10, 1989 reaffirmed by ADF&G and DNR on December 16, 2009. Withdrawals can be from surface or subsurface water sources. Alaska's reservation of water law can be found in Curran and Dwight (1979), White (1982), Anderson (1991), Harle and Estes (1993), Spence (1995), Estes (1998), and Burkardt (2000). The Statewide Aquatic Resources Coordination Unit (SARCU) was created in 1986 within the Division of Sport Fish (SF) to acquire water rights for the protection of sport fish resources and related instream uses. SARCU staff also performed technical analyses of proposed and existing water developments and provided recommendations for local, state and federal permits to mitigate negative impacts to fish and wildlife production and habitat. Over time, the program has expanded to address other issues such as hydroelectric licensing under the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC), the Alaska Clean Water Actions Program (ACWA), and instream flow education, training, and outreach. This included developing the capacity to collect streamflow data for filing reservation of water applications. The program is largely supported with funding from the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) Sport Fish Restoration Grant Program (Federal Aid) and the Alaska Sustainable Salmon Fund (AKSSF). RESERVATIONS OF WATER To reserve water, a DNR Reservation of Water application must be completed, signed and submitted to DNR with the appropriate application fee, if applicable.” SARCU staff developed an operational plan for completing reservation of water applications to comply with requirements established by state law (AS 46.15.145), state regulations (11 AAC 93.141-147), reservation of water application form instructions, and the State of Alaska Instream Flow Handbook (DNR 1985) when applicable. Following is an overview of the reservation of water process used by ADF&G. Nominations In 1984, ADF&G developed a work plan for nominating water bodies to file for a reservation of water’. This work plan included a list of nominated water bodies. SARCU staff updated the list of nominated water bodies in SF Region 1 in 2001 (Appendix A) and in SF Regions II and III in 2007 (Appendix B). This work plan served as the basis for coordinating with regional management and research staff to nominate water bodies for instream flow protection. Nomination reviews were coordinated by SF regional research coordinators and included input from other staff or agencies that had information on fish resources and/or future water uses in the region. Final selections of a water body to be reserved were made by the SARCU supervisor in consultation with SF regional supervisors or their designees. In general, final selections were based on the importance of a water body to the sport fishery resources for Federal Aid supported projects or salmon and steelhead species for AKSSF funded projects, the likelihood for competing out-of-stream uses, the amount of existing hydrological data, and the ability for other mechanisms’ to provide instream flow protection. There is no charge to state agencies. ® Memorandum from D. W. Collinsworth, ADF&G Commissioner to ADF&G Division Directors, May 30, 1984. Other mechanisms may include fish habitat permits, water right permits, Clean Water Act permits (Section 401 Water Quality Certification, Section 402 National Pollution Discharge Elimination System, and Section 404 Dredge and Fill permits), Special Permits from land management agencies, Coastal Zone Management Act, Federal Power Act. Data Compilation, Collection, and Analysis A reservation of water application needs to include information that substantiates the amount of streamflow or level of water being requested for the selected purpose(s). Applications prepared by ADF&G included biological and hydrological data to support reservations of water for the protection of fish habitat, migration, and propagation. ADF&G strived to collect and analyze all data according to accepted scientific methods and procedures that will meet evidentiary standards and any challenges® that may be filed. Biological Data A variety of sources were used to obtain information needed to document fish use in the selected water body. This information typically included fish distribution and life history periodicity’ data that were summarized from ADF&G biologists, scientific literature, and the Catalog of Waters Important for the Spawning, Rearing or Migration of Anadromous Fishes (e. g., Johnson and Klein 2009). SARCU staff worked with ADF&G and other biologists as needed to compile fish use information. Hydrological Data DNR recommends a minimum of 5 years of continuous streamflow or lake level data to support reservation of water applications. This 5 year recommendation is intended to reduce potential bias that may be associated with intra- and inter-annual hydrologic variability. When available, streamflow data for describing seasonal and long-term hydrologic characteristics and quantifying instream flow needs were obtained from the USGS National Water Information System website.'? When hydrological data were limited or not available, SARCU collected streamflow data in accordance with USGS standards (Rantz and others 1982). Streamflow data collected by SARCU go through an extensive synthesis and review prior to analysis using Statistical Analysis System (SAS) software''. Water Information System Kisters Incorporated (WISKI)® hydrological data management software was used to reduce field data after they were proofed for nonsensical data and transformed into a WISKI@ compliant format. WISKI@ is a Windows-based hydrological time series management system that meets USGS standards for data reduction. Streamflow records obtained from USGS or collected by SARCU were analyzed using the most current version of SAS@ with support from SF biometricians. Simple linear regression was used to extend streamflow data when less than 5 years of data were available, if a suitable, long term stream gage with a concurrent period of record existed. Instream Flow Analysis Under Alaska law, applicants are not required to use a specific method for quantifying instream flow needs (DNR 1985). The burden is on the applicant to choose and defend the approach used. ADF&G used hydrologically based approaches combined with fish use information to quantify instream flow needs for fish. These included analyses based on historic streamflow data (Annear ® Challenges may be filed to contest the validity of the data set, analyses, and rationale for the requested amount of water the department considers necessary. ° Seasonal use of habitat by species and life stage for passage, spawning, incubation, and rearing. '° See http://waterdata.usgs.gov/ak/nwis/sw. '! Product names used in this publication are included for scientific completeness, but do not constitute product endorsement. et al. 2004) and modification of the Tennant Method (Estes 1998; Tennant 1976) calibrated to local hydrologic and biologic conditions. ADF&G recommended streamflow regimes similar to the magnitude, timing, and duration of the natural streamflow regime to maintain seasonal uses of fish habitats by each life history stage. Hydrological characteristics of a river were used as the primary basis to delineate reaches. This information came from various sources including: USGS topographic maps, ADF&G Anadromous Waters Catalog for the appropriate region (e.g. Arctic Region; Johnson and Klein 2009), ADF&G Freshwater Fish Inventory'*, and USGS National Hydrography Database’. Reach boundaries were based on documented fish use and to minimize the differences in streamflows from accretion or reduction. Major tributaries upstream and downstream of the chosen reach were generally selected as reach boundaries. Adjudication Adjudication is the legal process of determining the validity and amount of a water right and includes the settlement of conflicting claims among competing appropriators of record [11 AAC 93.970(1)]. Once DNR makes a determination on the amount of water to reserve, the public is provided 15 days to comment on the decision. After reviewing all public comments and if no further administrative actions are needed, DNR prepares a “Finding of Fact, Conclusion of Law and Decision” document that describes the information and rationale used for the decision. If DNR’s decision is challenged, there is an administrative appeal process with the option to seek further remedy through Alaska’s court system. If the adjudication is successfully completed, DNR will issue a Certificate of Reservation of Water. The certificate will be recorded in the State Recorders Office and will include a description of the water right, any conditions placed on it, and the priority date which establishes the seniority of the water right. PROGRAM ACTIVITIES RESERVATIONS OF WATER Between 1980 and 2009, ADF&G completed reservation of water applications on 117 river systems and 1 lake from a total of 359 applications received by DNR (Figures 1-2 and Tables 1-2). During this same period, DNR issued certificates of reservations for 27 river and one lake application submitted by ADF&G, one river application submitted by BLM, and one river and lake under the water export provision '4 (Figures 3-4, Tables 1 and 3). ADF&G has filed on average four reservation of water applications per year between 1986 and 2009; however, the actual number of applications filed each year has varied (Figure 5). In 2001, ADF&G implemented the Southeast Alaska Instream Flow project to file applications on water bodies supporting salmon and steelhead. This project has contributed substantially to the number of applications filed since 2006. "2 See http://www.adfg.alaska.gov/index.cfm?adfg=ffinventory.main '3 See http://nhd.usgs.gov/data.html 'S Water exported out of one of the six defined hydrologic units requires a mandatory reservation to protect fish resources (AS 46.15.035). In 2002, a Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) was signed between DNR and ADF&G to assist with the increasing backlog of reservation of water applications needing adjudication and to improve the overall process. As part of the agreement, ADF&G partially funds a position at DNR to adjudicate applications. This position also provides assistance with preparing applications and other instream flow related needs. DNR and ADF&G also meet annually to prepare a work plan that prioritizes applications to adjudicate in the coming year and discuss any instream flow issues. HYDROLOGIC INVESTIGATIONS Hydrologic investigations were generally performed to obtain data to either support a new reservation of water application or amend a prior application. SARCU staff performed hydrologic investigations on 72 sites from 1999 through 2009 (Figures 6-7 and Table 4). During this time, stream gages were operated at 44 sites, discharge measurements were collected at 27 sites, and stage readings were collected from one site. The following summaries describe major hydrologic investigations performed by SARCU staff listed by SF regions!°, Region I SF Region I covers Southeast Alaska from Cape Suckling to Dixon Entrance (Figure 8). Peterson Creek Peterson Creek is located in southeast Alaska on Douglas Island near Juneau at the end of North Douglas Highway (Figure 7). The drainage area is approximately 4.1 square miles. The headwaters of the creek drain from the slopes of 3,130-foot Mt. Meek and flows into Fritz Cove. Coho salmon (Oncorhynchus kisutch), chum salmon (QO. keta), pink salmon (O. gorbuscha), cutthroat trout (O. clarki), and Dolly Varden char (Salvelinus malma) utilize the creek. USGS operated a stream gage on Peterson (Station #15109048) from 1998 to 2004, approximately 1.5 miles upstream from the mouth. From 2001 to 2005, ADF&G staff operated four stream gages on Peterson Creek tributaries and higher reaches of the mainstem. Nine reaches were filed for reservations of water in 2008. Sitkoh Creek Sitkoh Creek is located in Southeast Alaska on southeastern Chichagof Island across Chatham Strait from the community of Angoon (Figure 7). The creek supports coho, sockeye (O. nerka), chum, and pink salmon, cutthroat, rainbow and steelhead trout (O. mykiss), and Dolly Varden char. Sitkoh Creek produces between 400 and 1,000 adult steelhead a year'® and is a popular sport- fishing destination. In 2007, ADF&G completed a steelhead carrying capacity project and in 2009, ADF&G completed a multi-year steelhead population assessment (Crupi et al. Jn prep). Portions of the watershed around the lake have been logged. Angoon residents participate in a subsistence fishery in the creek mainly for sockeye but also for pink, coho, and chum salmon. '5 The state is divided into three SF administrative regions — Southeast, Southcentral and Southwest, and the Arctic-Yukon- Kuskokwim regions. Each region roughly corresponds to the Board of Fish regulatory areas. '© Statewide electronic fish ticket database. Ist edition. Alaska Department of Fish and Game, Division of Commercial Fisheries, accessed May 1, 2009. Three stream reaches were identified for filing reservation of water applications. ADF&G staff installed a stream gage at the outlet of Sitkoh Lake in June 2006 and it will remain operational until November 2011. Chilkoot River The Chilkoot River, located near the community of Haines, supports coho, sockeye, chum, and pink salmon, cutthroat trout, and eulachon (Thaleichthys pacificus)(Figure 7). Chilkoot Lake and the lower portion of the Chilkoot River are easily accessible by road and compose one of the largest freshwater sport fisheries in Southeast Alaska. The Chilkoot River drainage is one of the two largest contributors of wild sockeye salmon to the commercial drift gillnet fisheries in Lynn Canal. Chilkoot River sockeye salmon are also harvested in a subsistence fishery near the mouth in Lutak Inlet. Since 1976, ADF&G has maintained a salmon counting weir on the Chilkoot River, between the Chilkoot Lake outlet and the Chilkoot River Bridge, to monitor the strength of sockeye salmon runs in northern Lynn Canal as they return to Chilkoot Lake. The reservation reach begins at the river mouth at Lutak Inlet and extends upstream to the outlet of Chilkoot Lake. ADF&G staff installed a stream gage in 2007 near the lake outlet. The gage will remain in operation through October 2012. A reservation of water application was filed for this reach in 2009. After hydrological data collection and analysis is complete, the existing application will be amended if necessary. Cowee Creek Cowee Creek is located approximately 40 miles north of Juneau within the temperate coastal rainforest of Southeast Alaska (Figure 7). It supports coho, chum, and pink salmon, cutthroat and steelhead trout, and Dolly Varden char. The majority of the Cowee Creek watershed is within the Tongass National Forest with the lower portion located within Point Bridget Alaska State Park. The watershed has a drainage area of approximately 46 square miles and is bounded by snow and glacier covered mountains that reach up to 5,894 feet in elevation. Cowee Creek flows in a northwesterly direction approximately six miles into Berners Bay. Two main tributaries, South Fork Cowee Creek and Davies Creek, enter the mainstem from the south and north respectively. The lower portion of the Cowee Creek watershed consists of low gradient meadows, meandering streams, and rocky beach fringe. Cowee Creek is a popular freshwater sport fishing destination among Juneau area anglers due to its productive fisheries, road system access, and the three public use cabins that are nearby (Suchanek and Bingham 1990). ADF&G staff installed a stream gage just below the Glacier Highway Bridge and plan to keep it in operation until October 2012. A reservation of water application was submitted to DNR in 2009. After hydrological data collection is complete and analyzed, the application will be amended, if necessary. Lost River The Lost River is located near the community of Yakutat and supports coho, sockeye, and pink salmon, cutthroat and steelhead trout, Dolly Varden char, and eulachon (Figure 7). Lost River is the smallest system in southeast Alaska to have established coho salmon escapement goals (R. A. Clark, Fisheries Scientist, ADF&G, Anchorage, August 12, 2010, personal communication). In 2003, ADF&G estimated the total abundance of coho salmon in the Lost River system was 23,685 fish (Clark et al. 2006). An estimated 6,000 Lost River bound coho salmon are harvested in the commercial troll fishery per year (Clark and Clark 1994). From 1972 to 1999, coho salmon harvests in the Lost River commercial set gill net fishery averaged about 6,000 fish per year. The commercial set gill net harvest of coho salmon is now closed at the mouth of the Lost River to protect the stock. Anglers caught an average of 1,000 coho per year over the past 15 years. A small number of coho salmon are also harvested in a subsistence fishery (Clark et al. 2006). Annual peak escapement counts the last five years indicated a downward trend in the Lost River coho and sockeye salmon stocks. ADF&G staff installed a stream gage in 2006 and will keep it operational until October 2012. Reservation of water applications will be submitted to DNR for five reaches. After hydrological data collection is completed and the data have been analyzed, amendments will be filed to update existing applications, if needed. Region II SF Region II covers portions of Southcentral and Southwest Alaska including the Prince William Sound, Kenai Peninsula, Kenai River Drainage, Cook Inlet—-Resurrection Bay Saltwater, Anchorage Bowl Drainages, Knik Arm, Susitna River Drainage, West Cook Inlet, Kodiak, Bristol Bay, and the Alaska Peninsula and Aleutian Islands (Figure 8). Lower Talarik Creek Lower Talarik Creek is a tributary to Lake Iliamna located in southwest Alaska (Figure 6). The creek supports Chinook (O. tshawytscha), coho, sockeye, chum, and pink salmon, rainbow trout, Arctic grayling (Thymallus arcticus), Arctic char (S. alpines), Dolly Varden char, round (Prosopium cylindraceum) and broad whitefish (Coregonus nasus), burbot (Lota lota), and northern pike (Esox /ucius). The lower portion of the creek is accessible by plane and is a world- renowned angling destination for trophy rainbow trout. Mining claims have been filed in the upper drainage but so far have not been developed. The Nature Conservancy (TNC), under a cooperative agreement with DNR and ADF&G, purchased land adjacent to Lower Talarik Creek for the protection of fish, wildlife, and aesthetic values and the long-term health of the watershed. Portions of this area were designated as the Lower Talarik Creek Special Use Area (ADL 227445). A reservation of water application for Lower Talarik Creek was filed in 2000 with the intent to collect five years of data and amend the application if needed. The hydrological data used to support this initial application was based on a regional regression model and hydrological records collected by USGS at nearby Iliamna River. In October 2001, ADF&G staff with the assistance of TNC staff, installed a stream gage at approximately river mile 1.5 on the mainstem, below the confluence of an unnamed tributary (referred to as West Fork Lower Talarik Creek). The gage was relocated to the opposite bank in 2002 due to aufeis and flooding and operated at this site through September 2007. In July 2003, ADF&G staff installed a stream gage on West Fork Lower Talarik Creek at the outlet of an unnamed lake. This gage operated for a year and was used to acquire a short-term record to be extended using streamflow records collected at the mainstem gage. The reservation of water application for the mainstem was amended in 2005 to include approximately two years of additional streamflow data. An application was filed for the West Fork Lower Talarik Creek in December 2004. Sheep Creek Sheep Creek crosses the Parks Highway approximately 25 miles south of Talkeetna (Figure 6). Sheep Creek is a popular sport fishing and tourist destination that is easily accessible from the state’s largest population center. The stream supports Chinook, coho, chum, and pink salmon, rainbow trout, Arctic grayling, and Dolly Varden char. It is reputed for its runs of Chinook salmon with individuals attaining weights in excess of 70 pounds. The stream is also becoming more popular as a fall rainbow trout fishery. These values, along with high land and natural resources development potential led ADF&G staff to nominate Sheep Creek for instream flow protection. ADF&G staff operated a stream gage on Sheep Creek since fall 2005. The gage will remain in operation until fall 2010. The reservation reach for Sheep Creek extends from the confluence with Goose Creek upstream of the Parks Highway downstream to the Susitna River. Within this reach, the river is characterized as a relatively low gradient stream with winding meanders. MatSu Instream Flow Project (Fish, Meadow, Wasilla and Moose Creeks) ADF&G initiated the Matanuska-Susitna (MatSu) Instream Flow project in 2008 to target high priority water bodies in the area for instream flow protection. Meadow, Fish, Wasilla, and Moose Creeks support salmon and resident fish populations and were deemed high priority for receiving instream flow protection by ADF&G staff and the Matanuska-Susitna (MatSu) Basin Salmon Conservation Partnership (MSCP; Figure 6). Streamflow data collected during this project will be used to file new and update existing reservation of water applications. The project will continue until 2013, if funding is received. Meadow and Fish Creeks Meadow Creek is the primary surface water source for Big Lake; Fish Creek flows out of Big Lake into Knik Arm. This drainage is a major wild and hatchery-enhanced sockeye salmon producing system. The Big Lake state hatchery operated on Meadow Creek from 1975 to 1993 and was closed due to years of mediocre success and increasing costs. Until 2007, Cook Inlet Aquaculture Association continued to collect eggs from sockeye salmon at Meadow Creek and incubated them at the Trail Lakes Hatchery. Fry and smolts were then returned to Meadow Creek and Big Lake. Fish Creek, Big Lake and Meadow Creek are on ACWA’s list of high priority streams, primarily due to poor water quality and concerns over fish habitat integrity. Big Lake is one of the most popular water-recreational destinations in the state. ADF&G filed reservation of water applications for two reaches on Fish Creek and one reach on Meadow Creek in 1988. Streamflow data used in these applications were based on regional regression analyses and supported by a few instantaneous discharge measurements. Seasonal streamflow variability was based on nearby Cottonwood Creek. DNR requested and ADF&G agreed to obtain 5-years of continuous streamflow data on both Meadow and Fish Creek. In July 2008, ADF&G staff installed stream gages on lower Fish Creek and lower Meadow Creek, and established discharge measurement sites on upper Fish Creek and upper Meadow Creek. Interestingly, streamflow summaries from Fish and Meadow creek sites to date are similar to predictions from the regional regression and seasonal streamflow variability analysis that was used for the original applications. These creeks are predominately lake and ground-water fed; therefore seasonal variation in streamflows is relatively low. Inter-annual variation may also be low for the same reasons. ADF&G contracted the Wasilla Soil and Water Conservation District (WSWCD) to measure discharge and collect water quality information on Fish and Meadow creeks including dissolved oxygen, specific conductivity, pH, nitrates, phosphorus, and fecal coliform. ADF&G provided training and assisted WSWCD staff as needed with streamflow data collection efforts. Wasilla Creek USGS was contracted to operate a stream gage on Wasilla Creek (Station #15285000) with funding from Alaska Department of Transportation and Public Facilities (ADOT&PF) and the USFWS. ADF&G staff have considered Wasilla Creek a high priority for instream flow protection since 1984. A reservation of water for Wasilla Creek was filed in December 2009. Wasilla Creek is an important waterway for two state Special Areas, the Matanuska Valley Moose Range and the Palmer Hayflats Wildlife Refuge. It supports wildlife habitat and provides essential habitat for anadromous fishes that contribute to recreational and commercial fisheries including sockeye, pink, coho, chum and Chinook salmon, and rainbow trout. Moose Creek The MatSu Instream Flow project will fund a USGS stream gage (Station #15283700) on Moose Creek to complete 5 years of streamflow records. The Chickaloon Traditional Village Council (CTVC) with support from other agencies and the MSCP have been restoring fish passage and improving habitat complexity on Moose Creek, a tributary to the Matanuska River. USFWS and CTVC previously funded the stream gage for 4 years. CTVC will file a reservation of water application for Moose Creek. Stariski Creek Stariski Creek is located on the Kenai Peninsula approximately 15 miles north of Homer (Figure 6). It was nominated in 2006 by SF staff as a high priority stream for a reservation of water. Stariski Creek supports small to moderate runs of Chinook and coho salmon, and steelhead trout. In 2006 the non-profit organization Cook Inlet Keepers (CIK) was awarded several grants to monitor an ADOT&PF project to construct a bridge in place of a culvert that was damaged by floods in 2002. This work included measuring discharge, which created an opportunity for ADF&G to work with CIK to obtain information needed to file a reservation of water application. ADF&G agreed to provide hydrological supplies, manage and analyze the data, and assist with field work as needed. A stream gage was installed approximately a quarter- mile upstream from the new Sterling Highway Bridge in June 2006. Since 2006, ADF&G and CIK have jointly operated the stream gage. CIK obtained AKSSF funds to continue operating the stream gage through June 2011. Records collections prior to 2008 were limited to open water periods because winter discharge measurements were not collected due to funding and staff limitations. Little Campbell Creek Little Campbell Creek (LCC) is a small, urban stream flowing through the Municipality of Anchorage (MOA; Figure 6). Although the headwaters of LCC remain undeveloped, most of the lower reaches of the watershed are heavily urbanized. Since 2004, municipal, university, state, and federal biologists have observed high levels of mortality in juvenile salmon in the creek 10 during storm runoff periods. In partnership with the Anchorage Waterways Council (AWC), ADF&G collected one year of water quantity and quality data as a preliminary assessment of the causes for the high levels of fish mortality. Water quality and streamflow results are included in Appendix C to provide baseline information for any future research. ADF&G installed a stream gage upstream from the confluence with Campbell Creek. Streamflow data were collected from May 2006 through July 2007. MOA partnered with AWC to continue operation of the gage after ADF &G project concluded. Water quality samples were collected on February 20, 2007 from two locations, near the confluence with Campbell Creek and at the stream gage, and one location in North Fork LCC. The samples were analyzed for metals, nutrients, and organic and inorganic contaminants. No water quality standards were exceeded and results appeared similar to nearby streams. However, given that the samples were collected in the winter, these findings were not surprising. Sediments and other contaminants normally enter the stream during spring break up and warmer months of the year. Turbidity is suspected as a leading cause for fish mortalities. Region II SF Region III covers the upper Copper River and upper Susitna River areas and the Arctic- Yukon-Kuskokwim Region including the North Slope, Northwestern, Yukon River, Tanana River, and Kuskokwim-Goodnews areas (Figure 8). Chatanika River Chatanika River is located approximately 20 miles north of Fairbanks (Figure 6). The river supports Chinook, coho, and chum salmon, Arctic grayling, round and humpback whitefish (C. pidschian), burbot, inconnu (Stenodus leucichthys), and northern pike. In 1991, ADF&G filed two reservation of water applications. However, the hydrologic period of record for both applications was from 1907 to 1912 and only contained records for May through September. DNR requested and ADF&G agreed to obtain more streamflow data. In 2005, USGS installed a stream gage near Poker Creek (Station #15534800). University of Alaska Fairbanks (UAF) researchers concurrently operated a stream gage on Poker Creek and there were historical USGS streamflow records from 1971 to 1978. The creek was separated into 4 reaches upstream to the confluence of Faith and McManus Creeks. Discharge measurements were collected on each reach in 2008 during June, July, August, and October. Streamflow records at USGS gage 15534800 will be extended using a long-term USGS gage on the Chena River. Seasonal and long-term hydrologic characteristics will be estimated using an analysis of historical streamflow records. These analyses are expected to be completed in the summer of 2010. HYDROELECTRIC PROJECT LICENSING FERC administers the Federal Power Act (FPA), which governs the regulation of hydroelectric projects in the United States, among other duties. FERC issues licenses!” that specify how projects will be constructed, operated and any mitigation measures. FERC licenses specify how streamflows will be allocated between energy generation and other beneficial uses recognized by the FPA and other applicable laws (Roos-Collins and Gantenbein 2005). "7 A FERC license has a term of 30 to 50 years, subject to renewal. 11 The FPA affords considerable weight and due deference to ADF&G, as the state’s fish and wildlife agency. If FERC does not accept all of ADF&G’s recommendations, they must attempt to resolve any such inconsistency, giving due weight to the department’s authority and expertise. The FERC process is complex, lengthy, and deadline-driven. Each project is unique, usually with specific project features and issues. Prior to 1998, ADF&G’s review of FERC hydroelectric projects was handled on a regional basis. To provide better consistency and interdepartmental coordination, a position was created in SARCU to oversee statewide coordination efforts for all FERC jurisdictional projects and to ensure all legal and administrative requirements were met. Most hydroelectric projects in Alaska are licensed by FERC; however, smaller and federally-constructed projects may fall outside FERC’s jurisdiction. Under the FERC process, applicants first obtain a preliminary permit that gives them three years to study the project’s feasibility. If the applicant is still interested in pursuing the project, they must submit a license application and environmental review document before the end of the permit term. ADF&G plays an important role in assisting the applicant in the design of study plans for fish and wildlife resources. The licensing process typically takes two years after a license application is filed with FERC and includes an environmental review in accordance with the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA). ADF&G monitored 68 existing and proposed FERC hydroelectric and hydrokinetic projects (Table 5). ADF&G assisted applicants to obtain information needed to prepare license applications and provided recommendations for FERC licenses and regulatory permits'*, and issued department permits’. Interest in hydroelectric power has increased recently and is expected to continue for the foreseeable future as energy prices remain high and the state seeks solutions for the railbelt’s aging power generation infrastructure. State Jurisdiction of Small Hydroelectric Projects Alaska has more new hydroelectric development underway than any other state’. To streamline licensing requirements, U.S. Senator Frank Murkowski introduced Senate Bill 422 in 1999 to exempt Alaska from FERC jurisdiction for projects that are five megawatts (MW) or less and provide for jurisdiction by the State of Alaska. The bill passed congress in 2000 and the state legislature in 2002. The Regulatory Commission of Alaska (RCA) was charged with adopting regulations to develop a program. From 2003 through 2005, RCA held stakeholder meetings with agencies, industry and the public to prepare draft regulations followed by public hearings. In 2006, RCA closed the docket citing its inability to conclude the complex regulations within the statutory timeline. However, in 2008 RCA opened a new docket but has not contacted ADF&G regarding any further action. ALASKA CLEAN WATER ACTIONS PROGRAM SARCU serves as ADF&G’s representative for the Alaska Clean Water Actions program which is a collaboration with Alaska Department of Environmental Conservation and DNR to protect, assess, and restore Alaska’s waters and aquatic habitat”'. ACWA’s database of priority waters 'S Water right permits, ACMP review, and CWA Section 401 certifications if issued. Currently DEC waives all 401 certificates for FERC hydroelectric projects. '° Fish habitat and special area permits, if necessary. 20 See http://www.ferc.gov/for-citizens/projectsearch/SearchProjects.aspx. ?! For more information on ACWA go to www.state.ak.us/dec/water/acwa/acwa_index.htm. 12 and identified stewardship actions is a product of this collaboration. This is accomplished by identifying water bodies that need stewardship actions and directing funding toward the highest priorities. Each agency is responsible for collecting and assessing water body information related to its expertise: ADF &G—aquatic habitat, DEC—water quality, and DNR—water quantity. SARCU is ADF&G’s representative for the ACWA program. From 2002 to 2009, 31 projects were funded from an average annual funding of $730,350 (Figure 9; C. Gilder, Environmental Program Manager, DEC, Anchorage, December 1, 2010, personal communication)”. Projects ranged from stream gaging for instream flow protection to implementing total maximum daily load criteria for pollutants”*. Currently, ACWA receives funding from Clean Water Act-Nonpoint Source Pollution, Coastal Zone Management Act- Coastal Nonpoint Source Pollution Program, DEC Beach Grant, and AKSSF programs. Water bodies can be nominated by agency personnel or by concerned members of the public. Each agency evaluates the information and assigns a priority ranking based on specific criteria. ACWA staff developed a plan with a decision tree diagram that describes the process to be followed.”* ACWA staff use this process to place each water body in one of the following four categories indicating the type of actions that are needed: e “Data Collection and Monitoring” e “Recovery or Restoration” e¢ “Protection and Maintenance” e “Adequately Protected” (no action needed) Water bodies are ranked as high, medium, or lower priority. High priority water bodies may be eligible for project funding through the annual ACWA grant solicitation process. Grant recipients are commonly watershed groups, local governments, and soil and water conservation districts. ACWA tracks information on nominated water bodies through an interagency database. In 2008 there were 392 water bodies listed in the database.”° Of these, 118 were ranked as high priority; 60 for habitat, 52 for water quality, and 6 for water quantity concerns. INSTREAM FLOW EDUCATION, TRAINING & OUTREACH PROGRAM The Instream Flow Education, Training and Outreach program is a technical support service provided by SARCU. This program works with other ADF&G programs and divisions, state and federal agencies, non-profit organizations, and the public throughout the state. Education activities included water education calendar contests, water discovery days, and presentations at schools and with the ADF&G mobile aquatic classroom. Training activities included topics on instream flow, water law, stream discharge measurements, and stream gage installation. Outreach activities included public meetings, conferences, sportsman shows, brochures, and posters. 22 23 For information on ACWA projects see http://www.dec.state.ak.us/water/acwa/acwagrantsproject.htm. Other projects included fecal coliform, turbidity, hydrocarbon, water temperature, and sediment monitoring; storm water discharge mapping; garbage debris removal; and evaluation of forestry best management practices. For information on ACWA’s plan and decision tree diagram see http://www.dec.state.ak.us/water/acwa/acwa_ranking.htm. Alaska’s Final 2008 Integrated Water Quality Monitoring and Assessment Report, April 1, 2008. See http://www.dec.state.ak.us/water/wqsar/waterbody/docs/2008FinalIntegratedReport.pdf. 24 25 13 The goal of the program was to benefit fish and aquatic habitat by empowering agency staff and the public to be successful stewards of Alaska’s waters. SARCU staff provided partners with support such as lending equipment and technical guidance. Appendix D contains further information about this program. OBSTACLES TO INSTREAM FLOW PROTECTION HYDROLOGICAL DATA LIMITATIONS The paucity of hydrological data throughout most of Alaska limits ADF&G’s ability to acquire reservations of water (Estes 1998; Brabets 1996). In Water Year 2009 (from October 1, 2008 to September 30, 2009), USGS operated 116 continuous stream gages in Alaska (D. Meyer, USGS Hydrologist, Anchorage, Alaska, March 23, 2010, personal communication; Table 6). This represents approximately one stream gage per 5,000 square miles, which contrasts significantly with the western United States where there is approximately one gage site per 400 square miles. Daily stage and water surface elevation data are practically nonexistent for the majority of Alaskan lakes. Basic hydrological data are required by water management agencies and all potential water users. These data are necessary for accurate estimates of available streamflows and water volumes. Continuous streamflow and stage data are also necessary to manage and enforce existing water rights. Adding to these challenges, Alaska’s limited road systems, extremes in weather conditions, and loss of equipment to bears and other wildlife can make data collection difficult and expensive. Without long-term streamflow data, hydrologic models must be used. On streams with limited or no streamflow data, using hydrologic models to predict naturally occurring streamflows is difficult at best and often produces estimates with high variability. Furthermore, it is more time consuming to estimate streamflow characteristics for streams having limited or no data as opposed to summarizing data for a stream having an adequate hydrologic record. To address the need for streamflow data, ADF&G is pursuing several actions. Since 2007, SF has provided annual funding for stream gaging efforts. These funds have been leveraged with USGS and other partners when possible, to maximize the collection of streamflow data”®. From 2002 through 2008, ADF&G also provided over $500,000 for the installation and operation of USGS stream gages throughout Southeast Alaska7”. In addition, ADF&G, DNR, and USGS collaborated to implement a StreamStats”® pilot project for the Cook Inlet region. StreamStats is a web-based, geographic information system (GIS) application developed by USGS in cooperation with Environmental Systems Research Institute, Inc. It allows users to obtain streamflow statistics and drainage-basin information for user- selected stream sites. Depending on results from the pilot project, USGS may evaluate the feasibility of statewide implementation. °° Water bodies gaged include: Indian River, Situk River, Chatanika River, Mulchatna River, Stuyahok River, Ophir Creek, Wasilla Creek, Montana Creek, and Stariski Creek. 27 These funds were from an AKSSF grant. Stream gages funded were: Taiya River, Starrigavan Creek, Hobo Creek, Falls Creek, Maybeso Creek, Indian River, and Halfmile Creek. 8 See http://water.usgs.gov/osw/streamstats/. 14 DNR ADJUDICATIONS Since the 2002 MOU between DNR and ADF&G was signed, significant progress has been made toward adjudicating reservation of water applications and reducing the backlog of pending applications. However, DNR only has one position performing these functions. Challenges that arise during the process can take substantial DNR staff time to address, reducing DNR’s ability to complete adjudications. DNR’s adjudicator relies on their hydrologists to review applications and resolve any hydrological issues that may arise. The number of hydrologists working for DNR’s Water Resources Section has been greatly reduced due to retirements and the inability to refill positions. The low number of hydrologists has the potential to significantly decrease DNR’s ability to perform adjudications. To assist DNR with this challenge, ADF&G partially funded a DNR hydrologist position from 2006 through 2009. This effort provided hydrologic support to ADF&G’s Southeast Instream Flow project and to DNR staff for hydrologic reviews and related adjudication support. RECOMMENDATIONS 1) Additional stream gaging stations should be funded to increase baseline hydrological data in Alaska. Stream gaging stations are needed to provide streamflow data that is used by multiple users to develop and improve hydrologic models, monitor floods, and quantify instream flow needs. 2) Legislation should be enacted or regulations established that will guarantee a base level of instream flow protection for all fish bearing waters. Requests for additional instream flows above the base level would still need to use the existing process to acquire a reservation of water. 3) Additional research on habitat suitability criteria for Alaskan fish species is needed. Too often, fish habitat suitability data needed for an instream flow assessment is based on limited or non-Alaskan fish habitat suitability information. Investigations should be conducted over multiple years on fish populations not significantly influenced by human activities so results will reflect conditions needed to sustain natural production. The amount of habitat available versus the amount utilized should be monitored to better understand habitat preference and selection. Fish population dynamics, including exploitation rates, should also be monitored. 4) The adequacy of ADF&G reservations of water certificates should be re-analyzed using state-of-the-art methods for the most important sport fisheries. These investigations should include monitoring fish population dynamics. If results indicate additional water should be reserved, a supplemental reservation of water application should be completed and filed. 5) Out-of-stream appropriations should be automatically reviewed by DNR once every 10 years, similar to reservations of water appropriations. This would allow DNR to better manage Alaska’s water resources and avoid future water use conflicts. 6) ADF&G should review the status and adequacy of all water rights held by the department. This should include an evaluation as to whether the water uses are in compliance with water permit conditions and DNR regulations. Out-of-stream water rights that are relinquished can be transferred to reservation of water certificates with DNR’s approval. 15 7) A fundamental goal commonly identified by educators is to achieve public recognition of the purpose and value for maintaining instream flows and lake volumes in Alaska to sustain healthy fish populations. To address this goal, the approach should include marketing, public training and outreach activities. A key step toward achieving comprehensive outreach is the incorporation of instream flow concepts and activities into other department education programs and the school system. A survey of current public knowledge and opinion on instream flow values and perceptions in Alaska would help guide program development and communication tools. 8) For ACWA to be more effective within ADF&G, a full-time position is needed. This position would enhance ACWA outreach and staff participation throughout the department. Information about aquatic habitat issues are needed to improve the ACWA database. This information can range from fish habitat concerns to documented habitat degradation and can include monitoring data, reports, photographs, and observations. The experience of other states shows that it is prudent to protect instream flows as early as possible in order that these flows and the uses that depend upon them do not have to be protected later, when available water may be scarce and opportunities for protection may be more costly and contentious. ACKNOWLEDGMENTS To Christopher Estes for his mentorship and dedication to instream flow protection in Alaska. It was his ambitious goals and incessant pursuit of instream flow protection that formed the fountain of the program and inspired many individuals who have contributed to the program’s success. To Bob Clark and David Bernard, for their collective wisdom and experience that helped guide the program and this report. To Jim Ferguson, Shawn Johnson, Tom Cappiello, Jason Mouw, Stacie Hall, Kevin Brownlee and Clayton Hawkes for their contributions. To Allen Bingham, Brian Taras, Adam Craig, and Anton Antonvich for biometric support. To the Division of Sport Fish biologist who responded to countless requests for information. To Joanne MacClellan for her knowledge and patience throughout the writing process. 16 REFERENCES CITED Anderson, R. T. 1991. Alaska legislature considers innovative instream flow law. Rivers 2(3):255-261. Annear, T., I. Chisholm, H. Beecher, A. Locke, P. Aarrestad, C. Coomer, C. Estes, J. Hunt, R. Jacobson, G. Jobsis, J. Kauffman, J. Marshall, K. Mayes, G. Smith, R. Wentworth, and C. Stalnaker. 2004. Instream flows for riverine resource stewardship. Revised edition. Instream Flow Council, Cheyenne, Wyoming. Bovee, K. D., B. L. Lamb, J. M. Bartholow, C. B. Stalnaker, J. Taylor, and J. Henriksen. 1998. Stream habitat analysis using the instream flow incremental methodology. U.S. Geological Survey, Biological Resources Division Information and Technology Report USGS/BRD-1998-0004, Fort Collins, Colorado. Brabets, T. P. 1996. Evaluation of the streamflow-gaging network of Alaska in providing regional streamflow information. U.S. Dept. of the Interior, U.S. Geological Survey; prepared in cooperation with the Alaska Department of Natural Resources and U.S. Forest Service. Water-resources investigations report 96-4001, Anchorage. Burkardt, N. 2000. Paradise confounded: the status of Alaska’s instream flow program. Rivers 7(4):361-363. Clark, J. H., and J. E. Clark. 1994. Escapement goals for Yakutat area coho salmon stocks. Alaska Department of Fish and Game, Division of Commercial Fisheries, Regional Information Report 1J94-14, Douglas. Clark, J. H., D. Reed, and M. Tracy. 2006. Abundance of coho salmon in the Lost River System, Yakutat, Alaska, 2003. Alaska Department of Fish and Game, Fishery Data Series No. 06-11, Anchorage. Crupi, A., J. Nichols, B. Frenette, and R. Harding. In prep. Steelhead habitat capability study, Phase I/II: Habitat characterization/fish use on Sitkoh Creek. Alaska Department of Fish and Game, Fishery Data Series, Anchorage. Curran, H. J., and L. P. Dwight. 1979. Analysis of Alaska's Water Use Act and its interaction with federal reserved water rights. Institute of Water Resources, University of Alaska, Fairbanks. DNR (Alaska Department of Natural Resources). 1985. State of Alaska instream flow handbook: a guide to reserving water for instream use. Alaska Department of Natural Resources, Division of Land and Water Management, Water Management Section, Anchorage. Estes, C. C. 1984. Evaluation of methods for recommending instream flows to support spawning by salmon. Master's thesis, Washington State University, Pullman. Estes, C. C. 1998. Annual summary of instream flow reservations and protection in Alaska. Alaska Department of Fish and Game, Fishery Data Series No. 98-40, Anchorage. Harle, M. L., and C. C. Estes. 1993. An assessment of instream flow protection in Alaska. Pages 9-1-9-19 [in] MacDonnell, L.J. and T.A. Rice, editors. 1993. Instream flow protection in the West. Revised Edition. University of Colorado School of Law, Natural Resources Law Center, Boulder. Hill, M. T., W. S. Platts, and R. L. Beschta. 1991. Ecological and geomorphological concepts for instream and out- of-channel flow requirements. Rivers 2(3):198-210. Hynes, H. B. N. 1970. The ecology of running waters. University of Toronto Press, Toronto. Jennings, G. B., K. Sundet, and A. E. Bingham. 2010. Estimates of participation, catch, and harvest in Alaska sport fisheries during 2008. Alaska Department of Fish and Game, Fishery Data Series No. 10-22, Anchorage. Johnson, J., and K. Klein. 2009. Catalog of waters important for spawning, rearing, or migration of anadromous fishes — Arctic Region, Effective June 1, 2009. Alaska Department of Fish and Game, Special Publication No. 09-01, Anchorage. Poff, N. L., J. D. Allan, M. B. Bain, J. R. Karr, K. L. Prestergaard, B. D. Richter, R. Sparks, and J. Stromberg. 1997. The natural flow regime: a paradigm for river conservation and restoration. BioScience 47(11):769-784. Rantz, S. E., and others. 1982. Measurement and computation of streamflow: Volume 1 and 2. Geological Survey Water-Supply Paper 2175, Reston, Va. 17 REFERENCES CITED (Continued) Roos-Collins, R., and J. Gantenbein. 2005. Citizen toolkit for effective participation in hydropower licensing. Hydropower Reform Coalition. http://www.hydroreform.org/hydroguide/hydropower-licensing/citizen-toolkit- for-effective-participation (accessed June 29, 2010). Spence, L. E. 1995. The natural flow regime: a paradigm for river conservation and restoration. Rivers 5(3):222- 226. Suchanek, P. M., and A. E. Bingham. 1990. Harvest estimates for selected enhanced roadside sport fisheries near Juneau, Alaska during 1989. Alaska Department of Fish and Game, Fishery Data Series No. 90-38, Anchorage. Tennant, D. L. 1976. Instream flow regimes for fish, wildlife, recreation, and related environmental resources. Pages 359-373 [in] J. F. Orsborn and Allman, C. H. Editors. , Volume II. Instream flow needs. American Fisheries Society, Bethesda, Maryland. White, M. R. 1982. Opportunities to protect instream flows in Alaska. U.S. Department of the Interior, Fish and Wildlife Service Office of Biological Services, Western Energy and Land Use Team, FWS/OBS-82/33, Washington, D. C. 18 FIGURES AND TABLES 19 07 ADF&G Application Sites ADF&G-Private Application Sites f 3. Anchor River, Reach B 107 Tanana River | 8 Buskin Lake 108 Mulchatna River. Reach A Ue al J 9 Buskin River, Reach A 110 Stuyahok River : —Kebille Rher ua 10 Buskin River. Reach B 111 Lower Talarik River, Reach A& B < 11 Campbell Creek. NF 12 Campbell Creek, Reach A 13 Campbell Creek, Reach B 14 Campbell Crock. SF 16 Chatanika River, Reach A & B 17 Chena River 21 Chuitna River 22 Copper River. Reach A 23. Copper River, Reach B 24 Cottonwood Crock 26 Deception Creek 27 Delta Clearwater River (Clearwater C) 28 Deshka River — 29 Eagle River Nee 32 Fish Creek near Big Lake, Lower vy 33 Fish Crock near Big Lake, Upper 34 Glacier Crock 41 Jim River ne Bottles 43. Karluk River 4. Kasilof River nr Kasilof 4% Kenai River, Reach A 47 Kenai River, Reach B $0 Khaina River at Copper Center $1 Kobuk River $2. Kuparuk River nr Deadhorse 53. Kvichak River at Igiugig $7 Little Rabbit Creek $8 Little Survival Creek $9 Lite Susitna River, Middle © Little Susitna River, Upper 62 Lower Talarik River, Reach C 68 Monashka Creck nr Kodiak {O72 Nenana River, Reach A s \ Ty 12 13,14 24 26 28 lan ous Rive 2932.30 97 9 we Newhalen Riv or Hiamna %6 Ninilchik River at Ninilchik, Reach A | 80 Peters Crk | an Creek | 3 eee nce Map Produced he | Dept. of Fish & Game ae | June 2010 ne | 102 Wasilla Creek wk 104 Willow Creek wo Oa 5 ean 103 Wulik River M Teak Creek ne Kivaling™™™ ~EQ nt 106 Yentna River 109 Mulchatna River, Reach B boca eS NCR z SR RE SSS CRE Sa SR ST I Figure |.—Location of ADF&G reservation of water sites in Alaska except Southeast. 14 1 Alsek River 56 Lemon Creek, upper + Auke Creek 61 Lost River 5 Baranof River, Reach C 63 Maksoutof River 6 Big Creck 64 Maybeso Creck 7 Black River 65 Mendenhall River, Reach A 15 Carlson Creek 67 Mill Creck 18 Chilkat River, ReachA 69 Montana Creck 19 Chilkat River, ReachB = 71 Neck Creck 20 Chillkoot River 77 Old Tom Creek 25 Cowee Creck 78 Paviof River 30 Farnugut River 79 Perkins Crock 31 Fish Creck near Auke Bay 86 Salmon River nr Hyder 35 Hamilton Creek 87 Sashin Creck 3% Harding River 88 Sawmill Creck 37 Harris Creek 89 Sheep Creck 38 Hasselborg Creck 90 Shelikum Creek 39 Hilda Creck 92 Situk River nr Yakutat 40 Indian River nr Sitka 93 Situk River, West Fork _ 42 Jordan Crock 95 Stikine River nr Wrangel | 44 Karta River nr Kasaan 96 Sweetheart Creck 48 Ketchikan Creek 97 Taku River nr Juneau 49 Kichini River nr Klukwan 101 Ward Creck nr Wacker | ADF&G-Private Application Sites | ADF&G Application Sites 54 Lake Creck 103 Whipple Creck 55 Lemon Creck, lower Dept. of Fish & Game 112 Duck Creek June 2010 Figure 2.-Location of ADF&G reservation of water sites in Southeast Alaska. CZ _Colvite River 1 Terror River 2 Little Survival Creek 3 Rabbit Creek 4 Rabbit Creek 5 Willow Creek 6 Little Susitna River \ 7 North Fork Ship Creek . 9 Cottonwood Creek 10 Campbell Creek 11 Talkeetna River 12 Willow Creek 13 Glacier Creek 16 Kroto Creek 17 Salcha River 18 Campbell Creek ” a 49 Campbell Creek . w* 20 Clearwater Creek 21 Little Susitna River . 22 Chena River 23 Buskin River 27 Kuparuk River Map Produced by the Dept. of Fish & Game June 2010 Figure 3.-Location of ADF&G certificates of reservation in Alaska except Southeast. £7 Map Produced by the Figure 4.-Location of ADF&G certificates of reservation sites in Southeast Alaska. 14 5 12 4 = suONRAIASOY JO JOquUINN So 0 © + N So 6007 8007 L007 9007 $007 vO0T £007 7007 1007 0007 6661 8661 L661 9661 S66! v66l £661 7661 1661 0661 6861 8861 L861 9861 S86l p86! £861 7861 1861 0861 = Filed ™ Granted Figure 5—Summary of ADF&G reservation of water applications filed and granted from 1980-2009. 24 ST 25 Aniak River 26 Buskin River 27 Chatanika River 28 Chester Creek 29 Fish Creek 30 George River 31 Goose Creek 32 Kaskanak Creek 33 Kokwok River 34 Kwethluk River 35 Little Campbell Creek 36 Lower Talarik Creek 37 Meadow Creek 38 Mulchatna River 39 Nushagak River 40 Sheep Creek 41 Stariski Creek 42 Stuyahok River 43 West Fork Lower Talarik Creek Map Produced by the Dept. of Fish & Game June 2010 Figure 6.—Location of Statewide Aquatic Resources Coordination Unit hydrologic projects in Alaska except Southeast. 97 Figure 7.—Location of Statewide Aquatic Resources Coordination Unit hydrologic projects in Southeast Alaska. ARCTIC-YUKON-KUSKOKWIM Figure 8.—Alaska Department of Fish and Game Division of Sport Fish regions. $1,200,000 $1,000,000 $800,000 $600,000 $400,000 $200,000 $o + + T + r T T 1 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 Figure 9—Annual Alaska Clean Water Actions grant funds provided for state fiscal years 2002-2009. 27 Table 1.—Summary of reservation of water applications filed with the Department of Natural Resources as of December 2009. Organization Rivers/streams filed Lakes filed Adjudicated ADF&G 117 1 27 USS. Fish and Wildlife Service 57 140 Bureau of Land Management 13 1 Trout Unlimited 12 Curyong Tribal Council-Trout Unlimited 10 Chuitna Citizens NO-COALition-Trustees for Alaska 3 Eklutna Native Village 3 Southwest Alaska Salmon Habitat Partnership-ADF&G 3 The Nature Conservancy-ADF&G 1 Arctic Unit , Alaska Chapter of the American Fisheries Society-ADF&G 1 Trout Unlimited-ADF&G 1 Cheesh-na Tribal Council 1 Chickaloon Native Village 1 DNR (per AS 46.15.035) 1 1 2 Source: Kim Sager, Natural Resource Specialist, DNR, February 1, 2010, personal communication. 28 6c Table 2.-Summary of ADF&G reservation of water applications filed with the Department of Natural Resources as of December 2009. Date Date Map DNRLAS Application Certificate ID File No. Applicant Name Source Name Application Status Received Issued 1 26362 ADF&G Alsek River Application Accepted 3/29/2007 2 12680 ADF&G Anchor River - Reach A Application Accepted 2/5/1990 3 12683 ADF&G Anchor River - Reach B Application Accepted 2/5/1990 4 13808 ADF&G Auke Creek Certificate Issued 4/10/1992 1/15/2007 5 13805 ADF&G Baranof River, Reach C Application Accepted 4/10/1992 6 27352 ADF&G Big Creek (on Prince of Wales Island) Application Accepted 7/14/2009 7 26387 ADF&G Black River Application Accepted 4/12/2007 8 12685 ADF&G Buskin Lake Certificate Issued 2/5/1990 8/21/2006 9 12682 ADF&G Buskin River, Reach A Application Pending 2/5/1990 10 13231 ADF&G Buskin River, Reach B Application Pending 3/19/1991 11 12681 ADF&G Campbell Creek, North Fork Certificate Issued 2/5/1990 11/21/2005 12 11981 ADF&G Campbell Creek, Reach A Certificate Issued 7/25/1988 6/29/1990 13 11973 ADF&G Campbell Creek, Reach B Certificate Issued TN4/1988 5/15/1991 14 13222 ADF&G Campbell Creek, South Fork Certificate Issued 3/19/1991 11/21/2005 15 25880 ADF&G Carlson Creek Application Accepted 10/12/2006 16 13578 ADF&G Chatanika River, Reach A & B Application Accepted 10/28/1991 17 11998 ADF&G Chena River Certificate Issued TN4/1988 5/15/1991 18 21258 ADF&G Chilkat River, Reach A Application Accepted 6/4/1993 19 21245 ADF&G Chilkat River, Reach B Application Accepted 6/4/1993 20 27349 ADF&G Chilkoot River Application Accepted 7/14/2009 21 20335 ADF&G Chuitna River Application Pending 5/9/1996 22 22407 ADF&G Copper River, Reach A Application Accepted 12/28/1998 23 22405 ADF&G Copper River, Reach B Application Accepted 12/28/1998 24 11972 ADF&G Cottonwood Creek Certificate Issued TN4/1988 5/15/1991 25 27485 ADF&G Cowee Creek Application Accepted 12/11/2009 26 13652 ADF&G Deception Creek Certificate Issued 4/10/1992 12/18/2003 27 13577 ADF&G Delta Clearwater (Clearwater Creek) Certificate Issued 3/19/1991 6/5/2006 28 13654 ADF&G Deshka River Certificate Issued 4/10/1992 1/25/2005 29 14315 ADF&G Eagle River Application Accepted 6/4/1993 30 26386 ADF&G Farragut River Application Accepted 4/12/2007 -continued- 0€ Table 2—Page 2 of 4. Date Date Map DNRLAS Application Certificate ID File No. Applicant Name Source Name Application Status Received Issued 31 13225 ADF&G Fish Creek near Auke Bay Application Accepted 3/19/1991 32 11974 ADF&G Fish Creek near Big Lake, Lower Application Accepted 7/14/1988 33 11976 ADF&G Fish Creek near Big Lake, Upper Application Accepted 7/14/1988 34 20895 ADF&G Glacier Creek Certificate Issued 12/31/1996 12/18/2003 35 26385 ADF&G Hamilton Creek Application Accepted 4/12/2007 36 26360 ADF&G Harding River Application Accepted 3/29/2007 37 26462 ADF&G Harris Creek Application Accepted 6/1/2007 38 25696 ADF&G Hasselborg Creek Application Accepted 5/11/2006 39 25883 ADF&G Hilda Creek Application Accepted 10/12/2006 40 12236 ADF&G Indian River Certificate Issued 1/12/1989 8/3/1990 41 13700 ADF&G Jim River Application Accepted 5/15/1992 42 26358 ADF&G Jordon Creek Application Accepted 3/29/2007 43 24380 ADF&G Karluk River Application Accepted 7/28/2003 44 21287 ADF&G Karta River Application Accepted 12/27/1995 45 20334 ADF&G Kasilof River Application Accepted 5/9/1996 46 12677 ADF&G Kenai River, Reach A Certificate Issued 2/5/1990 2/1/2010 47 12676 ADF&G Kenai River, Reach B Certificate Issued 2/5/1990 2/1/2010 48 11996 ADF&G Ketchikan Creek Review 7/14/1988 49 21243 ADF&G Klehini River Certificate Issued 12/31/1996 8/18/2009 50 22408 ADF&G Klutina River Application Accepted 12/28/1998 51 21134 ADF&G Kobuk River Application Accepted 12/31/1996 52 20646 ADF&G Kuparuk River Certificate Issued 2/3/1995 12/21/2009 53 24383 ADF&G Kvichak River Review 7/28/2003 54 21289 ADF&G Lake Creek Certificate Issued 6/4/1993 3/7/2007 55 21260 ADF&G Lemon Creek, Lower Application Accepted 12/31/1996 56 21261 ADF&G Lemon Creek, Upper Application Accepted 12/31/1996 57 11489 ADF&G Little Rabbit Creek Certificate Issued 6/30/1987 2/19/1988 58 11488 ADF&G Little Survival Creek Certificate Issued 6/30/1987 2/19/1988 59 11977 ADF&G Little Susitna River, Middle Certificate Issued 7/14/1988 8/3/2006 60 11561 ADF&G Little Susitna River, Upper Certificate Issued 7/31/1987 11/1/1988 -continued- Te Table 2—Page 3 of 4. Date Date Map DNRLAS Application Certificate ID File No. Applicant Name Source Name Application Status Received Issued 61 27486 ADF&G Lost River Application Accepted 12/11/2009 62 26030 ADF&G Lower Talarik Creek, Reach C Application Accepted 12/28/2006 63 25694 ADF&G Maksouthof River Application Accepted 5/11/2006 64 27351 ADF&G Maybeso Creek Application Accepted 7/14/2009 65 11975 ADF&G Meadow Creek Application Accepted 7/14/1988 66 13806 ADF&G Mendenhall River, Reach A Application Accepted 4/10/1992 67 13807 ADF&G Mendenhall River, Reach B Application Accepted 4/10/1992 68 26357 ADF&G Mill Creek Application Accepted 3/29/2007 69 12679 ADF&G Monashka Creek Application Accepted 2/5/1990 70 13226 ADF&G Montana Creek Certificate Issued 3/19/1991 9/21/2004 71 26363 ADF&G Nakwasina River Application Accepted 3/29/2007 72 26388 ADF&G Neck Creek Application Accepted 4/12/2007 73 20285 ADF&G Nenana River, Reach A Review 5/9/1996 74 20283 ADF&G Nenana River, Reach B Review 5/9/1996 1) 20277 ADF&G Nenana River, Reach C Review 5/9/1996 76 24379 ADF&G Newhalen River Application Accepted 7/28/2003 77 13223 ADF&G Ninilchik River Application Accepted 3/19/1991 78 26461 ADF&G Old Tom Creek Application Accepted 6/1/2007 79 26359 ADF&G Pavlof River Application Accepted 3/29/2007 80 26460 ADF&G Perkins Creek Application Accepted 6/1/2007 81 25695 ADF&G Peter's Creek Application Accepted 5/11/2006 82 26817 ADF&G Peterson Creek Application Accepted 3/17/2008 83 12684 ADF&G Pillar Creek Application Accepted 2/5/1990 84 19476 ADF&G Power Creek Application Accepted 2/3/1995 85 11490 ADF&G Rabbit Creek Certificate Issued 6/30/1987 2/19/1988 86 20644 ADF&G Sagavanirtok River, Reach A Review 2/3/1995 87 20645 ADF&G Sagavanirtok River, Reach B Review 2/3/1995 88 12675 ADF&G Salcha River Certificate Issued 2/5/1990 6/8/2005 89 21272 ADF&G Salmon River near Hyder Certificate Issued 5/9/1996 8/11/2004 90 25693 ADF&G Sashin Creek Application Accepted 5/11/2006 -continued- ce Table 2.—Page 4 of 4. Date Date Map DNRLAS Application Certificate ID File No. Applicant Name Source Name Application Status Received Issued 91 11995 ADF&G Sawmill Creek Application Accepted TN4/1988 92 25879 ADF&G Sheep Creek Application Accepted 10/12/2006 93 25881 ADF&G Shelokum Creek Application Pending 10/12/2006 94 12678 ADF&G Ship Creek Application Accepted 2/5/1990 95 21291 ADF&G Situk River Certificate Issued 2/3/1995 2/1/2010 96 27488 ADF&G Situk River, West Fork Application Accepted 12/11/2009 97 20068 ADF&G Snake River Application Accepted 12/27/1995 98 22406 ADF&G Solomon River Application Accepted 12/31/1998 99 21292 ADF&G Stikine River Application Accepted 12/27/1995 100 25882 ADF&G Sweetheart Creek Application Accepted 10/12/2006 101 21275 ADF&G Taku River Application Accepted 12/27/1995 102 13228 ADF&G Talkeetna River Certificate Issued 3/19/1991 12/18/2003 103 1824 ADF&G Terror River Certificate Issued 7/6/1984 5/20/1987 104 27353 ADF&G Trocadero Creek, North Branch Application Accepted 7/14/2009 105 12719 ADF&G Ward Creek Application Accepted 2/5/1990 106 27487 ADF&G Wasilla Creek Application Accepted 12/11/2009 107 25884 ADF&G Whipple Creek Application Accepted 10/12/2006 108 11562 ADF&G Willow Creek Certificate Issued 7/31/1987 T/8/1988 109 24381 ADF&G Wood River Application Accepted 7/28/2003 110 20067 ADF&G Wulik River Application Accepted 12/27/1995 li 25692 ADF&G Yentna River Application Accepted 5/11/2006 112 13897 Arctic Unit Alaska Chapter American Fisheries Society-ADF&G Tanana River Application Accepted 11/18/1992 113 27309 Southwest Alaska Salmon Habitat Partnership-ADF&G Mulchatna River Reach A Application Accepted 6/15/2009 114 27516 Southwest Alaska Salmon Habitat Partnership-ADF&G Mulchatna River Reach B Application Accepted 6/15/2009 115 27310 Southwest Alaska Salmon Habitat Partnership-ADF&G Stuyahok River Application Accepted 6/15/2009 116 23051 The Nature Conservancy-ADF&G Lower Talarik Creek, Reach A&B Application Accepted 2/7/2000 117 21290 Trout Unlimited-ADF&G Duck Creek Application Accepted 6/28/1993 Note: See figures 2 and 3 for site locations. Source: Kim Sager, Natural Resource Specialist, DNR, February 1, 2010, personal communication. Table 3—Summary of ADF&G reservation of water Department of Natural Resources as of December 2009. applications that have been adjudicated by the Effective Date / DNR File No. Name Priority Date Adjudicated 1 LAS 1824 Terror River 7/6/1984 5/20/1987 2 LAS 11488 Little Survival Creek 6/30/1987 2/19/1988 3 LAS 11489 Little Rabbit Creek 6/30/1987 2/19/1988 4 LAS 11490 Rabbit Creek 6/30/1987 2/19/1988 5 LAS 11562 Willow Creek 7/31/1987 7/8/1988 6 LAS 11561 Little Susitna River - upper reach 7/31/1987 11/1/1988 7 LAS 11981 Campbell Creek - lower reach 6/25/1988 6/29/1990 8 LAS 12236 Indian River 1/12/1989 8/3/1990 9 LAS 11972 Cottonwood Creek 7/14/1988 5/15/1991 10 LAS 11973 Campbell Creek - upper reach 7/14/1988 5/15/1991 11 LAS 13228 Talkeetna River 3/19/1991 12/18/2003 12 LAS 13652 Deception Creek 4/10/1992 12/18/2003 13 LAS 20895 Glacier Creek 12/31/1996 12/18/2003 14 LAS 21272 Salmon River near Hyder 5/9/1996 8/11/2004 15 LAS 13226 Montana Creek near Auke Bay 3/19/1991 9/21/2004 16 LAS 13654 Deshka River 4/10/1992 1/25/2005 17 LAS 12675 Salcha River 2/7/1990 6/8/2005 18 LAS 12681 North Fork Campbell Creek 2/5/1990 11/7/2005 19 LAS 13222 South Fork Campbell Creek 3/19/1991 11/7/2005 20 LAS 13577 Delta Clearwater 5/19/1991 6/5/2006 21 LAS 11977 Little Susitna - middle reach 7/14/1988 1/11/2006 22 LAS 11998 Chena River 7/14/1988 7/27/2006 23 LAS 12685 Buskin Lake 2/5/1990 9/3/2006 24 LAS 13808 Auke Creek 4/10/1992 1/18/2007 25 LAS 21289 Lake Creek 6/4/1993 3/7/2007 26 LAS 21243 Klehini River 12/31/1996 8/18/2009 27 LAS 20646 Kuparuk River 2/3/1995 12/21/2009 33 Table 4.-Summary of hydrologic investigations performed by the Statewide Aquatic Resources Coordination Unit as of December 2009. SF Region Station Name Station Number _ Station Type Active 1 Peterson Creek tributary 1 near Juneau Peterson Creek near Juneau tributary 3 Peterson Creek near Juneau mainstem above tributary 4 Peterson Creek near Juneau mainstem above tributary 3 Peterson Creek near Juneau mainstem above tributary 8 Sitkoh Creek mainstem 0.5 miles upstream of weir Sitkoh Creek mainstem | mile upstream of weir Sitkoh Lake outlet Sitkoh Creek tributary 1 Sitkoh Creek mainstem above tributary 1 Sitkoh Creek logjam tributary Sitkoh Lake east cabin tributary Sitkoh Lake Anniversary tributary Sitkoh Creek at mouth Lake Creek at Auke Lake near Juneau Auke Creek below Auke Lake near Juneau Sawmill Creek near Haines Sawmill Creek near Haines restoration reach West Fork Situk River Situk River below Situk Lake outlet Mountain Lake Creek above Situk Lake Situk River mainstem above Old Situk Dayglow/MiLake Creek Old Situk near confluence with Situk River Situk River mainstream above weir Pullen Creek mainstem above tailrace near Skagway Pullen Creek tributary near Skagway Pullen Creek mainstem above tributary near Skagway Threemile Creek near Klawock Threemile Creek near Klawock below bridge Chilkat River below Kelsall River Cowee Creek near Juneau at Glacier Hwy Davies Creek near Echo Cove Cowee Creek above Davies Creek Holgate Creek mainstem Holgate Creek mainstem above tributary Holgate Creek tributary Lost River near Yakutat below railroad bridge Lost River near Yakutat below road bridge Lost River near Yakutat West Fork above confluence Tawah Creek near Yakutat Chilkoot River near Haines Cripple Creek tributary Unuk River Genes Creek tributary Unuk River Lake Creek tributary Unuk River 10101 10102 10103 10104 10105 10301 10302 10303 10304 10305 10306 10307 10308 10309 10401 10501 10601 10602 10701 10702 10703 10704 10705 10706 10707 10901 10902 10903 11001 11002 11301 11401 11402 11403 11501 11502 11503 11701 11702 11703 11704 11901 12201 12202 12203 Stream Gage Stream Gage Stream Gage Stream Gage Gage Stream Gage Stream Gage Stream Gage Discharge Discharge Discharge Discharge Discharge Discharge Stream Gage Stream Gage Stream Gage Discharge Stream Gage Discharge Discharge Discharge Discharge Discharge Discharge Stream Gage Discharge Discharge Stream Gage Discharge Stage Stream Gage Discharge Discharge Stream Gage Discharge Discharge Stream Gage Discharge Discharge Discharge Stream Gage Discharge Discharge Discharge ZAZAKKKKKAAKAAKAAAAAAAAAAAAAAKAAKAAAAAK AAAAAAZA -continued- 34 Table 4.—Page 2 of 2. SF Station Region Station Name Number Station Type Active 1 Clear Creek tributary Unuk River 12204 Discharge N 2 Lower Talarik Creek near Iliamna 10201 Stream Gage N 2 East Fork Lower Talarik Creek below lake outlet 10202 Discharge N 2 West Fork Lower Talarik Creek below lake outlet 10203 Stream Gage N 2 East Fork Lower Talarik Creek above confluence 10204 Discharge N 2 Sheep Creek near Willow 11101 Stream Gage iY: 2 Nushagak River near Koliganek 11201 Discharge N 2 Nushagak River below Nuyakuk 11202 Discharge N 2 Nushagak River near Ekwok 11203 Discharge N 2 Nushagak River below King Salmon 11204 Discharge N 2 Kokwok River 11205 Discharge N 2 Stariski Creek 11601 Stream Gage mM 2 Kaskanak Creek near Igiugig 11801 Stream Gage N 2 Fish Creek lower near Big Lake 12001 Stream Gage Y 2 Fish Creek upper near Big Lake 12002 Discharge mM 2 Meadow Creek upper near Big Lake 12101 Stream Gage Y 2 Meadow Creek lower near Big Lake 12102 Discharge 2G 2 Goose Creek 12301 Discharge N 2 Little Campbell Creek 12401 Stream Gage N 2 Buskin River Lower Weir Site 12501 Discharge N 2 Buskin River Upper Weir Site 12502 Discharge N 2 Stuyahok River 12701 Discharge N 2 Mulchatna River 12801 Discharge N 3 George River 12601 Stream Gage Ne 3 Chatanika River 12901 Discharge N 3 Aniak River 13001 Discharge N 3 Kwethluk River 13101 Discharge N 35 Table 5.—Summary of Federal Energy Regulatory Commission hydroelectric and hydrokinetic projects in Alaska monitored by ADF&G as of December 2009. Project FERC No. Status Southeast Blue Lake 2230 Relicensed hydroelectric-license amendment Cascade Creek 12495 Proposed hydroelectric Scenery Lake 12621/13365 Proposed hydroelectric Ruth Lake/Delta Creek 12619 Proposed hydroelectric Connelly Lake DI09-9 Proposed hydroelectric Gartina Falls DI09-7 Proposed hydroelectric Baranof-Warm Springs DI09-14 Proposed hydroelectric Neck Lake DI10-5 Proposed hydroelectric Indian River DI10-8 Proposed hydroelectric Soule River 12615 Proposed hydroelectric Lake 3160 12661 Proposed hydroelectric Takatz Lake 13234 Proposed hydroelectric Lake Shelokum 13281 Proposed hydroelectric Sweetheart Lake 13563 Proposed hydroelectric Schubee Lake 13645 Proposed hydroelectric Silver Lake 13717 Proposed hydroelectric Thayer Creek USFS Proposed hydroelectric Black Bear 10440 Licensed hydroelectric Ketchikan Lakes 420 Licensed hydroelectric South Fork Black Bear Non-FERC Licensed hydroelectric Swan Lake 2911 Licensed hydroelectric Lake Dorothy 12379 Under construction hydroelectric Reynolds Creek 11480 Under construction hydroelectric Whitman Lake 11841 Under construction hydroelectric Tyee 3015 Licensed hydroelectric Blind Slough 201 Licensed hydroelectric Kasidaya 11588 Licensed hydroelectric Goat Lake 11077 Licensed hydroelectric Dewey Lakes 1051 Licensed hydroelectric Falls Creek 11659 Licensed hydroelectric Green Lake 2818 Licensed hydroelectric Pelican 10198 Licensed hydroelectric Beaver Falls 1922 Licensed hydroelectric Snettisham Non-FERC Licensed hydroelectric Port Fredrick 13512 Proposed hydrokinetic-Tidal Southcentral Allison Lake 13124 Proposed hydroelectric Waterfall Creek Non-FERC Proposed hydroelectric Old Harbor 13272 Proposed hydroelectric 4th of July Creek Non-FERC Proposed hydroelectric Fishhook Creek Non-FERC Proposed hydroelectric Glacier Fork 13327 Proposed hydroelectric Falls Creek 13211 Proposed hydroelectric Grant Lake 13212 Proposed hydroelectric -continued- 36 Table 5.—Page 2 of 2. Project FERC No. Status Elva & Grant Lakes Non-FERC Proposed hydroelectric Snyder Falls Creek 13328 Proposed hydroelectric Chakachamna Lake 12660 Proposed hydroelectric Power Creek 11243 Licensed hydroelectric Bradley Lake 8221 Licensed hydroelectric Chignik 620 Licensed hydroelectric Terror Lake 2743 Licensed hydroelectric Kvichak River-Igiugig 13511 Proposed hydrokinetic-river Cooper Lake 2170 Relicensed Chuniisax Creek Non-FERC Under construction hydroelectric Humpback Creek 8889 Licensed-modifications under construction Cook Inlet, #12679 12679 Proposed hydrokinetic-tidal Turnagain Arm #13509 13509 Proposed hydrokinetic-tidal Eklutna Non-FERC Licensed hydroelectric Ouzinkie Non-FERC Licensed hydroelectric Larsen Bay Non-FERC Licensed hydroelectric Interior Kogoluktuk River 13286 Proposed hydroelectric Shungnak River 13299 Proposed hydroelectric Nenana River Non-FERC Proposed hydroelectric Dry Creek Non-FERC Proposed hydroelectric Yerrick Creek Non-FERC Proposed hydroelectric Yukon River-Eagle 13600 Proposed hydrokinetic-river Yukon River-Ruby Not Determined Proposed hydrokinetic-river Tanana River-Nenana 13233 Proposed hydrokinetic-river Tanana River-Whitestone 13305 Proposed hydrokinetic-river 37 Table 6—Summary of U.S. Geological Survey stream gage sites in Alaska from 1908 to September 30, 2009 and for Water Year 2009. Number of stream gages Period of Record (Years) 19 0<1 137 lto<5 113 S5to< 10 122 10 to < 20 98 20 to < 50 13 250 Estimated number of active stream gages for the period 116 October 1, 2008 to September 30, 2009 Source: D. Meyer, USGS Hydrologist, Anchorage, Alaska, March 23, 2010, personal communication. 38 APPENDIX A DIVISION OF SPORT FISH REGION I PRIORITIZATION PROCESS 39 Appendix Al.—Division of Sport Fish Region I prioritization process. Alaska’s instream flow law (AS 46.15.035, .037 and .145) allows the private sector and government agencies to legally acquire water rights, called reservations of water, to maintain instream flow rates in rivers or water levels/volumes in lakes for various purposes, including protecting fish habitat, migration, and propagation. A knowledge-based decision system was developed to prioritize the more than 5000 salmon-producing water bodies in Southeast Alaska for submitting instream flow reservations to protect salmon habitat and sustain salmon productivity (Appendix Figure A1). A total of 4597 Southeast Alaska watersheds were identified at the sixth level, 14-digit, hydrologic unit (HUC) scale, as defined by the US Geological Survey. These watersheds were ranked based on an assessment of the salmon resource and instream flow dependent values within each watershed. They were also ranked based on an assessment of risks by existing and potential developments to sustaining sufficient instream flows in salmon producing rivers and lakes within each watershed. Eight watershed attributes were identified to use as indicators of resource value and eight attributes were used for risk assessment (Appendix Table A1). Attribute information used to assign resource values and risks were acquired and analyzed from existing data sources. Resulting attribute values were aggregated and summarized using a geographic information system (GIS). Algorithms were defined to rate and score attribute values scales of 0-1 based on the range of values encountered in the data. Final resource values and risk scores for each watershed were calculated as the average of the individual scores for each attribute. The result of this assessment was a list of all watersheds ranked by resource values and a list of all watersheds ranked by risk. Both were summarized using a combination of spreadsheets and printed maps. Departmental and other natural resource professionals were asked to use these maps and spreadsheets from this broad-scale watershed assessment, along with their own finer-scale knowledge of resource values and risks, to identify the salmon producing watersheds in their areas most in need of instream flow protection. Final priorities for instream flow assessments and reservations of water were established by SARCU. These priorities were used to prepare and submit instream flow reservation applications to protect and sustain salmon production in high priority water bodies selected using the system developed by this project. This framework has been updated as new information has been available. 40 Appendix A1l.—Page 2 of 6. Watersheds (6 Level HUC) Identify watershed attributes to use as indicators of resource value and risk all ie Resource Value Risk Rate and score resource value indicator attribute values by watershed on scales of 0-1 Rate and score risk indicator attribute values by watershed on scales of 0-1 Combined — watershed Combined watershed resource value scores risk scores All watersheds ranked by All watersheds ranked resource value yl All by risk Lists of ranked watersheds ADF&G Staff Scoping J Priority List of Watersheds for Instream Flow Assessments and Reservations (Begin Phase II of Project) Appendix Figure Al. Decision system used to prioritize watersheds in Southeast Alaska. Al cy Appendix Table A1.—Attributes used to prioritize salmon producing water bodies for instream flow assessment and reservations of water. ATTRIBUTE SOURCE FILE ARCHIVE DATA TYPE 6th level HUCs Coarse Scale Miles of anadromous water bodies 1) AWC 2) Class 1 Fine Scale Number of salmon species present Chinook & sockeye salmon presence Personal use harvest Sport fish effort Presence/absence of ADF&G Index and stock assessment streams Coarse Scale Land ownership Acres of timber harvest Miles of road Urban areas Fine Scale Presence/absence of dams and hydroelectric projects Division of H&R Coarse Assessment DEC List of Impaired Waters Aquaculture Facilities Watershed Scale Assessment USFS/ECOTRUST Resource Value ADF&G USFS ADF&G ADF&G ADF&G ADF&G ADF&G Risk Analysis USFS ADNR USFS USGS ADNR USFS ADNR USFS ADF&G ADEC ADF&G huc56_4645_se_sp83.shp awc_se_sp27.shp ahmu_class|streams_tongass_sp27.shp Core_Data\sea2002d Core_Data\sea2002d Data Query RIR 1J00-XX swhs_se_sp27.shp Data Query (Staff) land_ownership_tongass_sp27.shp timber_harvest2001_se_sp27.shp allrds_huc56 urban_se_sp27.shp rural_hydro_se_sp27.shp coarse_assessment_02_hucs_sp27.shp impaired_fw_se_sp27.shp hatcheries_se_sp27.shp Polygon shapefile Polyline shapefile Polyline shapefile Point shapefile Point shapefile ) Alexander (ADF&G) Polyline shapefile Alexander (ADF&G) Polygon shapefile Polygon shapefile Polyline shapefile Polygon coverage Point shapefile Polygon shapefile Polyline shapefile Point shapefile Appendix Table A2.-Top 100 regionally ranked watersheds for instream flow priorities in Southeast Alaska. Mainstem River System Resource Value Rank Risk Rank Chilkat River 1 3 Situk River 2 884 East Alsek River 3 588 Taku River 4 1931 Unuk River 5 2005 Italio River 6 674 Stikine River 7 2609 Alsek River 8 1582 Klahini River 9 2839 Akwe River 10 684 Chickamin River ll 2049 Thorne River 12 1063 Ahrnklin River 13 1005 Doame River 14 1653 Karta River 15 1934 East Fork Bradfield River 16 1675 Neka River 17 1451 Harding River 18 2052 Farragut River 19 2030 Naha River 20 1958 Blossom River 21 1944 Sitkoh Creek 22 1086 Wolverine Creek 23 2018 Anan Creek 24 2095 Sylvia Creek 25 1319 Ketchikan Creek 26 60 Tom Creek 27 3134 Marten River 28 2964 Sweetheart Creek 29 2246 Eagle Creek 30 793 Hatchery Creek 31 900 Chilkoot River 32 32 Bradfield Canal 33 1978 Keta River 34 1859 Klawock River 35 1 Farragut Bay 36 800 Carroll Creek 38 1345 King Salmon River 39 2061 Auke Creek 40 41 Berners River 41 2134 Chuck Creek 42 251 Short Creek 43 2841 Lost River 44 452 Kunayosh Creek 45 1900 Williams Creek 46 563 Chichagof Creek 47 1289 Thoms Creek 48 1245 Ford Arm 49 2394 Kutlaku Creek 50 1693 Kegan Creek 51 1781 Seal River 52 1827 -continued- 43 Appendix Table A3.—Page 2 of 2. Mainstem River System Resource Value Rank Risk Rank Gut Bay 53 2721 Salmon Creek 54 1864 Geek Creek 55 1158 Kook Creek 56 1104 Klakas Creek 57 3541 Shipley Creek 58 3203 Mendenhall River 59 240 Petersburg Creek 60 1855 Eva Creek 61 2453 Alecks Creek 62 2083 Politofsky Creek 63 1470 Oerns Creek 64 3131 Dog Salmon Creek 65 649 Pavlof River 66 1129 Hetta Creek 67 512 Emile Creek 68 1044 Cabin Slough 69 1041 Tuneheah Creek 70 1804 Hunter Bay 71 3610 Muddy Creek 72 1329 Wheeler Creek 73 1574 North Fork Freshwater Creek 74 1348 Mud Bay River 75 1592 Harris River 76 174 Maybeso Creek 77 924 Salt Chuck 78 2436 Kah Sheets Creek 79 1889 Lisianski River 80 2316 Southern tip Kuiu Island 81 1935 Neva Creek 82 1277 Kushneahin Creek 83 2046 Golding Creek 84 2313 Eagle River 85 2078 Lucky Cove 86 1882 Nutkwa Creek 87 2072 Saginaw Creek 88 874 Black Creek 89 50 Ratz Creek 90 794 Salt Creek 91 1091 Nawkwasina River 92 277 Bartholomew Creek 93 2966 Margaret Creek 94 701 Old Tom Creek 95 2036 Big Creek 96 311 South Arm 97 3586 Badger Creek 98 2026 Crab Creek 99 49 Shrew Creek 100 3057 APPENDIX B DIVISION OF SPORT FISH REGIONS IT AND Il PRIORITIZATION PROCESS 45 Appendix B1.—Division of Sport Fish Regions II and III Prioritization Process. INTRODUCTION The Statewide Aquatic Resources Coordination Unit (SARCU) was established by the department for addressing growing demands for water and meeting its mandate of sustaining healthy fish and wildlife production. One tool used by SARCU to achieve this goal is to quantify instream flow needs for fish and wildlife and to file and defend reservation of water applications to leave a portion of water in rivers and lakes. For providing the hydrologic analyses needed to support a reservation of water application, Alaska Department of Natural Resources (DNR) recommends, and SARCU agrees, that a minimum of 5 years of continuous mean daily flow data be collected or synthesized to reduce bias associated with inter-annual hydrologic variability. Historical USGS flow records are readily available to support the needed hydrologic analyses. SARCU requests support and approval from Sport Fish Division Regions 2, 3 and 5, to develop a prioritized list to determine the order in which to proceed to use USGS gaging sites to prepare reservation of water applications and to identify candidate ungaged water bodies for future stream gaging efforts. METHODS A list of all past and current USGS stream gaging stations was acquired from the USGS web site http://nwis.waterdata.usgs.gov/ak/nwis/sw . This list was then reduced to only those gage stations that meet instream flow needs and data availability criteria. Gage sites that were excluded included those that: e have less than 5 years of continuous streamflow data; and/or e already have a granted or pending reservation of water application on the gaged reach. The gaged streams were evaluated based on risks (potential for water extraction and future development) and fishery values. Risks included water development uses such as mining, oil and gas, road construction and maintenance, agriculture, water export or sale, and hydropower. Value was based on quality or quantity of fish produced, or uniqueness of habitat. After some internal review, staff felt that this evaluation process would be simple, effective, and could be based on existing and readily available information or professional judgment. A three-point rating system for Values and Risks was used: Fishery Value: 1 = Low: Few fish produced or depend on this water. 2 = Medium: Some fish values but not significantly so. (e.g. has some fish, but few people do or would want to fish here, overall fish productivity is moderate.) 3 = High: Produces a lot of anadromous and/or resident fish, supports major or high quality fisheries. 46 Appendix B1.Page 2 of 3. Risks: 1 = Low: Risks not imminent are unknown or there is some level of existing instream flow protection! 2 = Medium: Risks are narrow in scope or severity, or may be a long ways off. 3 = High: Risks are imminent and known, and potentially severe. The following additional qualitative information was also noted: Surrounding Land Status = ownership by State, Federal, Native, private or combination, and associated management status (e.g., National Park, Refuge, Special Areas); and Hydropower Status = future or existing hydropower project in watershed. SARCU forwarded a draft prioritized list to Region 2 and 3 instream flow liaisons. SARCU requested input on this list from Sport Fish Division Region 5, and from DNR Water Resources Section. The liaisons requested their regional or area staff to double check if the quality rankings seem appropriate and to make any changes. Appendix Table B1 below shows the overall rank designation based on the various permutations. Categories | through 3 were considered high priority for filing a reservation of water application. Categories 4 through 6 were considered medium; these streams to be considered on a case by case basis. If a stream was a medium priority that didn’t necessarily mean that SARCU will not seek instream flow protection for it, once all the high priority streams have been addressed. The remaining categories 7 through 9 were considered low priority but could be addressed on a case by case basis or their overall rank elevated if additional information or circumstances warrant. Appendix Table B1.—Overall rank designation assigned to selected USGS gage locations with no reservation of water and greater than 5 years of period of record. Category Fishery Value Risk Overall Rank 1 High High High 2 High Medium High 3 Medium High High 4 High Low Medium 5 Medium Medium Medium 6 Low High Medium 7 Medium Low Low 8 Low Medium Low 9 Low Low Low ' In addition to reservations of water, other opportunities for instream flow protection include conditions on regulatory permits/licenses, such the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission project licenses, water permits, fish habitat permits, CWA 401 & 404 permits, ACMP stipulations, U.S. Forest Service Special Use permits, etc. along with the Public Trust Doctrine. 47 Appendix B1.Page 3 of 3. Final selection of streams on which to file a reservation of water will be based on the ranking described above, adequacy of existing hydrological or biological data, and whether other state and/or federal legal mechanisms would provide better or more cost effective instream flow protection than a reservation of water. Exceptions to this process could occur based on specific requests from the regions or senior leadership. A region may request priority filing for a specific water body due to unique circumstances, regardless of the overall rank. The regions will be formally requested to review this list every 3 years, however, the regional instream flow liaison can submit new information or request changes at any time. Communications between the regional instream flow liaisons and SARCU should occur if either party becomes aware of additional information that could affect the priority status of a particular stream. A summary of the high and medium prioritized list of USGS gaged streams categorized by overall rank is shown in Appendix Tables B2 and B3. 48 6r Appendix Table B2.-Summary of high and medium prioritized USGS gaged streams for instream flow protection in Division of Sport Fish Region 2. Years SFMgmt Land Fishery Overall Site Name Record Area Status Values Values Description Threats Threats Description _ Rating Notes Chakachatna R. near 13 NCI state 2 moderate salmon producer 3 hydropower preliminary 3. large hydropower project planned, Tyonek license filed prelim. license filed; reservation filed by Trout Unlimited. Chester Cr at 18 ANC state; 2 some salmon; Dolly Varden and 3 urbanization, wells; 3 small but unique urban fishery, Anchorage private rainbow trout water quality high priority for restoration by Anchorage Muni. Chester Cr at Arctic 42 ANC state; 2 some salmon; Dolly Varden and 3 urbanization, wells; 3 small but unique urban fishery, Boulevard private rainbow trout water quality high priority for restoration by Anchorage Muni. Crescent Cr near 17 UKP federal 3 salmon producer; rainbow trout and 3 possible water supply for = 3 mostly federal lands; hydropower Cooper Landing Dolly Varden; Kenai trib., Chinook residents, possible potential present, Grayling come out of lake hydropower to use this stream Grant Cr near Moose 11 SEW state; 2 moderate salmon, Chinook present 3. possibly hydropower but = 3 connects 2 important salmon Pass private; depends on location producing lakes; mostly federal, federal? planned hydropower Knik R near Palmer 47 NCI state 3 Passage and habit for sockeye, 1 minimal; some 3 coho, chum (major coho fishery at temporary water use Jim C. and stocked Chinook and permits for road work coho at Eklutna Tailrace) Nushagak R at Ekwok 16 BB state; 3 important salmon producer; huge 2 mining; water quality 3 private; sport fishery also resident spec federal present Ptarmigan Cr at II UKP state; 3 sockeye, coho, Dolly Varden, 3 potential hydropower 3 mostly US Forest Service land; Lawing federal Rainbow, Chinook present (popular preliminary hydro license filed sport fishery) Skwentna R_ near 23 NCI state; 3 important salmon producer (Judd L, 2 hydropower, oil and gas 3 potential hydropower Skwentna private Shell L large sockeye runs; Tal R. potential development; updated threat from large Chinook, coho, rainbow fisheries) 1 to 2 jan, 21, 2009 -continued- Appendix Table B2—Page 2 of 3. Os Years SFMgmt Land Fishery Overall Site Name Record — Area Status Values Values Description Threats Threats Description _Rating Notes Susitna R at Gold Cr 58 NCI state; 3 important salmon producer 3 hydropower potential 3 private Susitna R at Sunshine 5 NCI state; 3 important salmon producer 3 hydropower potential 3 private Susitna R at Susitna 18 NCI state; 3 important salmon producer 3 hydropower potential 3 Station private Susitna R near 25 NCI state; 3 important salmon producer 3 hydropower potential 3 potential hydropower Cantwell private development; uppermost gage Susitna R near Denali 29 NCI state; 3 important salmon producer K) hydropower potential 3 private Beaver Cr near Kenai ll UKP state; 2 salmon producing tributary of 2 urban development; size 2 parts in Kenai National Wildlife private; Kenai R. vulnerable Refuge federal aii Chulitna R near 29 NCI state; 3 important salmon producer 2 possible, hydro, oil and 2 Talkeetna private gas other development Eskimo Cr at King ll BB federal; 2 some coho and king production 3 possible domestic and 2 within military lands, headwaters Salmon private; industrial source (King in park lands state Salmon); water quality Fritz Cr near Homer 7 LCI state; 2 some pink salmon (pinks are only at = 2 urbanization and water 2 drains state wildlife habitat refuge private the mouth, however the stream also supply has Dolly Varden) Grouse Cr near ll SEW state; 2 moderate coho, sockeye producer 1 threats unknown; private 2 stream overwinters a good Seward federal and overwintering for Dolly Varden wells number of Dolly Varden Iliamna R near Pedro 12 BB state; 3 important salmon producer (large 1 unknown (possible road = 2 Bay private Dolly Varden and rainbow trout development associated population) with Pebble) Kizhuyak R near Port 15 KOD state; 2 moderate salmon producer of pinks, 2 unknown(existinghydro 2 existing hydropower Lions, Kodiak borough coho and chum facility) and Native -continued- Is Appendix Table B2.—Page 3 of 3. Years SFMgmt Land Fishery Overall Site Name Record — Area Status Values Values Description Threats Threats Description _ Rating Notes Little Campbell Cr at 12 ANC state; 1 some salmon; Dolly Varden and 3 urbanization, wells; water 2 Some salmon, rainbow trout, and Nathan Dr, Anchorage private rainbow trout quality Dolly Varden; Anchorage Muni has watershed plan includes monitoring Lowell Cr at Seward 28 SEW state; 2 release site by ADF&G 2 domestic and industrial 2 coho and Chinook fishery, private water supply hatchery release site Myrtle Cr near Kodiak 23 KOD state 2 moderate salmon producer (on the 2 proposed logging 2 road system, pinks and coho) Nuyakuk R- near 52 BB state 3 recreational; important salmon 2 minimal; within state park; 2 important fishery, and state park Dillingham producer (has resident spp. as well, potential hydro; changed falls is passable by fish) threat from | to 2 on Jan 21, 2009 Russian R near Cooper 7 UKP federal 3 important sockeye salmon producer 1 unknown 2 US Forest Service land Landing Tazimina R_ near 6 BB federal 3. important salmon producer; rainbow | potential additional 2 existing Hydro; within National Nondalton (NPS) fishery (High value sport fishery) hydro? Park Twentymile R near 6 ANC federal 3 important coho and hooligan 1 unknown 2 fishery value between 2 and 3; U.S Portage fisheries Forest Service lands Upper Thumb R near 8 KOD federal 3 important salmon producer (part of 1 unknown 2 within Kodiak National Wildlife Larsen Bay, Kodiak the Karluk drainage) Refuge Matanuska Rat Palmer 59 NCI state; 2 moderate salmon producer 1 mining, diversion, but 1 private minimal Notes: | SF=Division of Sport Fish; ANC=Anchorage Area; BB=Bristol Bay; KOD=Kodiak/Aleutians; LCI=Lower Cook Inlet (Kenai);NCI=Northern Cook Inlet Area (MatSu); PWS=Prince William Sound Area; SEW=Seward North Gulf Coast; UKP=Upper Kenai Peninsula. (6S Appendix Table B3.-Summary of high and medium prioritized USGS gaged streams for instream flow protection in Division of Sport Fish Region 3. Years SF Mgmt Land _ Fishery Overall Site Name Record Area Status Values Values Description Threats Threats Description _ Rating Notes Chena River below 15 LTR state; 3 important interior salmon and 1 mining 2 Hunts Creek private grayling Chena River near Two 40 LTR state; 3 important interior salmon and 1 mining 2 Rivers private grayling Colville River at Umiat 5 NS federal, 3 chum, pink, Dolly Varden, whitefish 2 oil and gas; mining; 3. within National Petroleum state, important subsistence fisheries winter water withdrawals Reserve; was on 1984 list; high private wildlife value as well Goodpaster River near 10 UTR state, 3 grayling, pike, king producer 2 mining 3 1984 priority; Pogo Mine in Big Delta private drainage, high value for interior stream Kobuk River at Ambler 13 NW _ Federal, 3 important salmon and resident fish 1 unknown if any 2 state, private Kuskokwim River at 57 KUK state; 3 important salmon producer 1 unknown if any 2 Crooked Creek private; federal Kuskokwim River at 10 KUK __ federal, 3 important salmon producer 2 mining but mostly intribs 3 _ navigability, major AK waterway McGrath state, private Melozitna River near 12 YUK _ federal, 3 chum, king, sheefish, whitefish, pike, 1 unknown 2 high subsistence, _ recreational, Ruby state, grayling wildlife values private Noatak River at Noatak 6 NW federal, 3 important subsistence fisheries 1 much of it in National 2 private salmon, charr Park and Preserve Tanana River at Big 9 UTR state; 3 major salmon producer for interior; 1 unknown 3. major salmon producing river Delta federal; major waterway private Tanana River at 35 LTR state; 3 major salmon producer for interior; 1 unknown 3 Fairbanks federal; major waterway private -continued- €s Appendix Table B3.—Page 2 of 3. Years SFMgmt Land _ Fishery Overall Site Name Record — Area Status Values Values Description Threats Threats Description _ Rating Notes Tanana River near 38 UTR state; 3 major salmon producer for interior; 1 unknown 3. major salmon producing river Tanacross federal; major waterway private Tazlina River near 23 COP federal, 3. important Chinook salmon producer | unknown 2 on 1986 priority list Glennallen private Yukon River at Eagle 58 YUK federal; 3 important king, chum, coho, 2 3 largest river in state, private; whitefish, sheefish producer transboundary; potential hydropower; water export Yukon River at Pilot 32 YUK _ federal; 3 important king, chum, coho, 2 potential hydropower; 3 largest river in state, Station private; whitefish, sheefish producer water export transboundary; Yukon River at 13 YUK federal, 3 important king, chum, coho, 2 potential hydropower; 3 largest river in state, Rampart private, whitefish, sheefish producer water export transboundary state Yukon River at Ruby 22 YUK federal, 3 important king, chum, coho, 2 potential hydropower; 3 largest river in state, private, whitefish, sheefish producer water export transboundary state Yukon River near 10 YUK federal, 3 important king, chum, coho, 2 potential hydropower; 3 largest river in state, Kaltag private, whitefish, sheefish producer water export transboundary state Yukon River near 31 YUK federal, 3 important king, chum, coho, 2 potential hydropower; 3 largest river in state, Stevens Village private whitefish, sheefish producer water export transboundary Kisaralik River near 8 KUK federal 3 important salmon producer 1 unknown if any 2 US Fish and Wildlife Service Akiak Mead River at Atkasuk = 31 NS federal 2 chum, whitefish, cisco, probably 2 unknown but probably oil 2 Anadromous Waters Catalog imp. subsistence and gas probably incomplete for this stream Anvik River near 5 YUK federal; 3 important salmon stream 1 unknown 2 Anvik state; private Crater Creek near 10 NW federal, 2 coho, Dolly Varden, probably 2 mining 2 extensive past mining; land status Nome state, grayling needs clarification private -continued- bs Appendix Table B3.—Page 3 of 3. Years SFMgmt Land Fishery Overall Site Name Record — Area Status Values Values Description Threats Threats Description _Rating Notes Eldorado Creek near 10 NW federal, 3 all salmon plus Dolly Varden, 1 mining 2 Teller state, Whitefish, maybe more private Koyukuk River at 23 YUK _ federal, 3 salmon and residents 1 unknown 2 Hughes private Kuzitrin River near 11 NW state, 3 salmon and residents 1 unknown, probably some 2 Nome federal, mining private Liese Creek near Big 5 UTR 1 unknown 3 mining 2 Pogo mine nearby Delta North Fork Red Dog 15 NW Private 1 Dolly Varden , grayling 3 Red Dog Mine 2 AWC 331-00-10060-2120-3280- Creek near Kivalina (Native 4021; Red Dog Mine Corp.) Notes: SF=Division of Sport Fish; COP=Upper Copper Upper Susitna Drainage; KUK=Kuskokwim River Drainage; LTR=Lower Tanana River Drainage; NS=North Slope; NW=Northwest; UTR=Upper Tanana River Drainage; YUK=Yukon River Drainage. APPENDIX C LITTLE CAMPBELL CREEK 55 Appendix C1.—Little Campbell Creek Mean Daily Flows in cubic feet per second for Water Year 2006 (October 1, 2005 — September 30, 2006). Day May Jun Jul Aug Sep 1 e7.8 10 3.8 1.7 10 . 8.0 9.8 3.1 1.4 9.6 3 8.2 7.2 2.7 1.4 9.4 4 e9.2 6.4 2.3 1.5 9 5 el0 5.4 1.9 1.4 11 6 9.2 44 1.9 1.4 9.4 ih ell 3.8 1.9 1.5 8.7 8 el2 44 1.9 1.5 19 9 8.7 4.1 1.8 1.5 7.2 10 e9.0 4.8 15 2.3 6.6 11 e9.1 5.6 1.4 11 6.1 12 9.5 9.4 0.93 4.8 5.4 13 e10 9.2 0.93 4.1 4.9 14 e10 7.7 3.8 10 9.6 15 el0 17 13 12 11 16 9.8 12 8.1 11 10 17 9.8 9.8 3.8 10 7 18 9.6 8.7 2.7 13 6.1 19 9.2 6.8 24 16 5.6 20 9.8 5.4 2.5 16 5.6 21 9.5 44 2.3 15 5.1 22 9.6 10 2.5 15 13 23 10 6.1 2.1 15 10 24 10 4.4 2.3 15 8.5 25 10 3.8 2.3 17 8.3 26 10 5.6 1.9 15 11 27 9.8 4.1 1.5 14 13 28 9 3.7 2.3 13 13 29 Ted 3.5 1.5 12 14 30 6.8 3.8 3.5 11 12 31 8.5 3.7 11 TOTAL 129.5 192 87.96 276.5 268 MEAN 4.18 6.40 2.84 8.92 8.93 MAX 10 12 13 17 14 MIN 6.8 3.5 0.93 1.4 4.9 Note: e=estimated. 56 Appendix C2.—Little Campbell Creek Mean Daily Flows in cubic feet per second for Water Year 2007 (October 1, 2006 — September 30, 2007). Day Oct Nov Dec Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun 1 11 5.1 2.0 e2.1 el.9 e1.2 e4.5 10 5.6 2 10 e4.8 e1.9 2.0 e2.0 e1.2 e7.0 10 5.4 3 11 e4.6 e1.8 e2.0 e1.8 e1.2 10 10 5.1 4 12 04.4 el.7 e2.1 el.7 e1.2 13 10 5.6 5 11 e4.2 el.6 2.2 e1.6 el.l 14 10 6.6 6 10 e4.0 el.5 e2.3 e1.6 el.1 15 10 6.4 7 10 3.8 el.4 e2.4 e1.6 el.l 19 11 5.6 8 10 3.6 el3 e2.4 el.7 el.l 18 10 5.1 9 12 23.4 el.2 2.3 e1.6 e1.2 17 10 4.4 10 12 e3.7 el.3 leas el.6 e1.3 15 10 44 11 12 3.5 el.3 e2.2 el.5 e1.3 12 9.6 3.8 12 11 e3.2 el.4 e2.1 e1.5 e1.2 12 9.5 3.8 13 10 3.0 el.5 el.9 el.4 e1.2 11 9.2 3.7 14 9.6 e2.8 el.6 el.8 el.3 el.l 10 8.8 4.4 15 9.2 e2.6 el.6 el.7 el.3 el.1 11 9 3.7 16 9 e2.5 el.4 e1.6 el.4 el.2 11 9.1 3.3 17 9.4 2.4 el.6 el.5 e1.3 e1.2 11 9 3.1 18 9.4 2.5 el.7 el.5 e1.3 e1.2 11 8.5 2.7 19 8.7 2.3 el.9 e1.6 e1.2 el.2 11 8.1 2.7 20 8.1 e2.2 e2.0 e1.6 e1.2 e1.3 11 8.1 2.5 21 71.9 2.2 e2.0 el.5 el.l e1.3 9.5 79 2.3 22 17 e2.1 el.9 e1.5 el.l e1.3 10 74 1.9 23 7.2 e2.1 el.8 el.5 el.l e1.2 11 17 2.3 24 6.8 e2.0 el.7 el.4 el.l e1.2 12 74 5.6 25 6.8 e1.9 el.7 el.4 e1.0 el.1 11 7.2 8.3 26 6.6 el.9 2.0 e1.3 el.l e1.2 11 7.2 3.8 27 6.1 2.0 2.3 el.3 el.l e1.3 12 6.8 3.1 28 5.1 e2.0 2.2 el.4 el.1 e1.5 12 6.4 2.3 29 6.6 e2.1 e2.4 leno el.7 11 6.4 1.8 30 5.8 e2.1 e2.4 el.7 2.0 11 6.1 1.7 31 5.6 2.3 e1.8 e2.5 5.8 TOTAL 277.6 89 54.4 55.9 39.2 40 354 266.2 121 MEAN 8.95 2.97 1.75 1.80 1.40 1.29 11.80 8.59 4.03 MAX 12 5.1 2.4 2.4 2 2.5 19 11 8.3 MIN 5.1 1.9 1.2 1.3 1 1.1 9.5 5.8 1.7 Note: e=estimated. 57 Appendix C3.—Water Quality Results for Little Campbell Creek at site LCC1. Constituent Result PQL Units Aluminum ND 100 ug/L Antimony ND 1 ug/L Arsenic ND 10 ug/L Barium 23.7 3 ug/L Beryllium ND 1 ug/L Bismuth ND 2 ug/L Cadmium ND 2 ug/L Calcium 46900 1000 ug/L Chromium 6.79 4 ug/L Cobalt ND 1 ug/L Copper ND 6 ug/L Tron ND 1000 ug/L Lead ND 1 ug/L Phosphorus ND 500 ug/L Potassium 1230 1000 ug/L Selenium ND 10 ug/L Silver ND 2 ug/L Sodium 7140 1000 ug/L Thallium ND 1 ug/L Vanadium ND 20 ug/L Zine ND 25 ug/L Magnesium 10600 1000 ug/L Manganese 97.8 2 ug/L Molybdenum ND 5 ug/L Nickel 2.49 2 ug/L Nitrate/Nitrite-N 2.32 0.1 mg/L Phosphorus ND 0.1 mg/L Gasoline Range Organics ND 0.1 mg/L Benzene ND 0.5 ug/L Toluene ND 2 ug/L Ethylbenzene ND 2 ug/L o-Xylene ND 2 ug/L Diesel Range Orgfanics ND 0.333 mg/L Residual Range Organics ND 0.556 mg/L gamma-Chlordane ND 0.0326 ug/L alpha-Chlordane ND 0.0326 ug/L alpha-BHC ND 0.0326 ug/L beta-BHC ND 0.0326 ug/L gamma-BHC ND 0.0326 ug/L delta-BHC ND 0.0326 ug/L Heptachlor ND 0.0326 ug/L Aldrin ND 0.0326 ug/L Heptachlor epoxide ND 0.0326 ug/L Endosulfan ND 0.0326 ug/L 4,4'-DDE ND 0.0326 ug/L Dieldrin ND 0.0326 ug/L Endrin ND 0.0326 ug/L Endosulfan II ND 0.0326 ug/L 4,4'-DDD ND 0.0326 ug/L Endrin aldehyde ND 0.0326 ug/L 4,4'-DDT ND 0.0326 ug/L Endosulfan sulfate ND 0.0326 ug/L Endrin ketone ND 0.0326 ug/L Methoxychlor ND 0.0326 ug/L Toxaphene ND 1.09 ug/L Cyanide ND 0.005 mg/L -continued- 58 Appendix C3.—Page 2 of 2. Notes: PQL Practical Quantitation Limit (reporting limit). U Indicates the analyte was analyzed for but not detected. F Indicates value that is greater than or equal to the MDL. J The quantitation is an estimation. ND Indicates the analyte is not detected. B Indicates the analyte is found in a blank associated with the sample. 7 The analyte has exceeded allowable regulatory or control limits. GT Greater Than D The analyte concentration is the result of a dilution. LT Less Than ! Surrogate out of control limits. Q QC parameter out of acceptance range. M A matrix effect was present. JL The analyte was positively identified, but the quantitation is a low estimation. E The analyte result is above the calibrated range. 59 Appendix C4.—Water Quality Results for Little Campbell Creek at site LCC2. Constituent Result PQL Units Aluminum ND 100 ug/L Antimony ND 1 ug/L Arsenic ND 10 ug/L Barium 24.2 3 ug/L Beryllium ND 1 ug/L Bismuth ND 2 ug/L Cadmium ND 2 ug/L Calcium 48600 1000 ug/L Chromium 5.06 4 ug/L Copper ND 6 ug/L Tron ND 1000 ug/L Lead ND 1 ug/L Phosphorus ND 500 ug/L Potassium 1260 1000 ug/L Selenium 10.3 10 ug/L Silver ND 2 ug/L Sodium 7250 1000 ug/L Thallium ND 1 ug/L Vanadium ND 20 ug/L Zine ND 25 ug/L Cobalt ND 1 ug/L Magnesium 11100 1000 ug/L Manganese 98.2 2 ug/L Molybdenum ND 5 ug/L Nickel 2.62 2 ug/L Nitrate/Nitrite 2.34 0.1 mg/L Phosphorus ND 0.1 mg/L Gasoline Range Organics ND 0.1 mg/L Benzene ND 0.5 ug/L Toluene ND 2 ug/L Ethylbenzene ND 2 ug/L o-Xylene ND 2 ug/L Diesel Range Organics ND 0.326 mg/L Residual Range Organics ND 0.543 mg/L gamma-Chlordane ND 0.0316 ug/L alpha-Chlordane ND 0.0316 ug/L alpha-BHC ND 0.0316 ug/L beta-BHC ND 0.0316 ug/L gamma-BHC ND 0.0316 ug/L delta-BHC ND 0.0316 ug/L Heptachlor ND 0.0316 ug/L Aldrin ND 0.0316 ug/L Heptachlor epoxide ND 0.0316 ug/L Endosulfan ND 0.0316 ug/L 4,4'-DDE ND 0.0316 ug/L Dieldrin ND 0.0316 ug/L Endrin ND 0.0316 ug/L Endosulfan II ND 0.0316 ug/L 4,4'-DDD ND 0.0316 ug/L Endrin aldehyde ND 0.0316 ug/L 4,4'-DDT ND 0.0316 ug/L Endosulfan sulfate ND 0.0316 ug/L Endrin ketone ND 0.0316 ug/L Methoxychlor ND 0.0316 ug/L Toxaphene ND 1.05 ug/L Cyanide ND 0.005 mg/L -continued- 60 Appendix C4.—Page 2 of 2. Notes: PQL Practical Quantitation Limit (reporting limit). U Indicates the analyte was analyzed for but not detected. F Indicates value that is greater than or equal to the MDL. J The quantitation is an estimation. ND Indicates the analyte is not detected. B Indicates the analyte is found in a blank associated with the sample. 7 The analyte has exceeded allowable regulatory or control limits. GT Greater Than D The analyte concentration is the result of a dilution. LT Less Than ! Surrogate out of control limits. Q QC parameter out of acceptance range. M A matrix effect was present. JL The analyte was positively identified, but the quantitation is a low estimation. E The analyte result is above the calibrated range. 61 Appendix C5.—Water Quality Results for North Fork Campbell Creek at site NFLCC. Constituent Result PQL Units Aluminum ND 100 ug/L Antimony ND 1 ug/L Arsenic ND 10 ug/L Barium 27.8 3 ug/L Beryllium ND 1 ug/L Bismuth ND 2 ug/L Cadmium ND 2 ug/L Calcium 43100 1000 ug/L Chromium 6.41 4 ug/L Cobalt ND 1 ug/L Copper ND 6 ug/L Iron ND 1000 ug/L Lead ND 1 ug/L Phosphorus ND 500 ug/L Potassium 1060 1000 ug/L Selenium 11.3 10 ug/L Silver ND 2 ug/L Sodium 5730 1000 ug/L Thallium ND 1 ug/L Vanadium ND 20 ug/L Zinc ND 25 ug/L Magnesium 9810 1000 ug/L Manganese 162 2 ug/L Molybdenum ND 5 ug/L Nickel 3.23 2 ug/L Nitrate/Nitrite-N 1.62 0.1 mg/L Phosphorus ND 0.1 mg/L Gasoline Range Organics ND 0.1 mg/L Benzene ND 0.5 ug/L Toluene ND 2 ug/L Ethylbenzene ND 2 ug/L o-Xylene ND 2 ug/L Diesel Range Organics ND 0.326 mg/L Residual Range Organics ND 0.543 mg/L gamma-Chlordane ND 0.0319 ug/L alpha-Chlordane ND 0.0319 ug/L alpha-BHC ND 0.0319 ug/L beta-BHC ND 0.0319 ug/L gamma-BHC ND 0.0319 ug/L delta~-BHC ND 0.0319 ug/L Heptachlor ND 0.0319 ug/L Aldrin ND 0.0319 ug/L Heptachlor epoxide ND 0.0319 ug/L Endosulfan ND 0.0319 ug/L 4,4'-DDE ND 0.0319 ug/L Dieldrin ND 0.0319 ug/L Endrin ND 0.0319 ug/L Endosulfan II ND 0.0319 ug/L 4,4'-DDD ND 0.0319 ug/L Endrin aldehyde ND 0.0319 ug/L 4,4'-DDT ND 0.0319 ug/L Endosulfan sulfate ND 0.0319 ug/L Endrin ketone ND 0.0319 ug/L Methoxychlor ND 0.0319 ug/L Toxaphene ND 1.06 ug/L Cyanide ND 0.005 mg/L -continued- 62 Appendix C5.—Page 2 of 2. Notes: PQL Practical Quantitation Limit (reporting limit). U Indicates the analyte was analyzed for but not detected. F Indicates value that is greater than or equal to the MDL. J The quantitation is an estimation. ND Indicates the analyte is not detected. B Indicates the analyte is found in a blank associated with the sample. * The analyte has exceeded allowable regulatory or control limits. GT Greater Than D The analyte concentration is the result of a dilution. LT Less Than ! Surrogate out of control limits. Q QC parameter out of acceptance range. M A matrix effect was present. JL The analyte was positively identified, but the quantitation is a low estimation. E The analyte result is above the calibrated range. 63 Reproduced from Jnstream Flow Training Program applied environmental education program evaluation pre-evaluation report, prepared in August 2006 by Stacie Hall, program biologist, Alaska Department of Fish and Game. Appendix D1—SARCU Instream Flow Education, Training, and Outreach Program. Applied Environmental Education Program Evaluation Pre-evaluation Report By Stacie Hall August 2006 66 Reproduced from Jnstream Flow Training Program applied environmental education program evaluation pre-evaluation report, prepared in August 2006 by Stacie Hall, program biologist, Alaska Department of Fish and Game. Table of Contents page Program Description 1 Overview 1 Program Rationale 2 Goals and Objectives 2 Logic Model 4 Purpose of the Evaluation 4 Evaluation Plan Questions 5 Evaluation Techniques and Instruments 6 Methods 6 Sources of Information and Timeline 6 Gathering and Analyzing Data 7 Limitations 9 Results 9 Appendix A: Comprehensive Evaluation Matrix 11 B: Pre-Workshop Questionnaire 13 C: Pre-Post Content Test 16 D: Observation Form and Guide 19 E: Alternative Assessment 26 F: Post-Workshop Questionnaire 28 G: Follow-Up Questionnaire 31 67 Reproduced from Jnstream Flow Training Program applied environmental education program evaluation pre-evaluation report, prepared in August 2006 by Stacie Hall, program biologist, Alaska Department of Fish and Game. Program Description Overview The Instream Flow Training program is a technical support service provided SARCU. This program works with other ADF&G programs and divisions, other state and federal government agencies, private, non-profit organizations and private citizens throughout the state to provide instream flow education, outreach and training. The purpose of the Instream Flow Training Program is both to educate about the importance and value of instream flow and to provide skills, training, and support services necessary to empower people to be successful in protecting water resources in Alaska. SARCU provides partners with support services such as lending equipment and technical guidance for instream flow related studies and projects. Special emphasis has been given to pilot projects with local watershed groups, which involves training members of the public to take stream discharge measurements as part of a citizen science environmental monitoring program. Program Rationale In 1980 the Alaska legislature amended state water laws in recognition of the economic and social benefits that would be derived from retaining sufficient water in rivers and lakes (Estes 1998). Those and subsequent amendments make it possible for anyone to file for a water right called an instream flow reservation, or reservation of water (Estes 1998). Reservations of water allow any individual or entity to retain a sufficient volume or quantity of good quality water in Alaskan rivers, lakes, estuaries, wetlands, groundwater and other water bodies to support and sustain fish and wildlife production, waterway access to these resources, associated recreational opportunities, navigation and transportation, sanitation and water quality. The Alaska statutes are somewhat unique as most water law in the U.S is based on the premise that water is only useful and important once you remove it from its source, divert it, or impound it with a dam. Even states that formally recognize instream values of water often only allow a specific government agency to file for this type of water right. In 1986 the ADF&G Division of Sport Fish’s Research and Technical Services branch formed the Statewide Aquatic Resources Coordination Unit (SARCU) whose primary purpose was to support the division’s mission by acquiring instream flow water rights for sport fishery resources and related instream uses of water. In 1991, SARCU, recommended in its, “Annual Summary of Alaska Department of Fish and Game Instream Flow Reservation Applications”, that additional attention should be paid to alerting the public to the opportunity of reserving water for instream uses. It was suggested that: “An instream flow methods and application handbook should be prepared by the ADFG to provide sufficient guidance for the public and other interested parties to file for instream flow reservations” (Estes 1991). By 1993, the first official recommendation for an education program came: “A formal instream flow education program should be funded to encourage public participation in the instream flow reservation process” (Estes 1993). The need for public education about instream flow was repeatedly pointed out in SARCU’s annual reports until in 2003 additional staff and funding was dedicated to creating SARCU’s formal education and information programs. While Alaska’s Instream Flow Law has been in existence for over 25 years, there is still a lack of awareness of this opportunity in both the professional and public realms of the state. Conservatively, there are an estimated 60,000 river reaches and thousands of lakes in Alaska that 68 Reproduced from J/nstream Flow Training Program applied environmental education program evaluation pre-evaluation report, prepared in August 2006 by Stacie Hall, program biologist, Alaska Department of Fish and Game. support fish. However, between 1980 and 1996, there were only 92 applications for reservations of water submitted to the state’s Department of Natural Resources for review (Estes 1996). Considering the economic, environmental, recreational, and social benefits that Alaska receives from its free flowing waters, which is unparalleled elsewhere in the U.S.; maintaining adequate instream flows in its waters is one way to ensure the valued Alaskan way of life can continue well into the future. Goals and Objectives The goal of the Instream Flow Training Program is to educate and empower participants with sufficient instream flow awareness, knowledge, attitudes and skills to be willing and capable to educate others about instream flow; and perform instream flow data collection either as a contribution to current citizen science volunteer efforts, or as part of a formal research project. Program goals: 1. Recognize, apply, and integrate instream flow concepts and value into management decisions, especially as it relates to fish and wildlife. 2. Recognize, apply, and integrate instream flow protection tools that exist under state and federal laws into their current activities or research. 3. Recognize, apply, and integrate instream flow concepts and values into their educational programs and materials, especially as it relates to fish and wildlife. 4. Support the ADF&G programs that protect instream flows under state and federal laws, and the core activities associated with these programs 5. Demonstrate the technical skill, ability, and understanding of instream flow to be capable of correctly informing, educating, and training other individuals and groups about the importance and value of instream flow issues and concerns. The objectives of the program are: After attending a topical instream flow workshop, participants will be able to: * Define “instream use of water”, and “out of stream use of water” and list 2 examples of each. * Explain 3 of the 4 purposes for which water can be reserved, and who is allowed to apply for reservations of water. Explain the importance of instream flow to water quality. Explain the relationship between hydrologic variability and fish and wildlife. Name three legal “tools” for protecting instream flow. Acknowledge the need for balance between instream and out of stream uses of water. Report an increased awareness of instream flow issues in Alaska. ¢ ¢ 6 6 6 & Recognize the following: staff gage, flow meter, wading rod, and digitizer; and be able to briefly describe the function of each. 69 Reproduced from Jnstream Flow Training Program applied environmental education program evaluation pre-evaluation report, prepared in August 2006 by Stacie Hall, program biologist, Alaska Department of Fish and Game. After attending a skills training workshop, participants will be able to: * Demonstrate the proper assembly of a Price AA meter. # Calibrate a flow meter with a spin test. * Set a top-set wading rode to the appropriate depth in the water column. * Choose a location appropriate for taking reliable long-term instream flow measurements. * Measure flow using a flow meter using a digitizer, headphones, and tally counter * Convert flow measurements into total discharge using the excel spreadsheet form provided. Audiences: There are multiple statewide target audiences for the Instream Flow Training Program. SARCU will prioritize efforts in the following order based on time and resources available: OO Ss ice | ee ADF&G Information and Education Staff ADF&G Research and Management staff Watershed Organizations’ Staff involved in pilot projects Volunteers of Watershed Organizations involved in pilot projects Watershed Organizations’ Staff not involved in pilot projects Volunteers of Watershed Organizations not involved in pilot projects Other state and federal agency staff Other private or non-profit groups and organizations Logic Model The logic model below shows the chain of events that will facilitate change in our target audiences and achieve the Instream Flow Training Program’s goals and objectives. It depicts the relationship between the program’s: Inputs (what we will invest) Outputs (the activities we will do and who we will reach) The program’s outcomes, which fall along a time and scope continuum, and can also be called results: Short-term outcomes: generally an increase in learning, or what the participant gains at the end of the workshop Medium-term outcomes: broader, with participants often integrating knowledge and behaviors from the training program into their daily work and life Long-term outcomes: Larger and lasting positive changes in participants that will make a difference in the issue the training program seeks to address. 70 IZ Reproduced from Jnstream Flow Training Program applied environmental education program evaluation pre-evaluation report, prepared in August 2006 by Stacie Hall, program biologist, Alaska Department of Fish and Game. Inputs Outputs Outcomes Activities Participants Short Medium Long-Term Staff: *On-site *ADF&G staff Participants will: Participants will: Participants will: : technical *Hydrologist . yerologis assistance *Fish Biologist *Other agency *Report increased awareness of *Engage in instream *Report valuing rte Tr staff instream flow issues around the flow data collection at | Alaska’s free-flowing Wildlife * . ee : : ; ; Power Point state individual project sites waters Biologist : : presentations at such as fish weirs *Education watershed *Watershed Coordinator council or council staff *Report and demonstrate *Report regular community increased knowledge about: *Report feeling participation in meetings, or =ingtrenti ve “ON Of tren sex OF comfortable seeking instream flow data Budget: conferences. *Watershed , water technical assistance or collection efforts «0 : council volunteers support from SARCU! perating } -reservations of water budget *Topical *Complete appropriate : -oth : *Materials budget | — workshops: oer Feat (pols fo protect *Demonstrate data collection and file Equipment: *Four flow measurement “kits” for lending *One education flow kit for events *Eight staff gages for long-term lending - offered 1 to 2 times a year - 4 to 5 hours in length *Skills workshops: - offered 1 to 2 times a year -relationship between fish and wildlife and instream flow -relationship between water quality and instream flow *Report and demonstrate increased skills and knowledge increased support for instream flow related funding and resources by contributing $ to collaborative gaging projects. *(ADF&G staff) Demonstrate increased coordination with SARCU on instream flow issues related to for a reservation of water. *Utilize an instream flow protection tool other than water reservations *Report the ability to critically analyze potential instream CL Reproduced from /nstream Flow Training Program applied environmental education program evaluation pre-evaluation report, prepared in August 2006 by Stacie Hall, program biologist, Alaska Department of Fish and Game. Materials: *Brochures *Fact sheets *Power Points *Website *Participant manual *CD of resources Partners: *ADF&G Division of Commercial Fisheries *AK Dept Natural Resources *Anchorage Waterways Council *Cook Inlet Keepers *Kenai Watershed Forum *The Nature Conservancy -7 to 8 hours in length about: -instream flow data collection techniques -site selection -flow measurement equipment and its maintenance *Report increased acknowledgement of the need for balance between instream and out of stream uses of water. *Report interest in participating in additional trainings or workshops *Report interest in participating in instream flow data collection *Report feeling comfortable using appropriate instream flow data collection techniques and equipment. *Report that they intend to utilize new knowledge and skills in the scope of their jobs, or volunteer work fish and wildlife. *Utilize SARCU’s equipment lending system *Re-write or modify one educational activity or product to include instream flow topics * Assess which water bodies in their regions have or will soon have (>3 years) instream flow conflicts *Train additional volunteers to collect instream flow data *Participate in additional trainings or workshops flow impacts or trade- offs for proposed developments or projects in the state Reproduced from /nstream Flow Training Program applied environmental education program evaluation pre-evaluation report, prepared in August 2006 by Stacie Hall, program biologist, Alaska Department of Fish and Game. Purpose of the Evaluation The evaluation of the Instream Flow Training program will determine to what extent our stated program goals and objectives are being met, and to measure the effectiveness of our efforts. The information gained from these evaluations will determine program impacts, help inform a marketing and communications strategy to attract new participants, and improve our current training efforts. The evaluation will also allow us to quantify our contributions to measures and targets that exist under our division’s umbrella education program, the Division of Sport Fish Education Program. In the long-term, we are interested in whether the training influences changes in behavior, and if the participants carry on their learning by incorporating it into their own education, information, and research efforts. In the future, we plan on examining the extent and quality of instream flow activities and research that are carried out as a result of the workshop. Methods Data will be collected with the following instruments, from these sources, at the following times: Name of instrument/method Source of Information Timeline Pre-Workshop Questionnaire All Participants Beginning of topical and_ skills workshops Content test All Participants Beginning and end of skills workshops Observations Participant subsample During hands-on - skill practice! portion of skills workshop Alternative Assessment/All Participants Before and after site selection unit of questionnaire skills workshop Post-Workshop Questionnaire |All Participants End of topical and skills workshops Follow-up Questionnaire |All Participants 6 months after topical and skills| workshops Limitations The potential biases and limitations of this evaluation plan include: e Testing threats: The evaluation plan uses several pre- and posttests, which means that there is potential for testing biases to occur. We will attempt to minimize this threat by re-writing questions so they are not identical on the pre-and posttests. e Limited sample size: The number of trainings provided each year is restricted due to staff size. The number of people allowed to attend workshops is also capped to ensure that adequate one-on-one instruction and feedback can be given to participants. e Observations: Staff will be non-participant covert observers; however, if participants realize they are being watched and scored it may affect their behavior and execution of skills. 73 Reproduced from Jnstream Flow Training Program applied environmental education program evaluation pre-evaluation report, prepared in August 2006 by Stacie Hall, program biologist, Alaska Department of Fish and Game. e Selection bias: Participants self-select so there is the possibility that participants tend to be of certain demographics. We will attempt to minimize this threat by gathering demographic data on our questionnaires and examining potential patterns that occur in groups’ evaluation results. e History bias: The participants in the training program have varied characteristics and experience with instream flow. We will attempt to minimize this threat by gathering some baseline demographic data and information on the prior knowledge and experiences of our participants. e Maturation effects: Since we will be tracking participant knowledge, attitudes, and skills over time, evaluation results may be affected by changes in participants. Results The results of the evaluations will be interpreted and the conclusions will be used to help us understand: 1. The effectiveness of our workshops: i. ii. iii. iv. Vi. Vii. Vili. Content test: % of participants whose mean score increased from the pre- to posttest Mean scores or patterns on individual questions on content tests to indicate areas that may need to be revised or taught differently. Photo evaluation: % of participants whose mean score increased from the pre to posttest % of participants who indicate a greater level of confidence with instream flow related topics Responses about appropriateness of workshop length Responses about appropriateness of level of detail in which topics were covered Responses about appropriateness of workshop facilities and streamside location Mean scores and important themes from observations of participants during hands-on skills practice 2. Whether the workshops influence participant behavior: i. ii. lil. % participants who indicate that they became involved in instream flow data collection efforts because of the workshop % participants who indicate that they integrated instream flow information into their education and information programs and materials because of the workshop % participants who indicate being more aware of instream flow issues after the workshop 74 Reproduced from /nstream Flow Training Program applied environmental education program evaluation pre-evaluation report, prepared in August 2006 by Stacie Hall, program biologist, Alaska Department of Fish and Game. iv. % increase in participants that report utilizing SARCU’s equipment lending system, or other support services 3. Barriers to participation: i. Summary of quantitative data shared by participants, including illustrative quotes to help us attract new participants, and increase participation in the program ii. Summary of quantitative data shared by participants which might indicate changes needed to remove barriers 4. Demographics of individuals who participate in instream flow research projects, or volunteer data collection efforts: i. Patterns and trends in participation that might inform a marketing and communications strategy Results from the evaluation of the Instream Flow Training Program will be communicated to the stakeholders as: 1. A Fact sheet that will convey key findings and recommendations to staff 2. An executive summary for divisional leadership to provide additional details for those who would like more than the fact sheet 3. A case study including photos and participant quotes that can be shared at appropriate conferences and venues with findings, lessons learned, and recommendations for others who might be interested in pursuing similar efforts. 75 OL Reproduced from /nstream Flow Training Program applied environmental education program evaluation pre-evaluation report, prepared in August 2006 by Stacie Hall, program biologist, Alaska Department of Fish and Game. Comprehensive Evaluation Matrix Focusing the evaluation Collecting the information Analyzing and Reporting Logic Evaluation mons! Questions Indicators Sources Methods Managing Analysis Reporting What do you want to | How will you know it? Who will How will you When will the How will the data be To whom and how will the results be know? have the gather the information be analyzed and displayed? communicated? How will you use the information? data? collected? results? Outcomes |Do our workshops|#, % participants | Participants | Observation During the | Percentages, means as| Included in program evaluation report for (short- increase participant} demonstrating proper form and | hands-on and in- | bar graph staff; program documentation; executive term) flow data collection | flow collection numeric rating | field portions of summary for divisional leadership indicating skills? techniques of participant | all workshops contribution to divisional education targets technique and measures Outcomes |Do our workshops | % increase in| Participants |Pre and post| At beginning and| Percentages & means of| Included in program evaluation report for (short- increase _ participant | knowledge about tests end of| quantitative data in tables | staff for program documentation; executive term) knowledge of|instream flow related workshops and bar graph summary for divisional leadership showing instream flow topics? | topics contribution to divisional education targets and measures Outcomes |Do our workshops | % change in | Participants | Questionnaires | Pre-workshop; 6| Percentages & means of| Included in program evaluation report for (short- change attitudes | attitudes/values about and 12 months | quantitative data in tables | staff for program documentation; executive term) about instream flow| instream flow related after — workshop | and bar charts summary for divisional leadership indicating issues? issues as a follow-up contribution to divisional education targets and measures Outcomes |Do our workshops | % change in | Participants | Questionnaires | Pre-workshop; 6| Percentages & means of| Included in program evaluation report for (short- increase participant | awareness of (pre-post) and 12 months | quantitative data in tables | staff for program documentation; executive term) awareness of|}instream flow related after workshop | and bar charts summary for divisional leadership indicating instream flow|issues around the as a follow-up contribution to divisional education targets issues? state and measures Output What barriers are | Responses from | Staff Questionnaire | Pre-workshop Percentages & means of| Staff summary of results which will be used (participati | there to participation | participants; Supervisors | (post) survey; quantitative data in tables;|to help form a marketing strategy and on) in workshops Participants Post workshop | content analysis of | possible strategies for overcoming barriers questionnaire qualitative responses with | for future workshops and survey finding summarized as bullet points What is the primary| Feedback from staff] Participants | Questionnaires; | Survey at|Percentages & means of| Incorporated into evaluation report; Outcome | barrier that prevents | and participants Supervisors | open beginning of | quantitative data in tables; | executive summary for internal use. Power (medium, | people from discussion workshop; open | content analysis of| point, article for sharing with EE, and long-term) | collecting flow data ended response | qualitative responses | instream flow community before and after questions —_ and | w/bullet point summary workshops? discussion at end of workshops -continued- LL Reproduced from Jnstream Flow Training Program applied environmental education program evaluation pre-evaluation report, prepared in August 2006 by Stacie Hall, program biologist, Alaska Department of Fish and Game. Focusing the evaluation Collecting the information Analyzing and Reporting Logic ‘ model aise Indicators Sources Methods Managing Analysis Reporting link juestions Outcomes | Does participation in| # participants collecting} Participants | Questionnaires | Pre- Percentages, means,|Incorporated into evaluation report; (medium, | our workshops | flow data; % change in flow | Supervisors | that include | workshop; 6 | ranges displayed in line | executive summary for internal use. long) influence data being collected; | Staff open-ended and 12 | graph participation in flow} Responses; # , % change questions; months after Case study. data collection? in projects including flow literature search | workshop as data; # of participants of ADF&G | a follow-up Power point, article for sharing with EE, utilizing equipment lending reports and instream flow community system Inputs How effective are the | Responses from | Participants | Questionnaire At end of| Percentages & means|Summary of findings for program staff; (power materials at | participants; % who utilize workshop; in tables incorporated into larger evaluation report points, contributing to | materials after workshop 6 months for program documentation; use to improve participant | participant learning? after products manual, workshop as cD of a follow-up resources ) Outcomes |Did the program}# materials incorporating | Participants, | Questionnaires |12 months| Quantitative data as|Incorporated into evaluation report; (medium) | influence instream flow; % change staff, after percentages & means | executive summary for internal use. Power participants to supervisors, workshop in table format point, article for sharing with EE, and incorporate instream other instream flow community flow info into current program programs or coordinators materials? Outcome | How does the | % change in coordination | Staff Questionnaires |18 months| Percentages & means| Incorporated into evaluation report; (long- program __ influence | requests/emails/ phone | Supervisors | that include | after of quantitative data in | executive summary for internal use. term) staff coordination | calls; Feedback; Interviews open-ended workshop tables; content analysis with SARCU? questions; of qualitative responses literature search wibullet point summary of ADF&G reports Outcome | How did the program | Responses; % change in #| Watershed Questionnaires |18 months | Quantitative data | Incorporated into evaluation report; (long- influence participants, counts staff that include | after displayed with line | executive summary for internal use. term) participation levels in Participants | open-ended workshop graphs; qualitative data volunteer monitoring Volunteers questions; content analyzed and | Part of case study. programs? literature search summarized as_ bullet of ADF&G points Power point, article for sharing with EE, reports and instream flow community Outcome | How does the | % change in attitudes; % | Supervisors | Questionnaires; |18 months|Percentages & means|Incorporated into evaluation report; (long- program influence} change in $ contributions | Project or| Project and FY | after of quantitative data in | executive summary for internal use. term) support for instream|to collaborative gaging | budget summarization workshop tables, and line graphs; related resources | projects managers reports content analysis of and funding such as qualitative responses SARCU? w/ bullet points