HomeMy WebLinkAbout2006-12-13 Council Packet - Work Session AK Dept. Nat. Resources~ , ~
TUESDAY, DECEMBER 12, 2006-
6:00 P.M.
CIP LIST PRIORITIZATION
***~************************
1P1/EDNESDAY, DECEMBER 13, 20
5-7:00 P.M.
KENAI RIVER CONCE N
*~**:~********~******~****~~*
FRIDAY, DECEMBER 15, 200
3-5:00 P.M.
W/ LEGISLATORS RE: CIP LI T
AND OTHER RELEVANT CITY
CONCERNS
KENAI CYTY COUNCIL WORK SESSION
DECEMBER 13, 2006
KENAI CITY COUNCIL CHAn
5:00 P.M.
AGENDA
ITEM A: CALL TO ORDER
ITEM B: WORK SESSION
Discussion with Chris Degernes, Alaska Department of Natural Resources, Division of
Parks & Outdoor Recreation, related to proposed regulations to increase horsepower
limitations and reduce hydrocarbons on the Kenai River.
ITEM C: ADJOURNMENT
Yroposed Yark Kegulahon Changes ior the Kenai River Special Management Area, Alask... Yage 1 of 2
~Parks Boating Safety Hist.(Archaeology Grants Design Trails Volunteers Index f~3~tt9Y+~~ ~~547t9!'t~s ~
Proposecl Park Regulation Changes for the Kenai River Special Manageme
The Department of Natural Resources has announced that proposed changes to Park A~~ Lir
regulations affecting 6oaters on the Kenai River Speciai Management Area are now currene N
available for public review and comment. The proposed changas include; cabins
Statewide
~ Increase the maximum allowable horsepower for motorized boats in the KRSMA Park Fees
from 35 to 50 horsepower (hp); aoa Fac~ii
Individual
'~ Restrict boat lengths to 21 feet and boat widths to 106 inches; ~eweis of
For More
~ By January 1, 2008, require ail outboard engines used in the KRSMA to be either Be ~?
four-stroke or direct fuel injection two-stroke motors. Reiated_5
For more infarmation on the proposed changes, please review:
Public Notice
Addition_al..Requlations Notice Information
Proposed,Regu_ lations
D,irectar's Decision on ReducCion of_Hydrocarbons on the Kenai Ri,ver.
The public may provide comments in a number of ways:
Attend a pubiic hearing in Soidotna or Anchorage, and provide written or oral testimony:
Ta~e.~e~ay, Cdesta. ~~, 7:at~ - 3~~€& psat,
l~er~~i P~seirasc~i~ C~raresasgh ~s~~rv~ksly ~h~mt+~r~, ~cstc~~~~~s, kiFL
{tlPetirte~tiapr, ~l~v. 2~, ::tD~D - ~:C9(~ pst~,
~"i6Et~-` ~.~$~y ~Q~9~Y~ .t~$WQ6t~ F391&~C~16'1C,~~ ~ A~ ~. ~~~'8. AV~.r ~$t'1~~'S6C~~C'~ e4.1i`
Subrrrlt writterr comments by mai(, Pax or emall to:
Chris Degernes, Chief, Fieid Operations
Division of Parks and Outdoor Recreation
550 W. 7th Ave., Suite 1380
Anchorage, AK 99501-3561
Fax; (907) 269-8907
EmaiL• Chris DeqernesCaldnr.statie.ak.us
~It ~cerarosrs~rsts ~r~ ~a~e by~ 4etFCb g~rra esra T°aa~sctay, C~ec~~rrber 1~, 24~6.
Last updated on Friday, 17-Nov-2006 13:3620 AKST.
Site optimized for Netscape 7, IE 6 or above.
Not sure who to contact7 Have a questlon abouY DNR9 Visit the P{~biic inPormtotior'i CenCer.
Report technical problems with this page to fhe V+/e~n~~ster'.
http://www.dm-.state.ak.us/parks/la~sma/proposedchange.htm 12/4/2006
Proposed Park Regulation Changes for the Kenai River Special Management Area, Alask... Page 2 of 2
St~fe of Alask~ Natiiial Regoueces Parks,Norne Parks Index Colsyr~hi Privacy Svstem Status
http://www.dnr.state.ak.us/parks/la-sma/proposedehange.htm 12/4/2006
~~p~~ 0~ p~~~ FRANKH.MURKOWSKI,GOVERNOR
(„~ 550 W. 7T" AVE., SUITE 7380
~ ANCHORAGE, ALASKA 99801-3561
PNONE: (907J 269-8700
FAX: (907) 269-8907
DEPARTMENT OF NATURAL RESOURCES
DIVlSION OF PARKS AND OUTDOOR RECREATION
November 16, 2006
Dear Alaskan:
The Department of Natural Resouxces proposes to adopf xegulaYion changes in Title 11 of the Alaska
Administrarive Code, dealing wifh boat and motor restrictions in the Kenai River Special Mauagement Area
(KRSMA), including the following;
(1) Boat Motor Use (11 AAC 20.A60L This proposai would make changcs to
boaY motor use in the KI2SMA, as follows:
a: Increase Uie maximum allowable horsepower for motorized boats in the
HI2SMA From 35 to 50 horsepower (hp);
b. Sy January 1, 2008, require all ouYboard e~igines used in the KRSMA W
be either four-sftoke or direct fuel injection two-stroke motors.
This pxoposal is neeessary to increase the allowable horsepower so that
typical KRSMA power boats can operate moxe eF£icienUy to achieve "planing
speed" and reduce the size of Uoat wakes. Further, the proposal establishas flie
upper limit on engine size at 50 hp, which is a xeadily available, standard
manufactured engine size, and removes the authorization ~Por laiger engines to be
dehwed to meet the 50 hp requirement. Finally, the peoposal restricts use on the
xiver to engines that produce eleaner exhausts, since studies have documented high
levels of hydroearbon pollution attributed To boat engines.
(2) BoaE Use (11 AAC 20.8G1Z A new section is established that limits overall
length and width for motorized boats used in the KRSMA to no inore than 21 feet
long and no more than 106 inches wide. This provision would auYhorize the use of
larger boats until January 1, 2010 by a peimit issued to persons who own oversized
boats ou the effeeYive date of Uus regularion.
This prc~vision is necessary So ensure that boat size does not inerease when
the horsepower limit is raised to 50, as the benefit from xeduced boat wakes would
be Ioet with lazgex, heavier boats.
(3) Non-motoeized areas (11 AAC 20.865(b) A section pennitting limited
motorized use for cerfain residents in the apper Kenai River area is repealed, as the
allowed use expired in 2003.
You may comment on the proposed regulation changes, including the potential costs to privaYe persons of
complying with the proposed changes, by submitting writ2en comments to Chris Degernes, Chief, Field
Opexations, Division of Parks and Outdoox Recreation, 550 W. 7`~ Ave., Suite 1380, Anchoxage, AK 99501-
3561; or via P'ax (907) 269-8907; or via email: Chris ne~ern~s('~dm'.si'~afe.~il..us.
If you provided oral or written commenTs during meetings conducted by the Kenai River Special
Mauagement Atea Advisory Board or submitted wriften comments via an on-line "2007 KRSMA Proposed
Regulation Change" Public Commeut Fomm, pxeviousty accessible at
http://www.dm•.state.~il<.usjparks/lasma~krsmaiztide~.l~tm in SepYember and October 2006, please resubmit
your comments to the proposed regulatiois changes so that they may be cousidered.
"Develop, Conserve, and Erehance Natural Resources.fbr Present and Future Alaskan~s. "
Proposed DNR Regulations - Public Notice
11/17/06
Page 2 of 2
The conunents must be received no later than 4:00 p.m. on December 19, 2006.
Oral or written cormnents also mav be submitted at hearinqs to be held on:
Tuesda , Nov. 28, 2006 Wednesda , Nov. 29, 2006
~ Kenai Peninsula Borough Buiiding- Assembiy
j Chambers Suite 240, Robert Atwood Building
144 N, Binkle 550 W. 7` . Ave.
Soldotna, AK Anchora e, AK
The hearings will be held from 7:00 p.m. to 9:00 p.m. and might be extended to accommodaYe those present
before 9:00 p.m. who did not have an opportunity to comment.
If you aze a person with a disability who needs a special accommodaYion in ordex Yo paxticipafe in tl~is
process, pl~ase contact Cl~ris Degernes aY (907) 269-8702 no later than November 21, 2006 fo ensure that
any necessaxy accommodafions can be pmvided.
Por a copy of the proposed regulation changes, contact the Department of Natural Resources Public
Infonnation Center (550 W. 7`" Ave., Suite 1260, Anchorage, AK), Chris Degernes at (90 ~ 269-8702 or
address listed above, ox go to www.dnr.state.ak.us/parks.
After the public comment period ends, the Department of Natural Resources will either adopt Yhese ox other
provisions dealing with the same subject, without further notice, ar decide to take no acYion on them. The
language of the final regulations may be different from that of the proposed regulations. YOU SHOULD
COMMENT DURING THE TIME ALLOWED IF YOL~R INTERESTS COULD BE AFFBCTED.
Statutory Authority: AS 41.21.020; AS 41.21.040
Statutes BeingImplemented, InYerprcYed, or Made Specific: AS 41.21.020; AS 41.2L506
Fiscal Iuformation: The proposed regulation changes are not expected Yo require an incxeased
appropriarion.
DATE: 11/16/06
~~
7erry Lewanski, Dicector
Division oP Parks and Outdoor Recreation
The Division of Parks and Outdoor Recreation keeps a list of individuals avd organizations interested in its regulations.
Those on the list will automa6cally be senY a copy of all of t1~e Division of Pazks and Outdoor Recrearion's Notices of
Proposed Regulation Changes. To be added to or removed from the list, send a request to the Division of Parks and
Oufdoor Reereation at 550 W. 7"' Ave., SuiYe 1380, Anchorage, AK 99501-3561, AHention Sandra Cleveland, or
Sandra Clevelasrd a dnrst~at~e.~.k.us.
ADDITIONAL REGULATIOi'S NOTICE I:~FORMATION
(AS 44.62190(d)}
1. Adopting agency: DeparCment of NaCUral Resouzces
2. Geneizl subject of regulation: Re¢ulation changes on nse of outboard eneines and boats in the Kenai
River Special Mana~ement Area
3. CiYation of regulatiou: 11 AAC 20
4. Reason for the proposed action: Implement chanQes in reeulation to reduce resouxce impacts caused bv
boats and motors in fhe Kenai Rivec Special Manaeement Axea
5. RDU/component affected: Park OperaYion and Maintenance, BRU: Park and Recreation Manaeement
6. Cost of implementation to Yhe state agency and avaIlable fundin~ (in thousands of dollars):
Initial Yeaz Subsequent
FY 2008 Years
OpexaringCosti $10.0 $3.5
Federal reeeipts $ 0 $ 0
Geueral fund match $ 0 $ 0
General fund ~ 0 $ 0
Genexal fund/
program receipts ~ 10.0 $3.5
General fund/
mental health ~ 0 ~ 0
Other funds (specify) $ 0 $ 0
7. The name of Yhe contact persou for the regulaEions:
Chris Degernes, Chief, Tield Opexations
Division of Parks and Outdoor Recreation
550 Wesf 7`~' Avenue, Suite 1380
Anchorage, Alaska 99501-3561
907-269-8702, Cluis_Degemes~dnrsYate.ak.us
8. The origin of the pxoposed action:
staff of state agency
federal government
X ~*eneral public
petition for regulation change
X other (please list) Kenai River Special Manaeement Area Advisorv Board
+'~,~.....,. z.t:~,4:o-vsu..
9. Date: 11/I6/06
Naine: Chris Degerues
Title: Chief, Field OperaYions, Division of
Parks and Outdoor Recreation
Telephone: 907-269-8702
Register_, 2007 NA7'URALRESOURCES
11 AAC 20.860 is repealed and readopted to read:
71 AAC 20.860. Boat motor use. (a) Except as prohibited by ll AAC 20,865, and
subject to the restrictions set out in this section, the operarion of a boatby the use of aboat motor
is alloweci in the Kenai River Special Management Area.
(b) A person may not operate a motor or combiuation of motors with a total propshaft
horsepower rating greater than 50 harsepower. For the pnrposes of this subsection, the original
propshaft horse}~ower rating must be elearly identified in the model numbex Yhat is permanently
embossed, stamped or affixed on the mofox stern bracket by the manufacturer and may not
exceed a rating of 50 propshaft horsepower. This horsepower rating lirnitation does not apply to:
(1) the operation of a boat on Kenai Lake, on Sldlak Lake, and on fhe Kenai
River between the Kenai Lake Bridge and river mile 80. J; and
(2) the operation of a boat by a federal, state, or local ~overnmental agency for
the purpose of law enforeement or search and rescue, or for the purpose of fish and game
management under a paxk use perxnit issued under 11 AAC 18.010.
(c) A pexson may not operate a boat iu the Kenai River Special Management Axea by the
use of a motor that has been altered or disguised with xespeet to the manufaeturer's propshaft
horsepower ra6ng, manufacturer cowling decals, or the model or serial numbers to produce more
than 50 propshaft horsepower.
(d) ~ffective 7anuary 1, 2008, a pexson may not operate a boat in the Kenai River Special
ManagemenT Area by the use of a motox unless the motor is a four-stroke motor or a direcf fuel
injeetion two-stroke motor, as described in Attachment A of the Director's Decision on
Register _, 2007 NATURAL RESOURCES
Reduction of Aydrocarbon Pollution from Motarized Boats on the Kenai River, signed
November 16, 2006, and adopted by reference.
(e) ~ffective January l, 2008, a person may not operate a boat in the Kenai River Special
Management Area by the use of a motor without displaying on Yhe motor cowling a decal issued
by the Division that cerfifies that the ~notoi is in compliance with the requirements of (d) of this
section.
( fl For the purposes of this section,
(1) "propsl~aft harsepower rating" means The boat n~otor's original manufacturer
rated and labeled horsepower; fhe addition of a jet drive unit to any boat motar does not ehange
2he equivalenC propshaft horse~owec rating of the motor powerhead and driveshaft configuration
for the purposes of this section;
(2) "foux-st~oke" motor is an internal combustion engine whose cycle is
completed in four piston strokes aizd includes a euction stroke, compression stroke, expansion
stroke, and exhaust stroke;
(3) "direct fuel injected two-stroke" motar means one whose fuel is directly
injected iuto the top of the cylindei of an intemal combus2ion engine whose cycle is completed in
two piston stmkes. (Ef£ 5/11/S5, Register 94; am 4/25/86, Register 98; am 7/1/89, Register 110;
am 7/1/98, Register 146; am _/_/_~ Registex _~
Autharity: AS 41.21.020 AS 41.21.506
11 AAC 20 is ainended by adding a new secfion to read:
2
Register ~ 2007 NATURAL RESOURCES
11 AAC 20.861. Soat specifications. (a) A person may not operate a motorized boat in
the Kenai Rivex Special Management Axea thaY exceeds 21 feet in overall length and 96 inches in
overall width. This restriction does not apply to Uoats operated in accordance with 11 AAC
ao.s6o ~b~q} ana il Aac zo.s6o ~}~z~.
(b) The director may authorize a person to use a motonzed boat that exceeds 21 Peet in
overall length or 106 inches in overall width, provided they provide proof of ownershi~ of Yhat
boat that precedes the effective date of these regulations. When the director provides an
autl~orization under this subsection, the director shall issue a noutransferable permit under 11
AAC 18. A pennit issued by the dixectox under this subsection expires no later than December
31, 2009.
(c) ~or the ~uiposes of this section,
(1) "overall ]ength" means the straight-line measurement between the extremiries
of the boat, but does not include trim tabs ox outboard motors;
(2) "overall width" means Yhe straight line measurement between the two widest
extremities of the boat, measured at a right angle to the overall length measurement;
(3) "outboard inotor" means a boat engine that, when properly mounted on a boat
in fhe position to o~eratc, houses the engine and drive unit external to the hull oPYhe boat;
(4) "trim tabs" means an extension of the bottom of a boat, at the iransom, which
is no more than 18 inches ]ong at its longest point; "trim tabs" do not pxovide any increased
floatation, and their sole function is to provide ttim to a boat while underway. (Ef£.
/_, Register _)
Authority: AS 41.21.020 AS 4L21.506
Register _, 2007 NATURAL RESOURCES
11 AAC 20.865 (b) is repealed:
(b) The director may auThorize a person who on August 30, 1998, owns pioperty d~ectly
adjacent to the Kenai River between river mile 80.7 and Cooper Creek to continue to operate a
boat between river mile 80.7 and Coopex Cxeek Uy use of a boat motar with a Total piopshaft
horsepower rating or equivatent propshaft horsepowec rating not greater than 35 horsepower.
When the director provides an aufhorization under this subsection, the directox shall issue a
nontransferable ~ermit under 11 AAC 18. A peimit issued by fhe director under this subsecfion
expixes no later than August 30, 2003. (Eff. 4/25/86, Register 98; am 2/3/88, Registex 105; am
~/1/98, Register 146; am 5/3/2007, Register 158, iepealed _/_/ , Registex ~
Authority: AS 41.2I.020 AS 41.21.506
\ \ ~~~ ~ O ~ ~~ ! (~ 1 ~ ~ FRANK H. MURKOWSKt, GOVERNOR
11 II I~I
U ~(-~l ^ 550 W. 7'" AVE., SUITE 1380
ANCHORAGE, ALASKA 99801-3561
PNONE.' (907) 269-8700
FAX: (907) 269-8907
DEPARTMENT OF NATURAL RESOURCES
DIVISION OF PARKS AND OUTDOOR RECREATION
Director's Decision
Reduction of Hydrocarbon Pollution from
Motorized Boats on the Kenai River
November 16, 2006
Purpose: The Kenai River Special Management Area Advisory Board has recommended that the
Department of Natural Resources promulgate new regulations that would increase the cunent
maximum harsepower limit from 35 to 50 horsepower, limit the size of boats, and restrict all motois
used on the river after January 1, 2008 to those which meeti the einission standards specified by U.S.
Environmental Pxotection Agency (EPA) for motors manufactured in 2006.
This document speciScally addresses how the KRSMA Board's recommendation for motor
emission xestrictions will be implemented followiug the Jauuary 1, 2008 fimeframe. The KRSMA
Board's recommendation is intended to reduce hydrocarbon pollution in the river that is caused by
outUoard engines by requiring the use of cleaner burning outboard engines in 2008 and beyond.
The types of engines that produce the greatest levels of hydrocarbon pollution will no longer be
permitted for use on the river.
Back~round: The use of motorized boats for recreational and sport fishing access on the Kenai
River has been widespread for ovex 30 yeaxs. Tn the eaily 1980's, gxowing concerns about fhe level
of use eventually lead to the le~islative creation of the Kenai River Special Managernent Area
(KRSMA) in 1984, with management assigned to the Division of Parks and Outdoor Recreation.
The KRSMA includes Kenai and Skilak Lakes and the entixe river system downstream to river mile
4, plus a numbex of adjacent upiand paxcels along the river coiridox.
The warld class fishery provided by the Kenai River has fueled an extensive guided and non-guided
sport fishing mecca, with peak use in July associated with the popular second runs oPking salmon
and sockeye sahzlon. Most of the fishing for kings occurs from boats using a variety of fishing
methods from back troliing (bow of the boat is facing upsneam with motoc in forwaxd gear, with
just enougli power to siowly drift downstream, slower than the river current), to drifting (boat is
perpendicular Yo river flow, with the motor generally used To maneuver back and forth to avoid
other boats similarly engaged.) With eithec method, when the back troll or the drifT through the
taiget aiea is complete, the boat operatox frequently motars back to the top of the hole to repeat the
pass. While the Kenai River is open to king salmon fishing in the entire 50 miles of xiver below
Skilak Lake, several concentrations of fishing effort occur, with the heaviest efforf coneentrated on
the lower 19 miles of the 105 mile long river system.
Iis the lafe 1990's, the KRSMA Advisory Board, in cooperaTion wifli 1oca1 advocacy groups, worked
on a water quality monitoring framework to inlplement systematic water qualiry testing on the
Develop, Conserve, and Enlamace Natural Resources for Present and Future Alaskans. "
Reduction. of Hydrocarbon Pollution - Kenai River
ll/17/06
Page 2 of 4
Kenai River. In 2000-2002, the Kenai Watexshed Forum conducted systematic water quality
monitocing, and was snrpxised at the data that showed elevated levels of hydrocarbons within the
water column. A more extensive study contracted by the Alaska Departmeilt c~f Envixonmental
Conservation in 2003 ~ documented that oatboard motors were the source of the contamination, and
that peak levels of hydrocarbons were directly correlated with heavy use on the river by motorized
boaters. The study further documented that there were exceedances of the 10 ug/L (parts per
billion) Alaska Water Qualiry Standard fox total aromatic hydrocarbons (TAH) durin~ peak
motorized boating periods. TAH is assoeiated with gasoline contamination.
Additional waCer qualiYy rnonitoring by the Kenai Watexshed Forum in 2004-2006 confinned that
TAH continued fo be a problem for the Kenai River during peak motorized boat periods. In fact, in
each yeaz monitored between 2000 and 2006, it has been documented that there were exceedances
of the 10 ug/L Alaska Water Quslity Standard for TAH. In 2006, the highest levels of TAH yet
were reported, at 20.2 uglL. This level was reported on an extraordinarily busy day in which
approximately 700 boats were counted on the lower Kenai River.
Convcntional cacbureted 2-stroke outboard engines are inefficient systems. During operation, both
~1ie nitake and exhaust ports axe open at the same time, allowing fuel to pass directly through the
engine. As a result, as much as 20-30% of the fuel }~asses directly to Yhe air or water, releas~ng
toxic and carcinogenic materials such as hydxocarbons, Yo the ei~vironment.
Due to the colder waters in the Kenai River, hydrocarbons do uot readily volatize and dissipate into
the air, as they would in wamier waters typically found in the lowex 48 states. As a result, a
sigilificant amount of the hydrocarbons einitted with en~ine exhaust become dissolved in the water
of the Kenai River. The tuxbulence of the Kenai River contributes to relatively equal distribution
of the contamination, from the river's surface to the botfom, with inereasing levels of contamination
found as one proeeeds downstream due to the accumulation of pollution from the collective
activities of motorized boat haffic.
An EPA contractor evaluated emission samples from hundreds of outboard motors from various
manufacturers over the years, and established the amount of pollution emitted from the various
outboard engine families. EPA emission standards Por outboard engine manuPacturers have been
established, with the most sh-ingent federal standards set for 2006 models.2
An evaluation of the certification data shows Yhat 4-stroke engines and the relatively new
technology found with "direet fuel injected" (DFI) 2-stroke engines consistently produce low levels
of hydrocarbons, as compaxed to traditional caxbureted 2-stroke engines.
In both 4-stroke and DFI 2-siroke outboard engines, the timing of the fuel injection is the key. Fuel
is injected so that it doesn't happen when exhaust gases are being expelled, preventing fuel from
bein~ exhausted before it can be burned. Some electronic fuel injected (ET~ 2-stroke engines use
a device similar to a carburetor so they don't resolve tl~e issue of ui~spenf fuel being expelled with
che exhaust gases. Not all ErI engines meet the new EPA standards - only DFI (a type of
electronic fuel injection) 2-stroke engines currenfly meet the cleanest buming technology required
of new engines manufactured for use in the US. And, a11 4-stroke engines meet the current
emission standards.
' I{e~iai River Hydrocarbon Assessment, Final ReporY, 7anuary 9, 2004, OASIS Envixonmental, Inc.
~ EPA Marine Spark-Ignition Engine Ceriificafion DaTa (http://www.epa.gov/otaq/eerfdata.htm#marinesi)
Reduction of Hydrocarbon PolluYion - Kenai River
I1/17/06
Page 3 of 4
Proposed Retulation: The KRSMA Advisory Board's recommendation ChaY all motors be
compliant with "EPA's 2006 motox einission staildards" eannot be imposed exactly as pxoposed, as
states are pre-empted from establishing standards or other xequirements relating to the control of
emissions.3 "Standards" axe intexpreted by the court as a quantitative level of emissions. The court
also decided that EPA's interpretation of "other requirements" - certification, inspection, or
approval - was a permissible interpretation. Other types of regulations were considered in-use
regulation. In-use regulations were not explicitly defined, but the authority for the sYate to adopt
them was derived in part from the state's right "otherwise to control, regulate, or res~rict the use,
operation, or movement" of moYor vehicles.
The State, therefbre, can adopt an in use regulation that does not establish a quanritative level of
emissions, or that does not establish certification, inspection or approval requirements related to fhe
quantitative level of emissions.
Decision: The Division of Parks and Outdoor Recreation is eoinmitted to the purposes for which
the KRSMA was esfablished by managnig reccearional use in such a way that the fish and wildlife
restiurces of the Kenai River are proteeted, by ensuring thaf the water quality of the Kenai River is
maintained for a11 beneficial uses.4 Toward that goal, and in order to reduce Yhe levels of
hydrocaxbon pollution on the Kenai Rivex caused by motorized boaf engines, all future engines
should be limited to the cleanest burning engine technology that is available - any 4-stroke or auy
DFI 2-siroke engiiles listed in Attaclunent A, or any futuxe engines that meet BPA manufacturing
standards for US sale, and fhat are built after the signing of this decision, subject to applicable
horsepower restricfions established for the KRSMA.
/ %`"""'G%' '"
i
Jerry Lewanski, Director
Division of Parks & OuYdoor Recreation
ll/16/O6
Date
' EMA vs. EPA, decided 7uly 12, 1996
"AS41.21.500-AS41.21.514
Reduction of Hydrocarbon Pollution - Kenai River
1 U17/06
Page 4 of 4
Attachmcnt A
Outboard motors dzat qualify for use on 2he Kenai River, as discussed in the Director Decision
addressing the reduction of hydrocarbon pollution from motoxized boats on the Kenai River, include
the following engines ar types of enginas:
Any 4-stroke motor, subject to ap~licable horsepower restrictions in effect at the rime the
regulation is finalized
2. Direct Fuel Injected 2~tmke motors, as follows:
a. Nissan or Tohatsu, model 40 TLDI or 50 TLDI (subject to applicable horsepower
xestrictions in place at the time the regulation is finalized)
b. Bombardier Motor Corporation (Evinrude) model E-TEC 40 or F,-TEC 50 (subjeet to
applicable horsepower restrictions in place at the time the regulation is finalized)
Peninsula Clarion - Editorial
Yage 1 ot s
~E; ~ ~U(~I+1G A CC?~++I~UIUNtTY ~F i?ESP~t~i ~
u: . . ~.~, ~ . . : ~. 6 ~ix ~~ ~
, ~..~ ... ~ ~tie .
r ° ~cr1~~r t:~s~- C~:ca~u~r~~a a~~x ~~e~~it~~ ~' °""_~...~"'^~
~. ' ~.. « * ° x~ _ C~ickhern6prvreb~eci~~. ~~"'.
~ ~ C~C31~~I[~1lt1NIT~l~k~"C~()~~.'.'.`~:Ct`~C~~ ~ ,
Curr<
~
Yacae Accoaaeat ~~ Editorial ~Ntarket lace
> View Today's i
You are logged in as Cookie Web posted Monday, December 4, 2006 N Place an Ad
EditYourAccount Horsepower change requbres more ConsolidateStuc
Log In / Log Out
thol'oUgh Study Loans
&-° Save up to 60%, nc
~ i~a~1~5 ~/O/C2S Of t~IB l~Bft/I7SIJ~c7 check, nofees, Eas
~~ Home www.CoilegiateFundi
** News DWight Kramer Refinance
s~ Local / Prep Sports ~ $170,000 loan for
a Ob~tueries The Alaska Department of Natural Resources has $561/month. Apply
~ Editonal today!
recentiy released proposed regulation changes that
~ Letters www.Low.com
> Commun~ty would raise the horsepower on the Kenai River from 35
> Outdoors to 50 and eliminate 2-stroke motors by 2008. The first
Boat Wake Study confirmed that by going from 35 to /+ARPAutolnsw
~ Business ~ Over 50? You coulc
s Political 50hp, on the Willie Predator, it wou~d reduce the wake toS35oonyouraul
~ Schoois by 12 percent. The 12 percent was based on an insurance. cet a q~
> Re(igion ` average of all loads, however, and the benefits of more ntcpnaaRP.TneHarttc
~ horsepower would be reduced under increased loading.
~e~~~~'~~ The fact is that this particular boat was a poor choice Smali Business
= Pulse for the Kenai given its weight, semi-v hull design and Solutions
Capital One No Ha:
~ Spotted the 35hp reStriCtiOn, eusiness Loans, Lii
* Neighbors www.caoitalone.com
s- Movies _ The problem now is that to accommodate the guide
a SelectTV suy,
- industry with the SOhp increase, DNR's wisdom is to do
r Pets it at the expense of private boaters that use 2-stroke ~~~-~°~°°~°~~°~°,
* Weddings Laca! News
?- Wellness motors. Updated Deceml
~ Recreation Gwde 2006
r oispatch ` '" The Department of Environmental Conservation News
recently provided literature that said a change to SOhp Forests open
Feedback 4-stroke motors would produce a 40 percent Christmastree~
~ Share Photos horse ower increase and more actual h drocarbon Seward High~
_.. .. P Y crash closes ro~
r Submit a Letter . ~~ ContBminatiotl th0n W2 CU~Yently heV2 With 0 i771X Of 4- taken to hospitr
r Suggest a Story ~ Stl'Ok2S hcld 2-Sti"Ok25 dt 35 hp. Kenai wreck
s~ Submit an Annowcement ~ Members sea
~ Submit an Obituary ways to improw
DNR disregarded this information and charged ahead central peninsu
> Clarion e-mail directory anyway. teens
k Contact the Webmaster
~R~r~~ They have made no attempt to document how many Community Nev
rivate boaters will be disenfranchised from the river or Around the
y P PeninsWa
~~, .~.- the economic hardship this wiii produce. Most mom and peninsuia Pe
~~" ~~°~~y,y~»s„~ pop boaters, and especially retired people, will not be Births
http://www.peninsulaclarion.com/stories/120406/oped_1204ope001.shtml 12/4(2006
Peiwlsuia Clarion - Editorial
Enter Keyword
Year: All Available
Search!
~. .. sw~ ~«.....
able to adjust to this change in one year and come up
with a new $6,000 motor just so they can access the
river a few times a year.
Many private boaters don't even fish i~ )uly because of
the crowding and they wouid be totally eliminated ever
though hydrocarbon levels have never been exceeded
except for July,
If you are a guide, this is like hitting the daily double,
you get your SOhp and removed over half of the private
boaters.
It is evident that DNR did not consider other factors
that may be larger contributors to the poliution
probiem before deciding to make the private boaters
the scapegoats for this change. They should have
considered the guide component and use patterns of all
boaters.
I believe the increased number of guides and more
guide activity account for more pollution than the 2-
stroke motors. If you just divide up the pollution by the
number of boats on the water and factor in the
increased 2-stroke contamination, you don't get the
true picture.
Guide boats are much more active goinq from hole to
hole to find fish, running to pick up more clients for
second trips, more higher horsepower running and
longer hours on the water, While private boaters are
more sedentary and don't move around much resulting
in less higher horsepower fuel burn.
Before DNR disenfranchises half of the private boaters
to accommodate the guides, they should conduct some
viable research into actual cause and effects of the
hydrocarbon issues and which activities are actualiy to
blame.
I find it ironic that DNR has been unable to solve the
guide issues on the Kenai for over 25 years and says it
needs more studies before moving forward, but is
sponsoring a regulation change that will affect
hundreds of private boaters without any
comprehensive studies or scientific reviews of what
factors are really causing our pollution problems.
It wouid also be irresponsible to approve the SOhp
increase unless there is irrefutable evidence that the
change, by itself, won't cause more pollution.
Other repercussions of this change could be that it
Page 2 of 5
Accident vict
gra4efulfor helK
Community P
Prep Sports
Sports Briefs
Opinion
Horsepower ~
requires more
thorough study
Letters to the E~
Recreational
fishermen coulc
the boat
Obituaries
Ruth A. Poila
Updated 10:33 P
- Space shuffli
Oiscovery's 7
astronauts a cu
diverse bunch
- Space shuttl~
Discovery's asti
will rewire spac
station
- Iditarod musl
Herbie NayokpL
after massive st
- Organizers e~.
big crowd at Pa
inauguration
- Departing go
appoints new m
to Game Board
- Shifting polit
winds pave way
Alaska women
- New Alyeska
owner plans ch;
- Judge senter
Eagle River mar
years in prison
-Anchorage p
chargeteensin
Year's Eve assa
- More News
US ~ Vtilor6d
Updated 1:53 Ph
- Bush, Shiite'~..
to meetin D.C.
- Bush accept~
Bolton's U.N.
resignation
- Supreme Coi
looks at race an
schools
- Blair unveils
for nuclear arse
- Diabetes dru~,
benefits come a
http://www.peninsulaclarion.com/stories/120406/oped_1204o~e001.shtml 12/a/2006
Peninsula Clarion - EdiCorial Page 3 of 5
would attract more boats that haven't before been able price
-Coptergoes
to access the Kenai because of the 35hp limit and a iraq; aMarines,
shift by ail users to bigger boats now that more - cNec reiaun
horsepower is available to accommodate them. own site with m
video
- Letterman st
I also find it irresponsible that none of the director's putatCBSuntii
discussion touched on safety matters. The mai~ - Narris fired a
argument of going to 35hp was for safety reasons and Stanford footba
it has been very successful. More horsepower, speed - More ntews
and thrust wiil certainly add to safety co~cerns as our
fishery continues to get more crowded.
Horsepower enforcement will be almost impossibie
once you go to SOhp. Manufacturers have testified that
by changing one chip in the motor you can raise the
horsepower to 60hp. Other advancements are sure to
follow as manufacturers leverage for the market.
Common sense and proper pubiic process should tell us
you don't make sweeping changes like these, which
affect so many people, without technical review and
viable impact studies.
I would hope that our new administration would
understand the politicai charge behind trying to rush
these changes through and tabie them for further
technical review.
The public needs to stand up for their rights and
comment on these proposed changes. The deadline is
Dec. 19. Please send your comme~ts to:
Chris Degernes, Chief of Field OPS
Div. of Parks and Outdoor Recreation
550 W. 7th Ave., Suite 1380
Anchorage, AK 99501-3561
Dwight Kramer is a private sport fisherman and
personai-use fisherman on the Kenai River who lives in
Kenai.
http://www.~eninsulaclarion.com/stories/120406/oped_1204ope001.shtmi 12/4/2006
~ CTTY OF KENAI ~oa
„ti~` City li~Ianager's OfFice sn=_rNO_ oF
'
-~~,
` ~ 210 Fidaigo Ave. • Kenai, AK 996ll
1
, cn~cuinreo ev oa
(907) 283-8222 • Fax (909} 283-3014
~ ~ ~x o
y f
BENIiI.AtpSNp rkoch acikenai.ak.us cHECKec av_____ on~
C
~ SCALE
,,,. I ',, ,. il . . .... _:.. . . . , , '.
~ ` _ • ~~ . . _.
_ ~_~ Imp~i~r°ed. . ~.__ _ _ _ _
_ _ _ _ ..
_. ___. __ . , . .,_ .. .' Regardless of the label, . _ . ... _ _ . . . ..
_ _ ._. , . . __:__ `, Alaska's famous river needs help _. _ _. .. . . _._.. _. _.~_
; I uring the summer, the Kenai River is filled with a -
~ smail navy of fishing boats. Many are powered by
__ _....... .,__ ._... ..,_._ ... . . _~._.
" i I high-polluting, two-stroke engines that blow out lots
_. ~___ ... . _ ;-. ._- `.j of a oline cam'ed in o the Kena~~ s ab ut~soo ~ allons ~e ,~ -_ _._ . , _. . . ._..
g g on a
. !. .. . _._ . ~„ ~_ _~~.....~._.. . busy boating day. In,the eourse of a aummer, the boat trafflc ~ ~~~ - . - - - -.- - ~ . .-----. -
' can produce the equivalent of a 10,000-gallon fuel spill: Not ',
sutprisingly, some:test sites on the river actually ~iolate
' hydrocarbonpollutionstaitdards.
"' "`~"` ~'° `"° " ° ' ` " Whetl that ha ens to a river or lake, the staCe is s °" ` " ""`~ ` ` " ° °"
PP uP-
posed tp list it as polluted and develop a cleanup plan.. _,,, ,„_ w ~..,. ,, ,, .,,
_m ....._. „
" ~~ Sounds pretty simple. Not so for the Kenai City Council,
_.w_ , .._..__. _ , _ _ though.> __ ...~ _.. . .__
~ It couldn't bear the notion that its namesake river might
.. .....,... .
- -- _- -- ` make the state's official list of "impaired"bodies of water. - - . -.... . _. . ..: _ . ._
In November, it voted against the listing.
,. _ .. .........,_ ..... _ ! . _ ._ , The councii seems to feaz that if those pesky environ- _.. _ . _ _..,, . . . , ..... . m_..
, , _ menta4 bureaucrats tell the truth about the river, tourists _, ~, „ _ , , . ,,
...,. .. . ,._.. ... . _ _ ~ __ _
will think it's a cesspool and stay away, wounding the re-
~ .~_ ~_._.__ _.._..
~ ~~.. , __ gion's st~mmer econpmy.~Oth~rs fear a cr~own pn boat- . -~- - .. -. ~ -. , . , . ~M- _ .
, ing traffic, aspecially older 6oats with inefficient two-strake
_ .,. _ ,. ..... ,..._... motors: :
~ . a .._ ..._...__ ...-
But tourists aren't likely to be scared off. The ~isitar
_ ' ... __ . _. __ .. .... .. . .. . . . ~ business isn't like a political campaign, where information _: ._ . . _. .. .. , . _. .. . , . .. ......
' is easilytaken out of context to demonize an opponent, No ,_„ .., . _ .. _, _ , ,,.,.. _. ,_ __.
competiAg fishing destinations are going to air n8sty 30- '
_ ,.! ,.. . . second spots tcash-tatiting the Kenai as too pplluted for a . . ... . . . .... .:... _ .,...
i visik
- ° '---~ Boaters wlth o1de~ dirty motors have more reason to ° - °-
worry. Any cleanup strategy is going to have to deat with
_. __. ....... _,_._. , ~ them. That's why the Kenaitze tribe was able to g@t federal _
funding for a Kenai River motor buy-back prngram. It offers ~,.:: .._. _. ,._ .. _._.._ __._ .
..,,. .._. .--.-- -; vouchers af $500 for Kenai Rivec hoaters who trade up to a •
_ _ :,._._ _..~_.__~._...~
' newmotorthatmeetsthelatestenvironmentalstandards. -:, .--....-..._, _._'....~....,
, Regardless of whether the 3£enai is listed as "impaii~seed,"
_...~ .. _... _..
--.,... . . - ' those older, dirty boat engines are going tobe an issue: Liet- - - -- - . - -.- <-..---.
ing the ri~er triggers a concerted effort toget it cleaned up,
instead of the haphazard, sporadic afQorts to date. '" "" '"°" ""' "' ""
Let's recognize the obvious '- the Kenai is polluted _.,. .. _ _.,.
. . . . . ... _ . _. ...._ ~. .
at ti3e peak of sportfishing season - and get cracldng: on
~ cteaningatup. ~ ~~e _ ...._. ~_._ ~_,..,..~_
_.
- -- - ° -~ - -- ~-- - ~ ~~ ~ ~ ~~~~801'i~pM LINE: ~WhaYs in a name? A river that endures 600 ~ ~
~ ga, gasoline polludon in a day would 6e just as sick.
_, . . . . . ..... . . . _ ._~.... .. ,._ I
;:
_._ ._ _. . . ;
_ , .._....
__ ~~_ _ ~. ~ ._ ~_ _ ~ ~, ~ ~ ~~ ~ 1~~ ~ ~ ~
n.1 ~(s, _ _____ . _ _ _
~ "(/r~la~e wit~t a Past, Gc~ urit~c a Futr~re„
~
M~~ •
TO: City Council
FROM: Rick Koch, City Manager
DATE: December 13, 2006
~, ~~ 4~~, 210 Fidalgo Avenue, Kenai, Alaska 99611-7794 ,,,~„~,~,
~ , ~-.~~~ Telephone: 907-283-7535 / FAX: 907-283-3014 ~~~~~_~
~ 1992
~ tl~ea~of
KENA~ SKA
SUBJECT: Proposed Alaska Department of NaturaB Resources (ADNR)
Regulation Changes for the Kenai River Special Management
Area (KRSMA) River Mile 19 to Warren Ames Bridge
The purpose of this memorandum is to provide a list of questions you rnay wish fo have
answered by the representative from ADNR, Jack Sinclair, at the council work session
today.
1. The Alaska Depaz-hnent of Environmental Conservation (ADEC) has publicly
stated that the effect of the proposed regulatory changes will inerease the TAH
(tofal aromatic hydrocarbon) levels in the Kenai River. What is ADI~}I2's response
to that claim?
3. Why is the schedule to adopt Chese proposed regula2ions in advance of the boat
wake study being completed? Do you feel Yhe consideration of these proposed
regulations ni advance of the 2005 phase 2 wake study to be premature?
3. The manufacturers make just as many 40 liorsepower four-cycle outboard motors
as 50 horsepower outboard motors. Why increase fhe horsepower limit to 50
horsepower instead of 40 horsepower?
4. A boat of The dunensions allowed in the regularions is a very large boat. 21 feet
long, and 8 feet 10 inches wide. For highway transport an over-width load is 8
feet 6 inches in width . If the proposed regulation changes are in-part meant to
address boat wake-size, why is such a large boat being permiYted, that could be
loaded so heavily?
5. Cau ADiVR consider regulations to prohibit fishing from a boat while the
outboard motor is ivnning? If so, have you?
6. Can ADNR consider regulations prohibiting the practice of back-Trolling? If so,
have you?
Has ADNR given consideration to Iimiting the hull conf'iguration allowed on the
Kenai River? Such as vee, semi-vee and flat botfom boats, If so, how`7 If not, why
not?
8. Has ADNR considered limiting the number of individuals allowed in a boat? If
so, how? If uot, why not?
9. The appearazzce of Chese xegulation changes may be to give guides the benefit of
larger motors on large boats, while eliminating private sport fisl~erman that have
smaller boats and eonventional fwo-cycle motors. How does ADNR respond to
tihat statement?
10. Have these re~ulatory changes been drafCed bq ADNR to address specific issues
pertaining to the health of the Kenai River, or were these regulation changes
drafted by another group, or groups and submitted to ADNR for consideration?
11. Has ADiJR considered allowing the use of conventionally aspirated two-cycle
outboaa•d motors on the Kenai River at times of the year other Yhan the end of
7uiie, July, and fhe beginning of August? Tf so, why did you not allow it?
OUTBOARD MOTOR MANUFA~C°fURERS
20HP-50MP
FOUR-STROKE & TWO STROKE MODELS
2007 MODEL YEAFt
FOUR CYCLE MOTORS
MANUFACTURER 20 HP 25 HP 30 HP 35 HP 40 HP 50 HP
HONDA X X X X
YAMAHA X X X
MERCURY X X X X
SUZUKI X X X X
NISSAN X X
EVINRUDE
JOHNSON X
TOHATSU X X
D.I. TWO CYCLE MOTORS
MANUFACTURER 20 HP 25 HP 30 HP 35 HP 40 HP 50 HP
HONDA
YAMAHA X X
MERCURY
SUZUKI
NISSAN X X
EVINRUDE X X
JOHNSON
TOHATSU
Proposed Park Regulation Chan~es for the Kenai River Special Management Area, Alask... Page 1 of 2
~~Parks Baating Safiety HistJArchaeology GranRs Design Trails Volunfeers Index ~~47~`~~ ~c~~~sC[~5 ~„~
Proposed Park Regulation Changes for the Kenai River Special Manageme
The Department of Natural Resources has an~ounced that proposed changes to Park ~~@~ ~.ir
regulations affecting boaters on the Kenai River Speciai Management Area are now currene N
available for public review and comment. The proposed changes include: ca_bins
_Statewide
~ J~"~ ~' Increase the maxim~m allowable horsepower for motorized boats in the KRSMA Park_Kees
(~ from 35 to 50 horsepower (hp); noa F,acil~
Individuai
~ Restrict boat lengths ta 21 feet and boat widths to 106 inches; ~ewe.is of_
~ Por More ~.
~= By January 1, 2Q08, require ali outboard engines used in the KRSMA to be either ge. s~fe
four-stroke or direct fuel injection two-stroke motors, Reiated s
For more information on the proposed changes, piease review:
Public Notice
Additional Regulations Notice Information
Pro~osed Requlations
Director's Decision on Reduction of Hydrocarbons on the__Kenai_River.
The pubiic may provide comments in a number of ways:
Attend a public hearing in Soldotna or Anchorage, and provide written or oral testimony:
TaaescS~~, hPo~r. 2~, ?e&BCD - 3:tb~ ps~,
IC~s~~~ f~en6o~se~~a E3arosagh ~~sera~tsl}~ ~h~ 6ee~~, ~o6de~ts~a, ~iS
'U~eda~~~cEay', CVcrv. ~.~3, ~~tYC~ -- ~.CStb peat,
~16~~~ ,~~4~r ~L50?C.'8'$ 'a~$.VV4~€S ~4ii~C~9C&~~ ~~~ ~, ~T~~i. ~ti~.p ~63~~96E'a~l,$~r ~di"
Submit written cornments hy mail, fax ar email to:
Chris Degernes, Chief, Field Operations
Division of Parks and Outdoor Recreation
550 W. 7th Ave., Suite 1380
Anchorage, AK 99501-3561
Fax:(907)269-8907
Email: Chris D_eg.emesC~dnr.stete.ak.us
~EB ceaa~s~r~~nts ~re de~e by 4;~€3 ~SSr9 ~sa Yaa~~ss~v~, H3ec~~tp~cr ~.~, ~€~~C~.
Last updated on Friday, 17-Now2006 133620 AKS?.
Site optimized for Netscape 7, IE 6 or above.
Not sure who to contact? Have a question about DNR9 Visitthe Public Ii7far~nznlion Center
Report tecnnicai problems with this page to the WeLmaster.
http://www.dnr.state.ak.us/parks/lasma/proposedehange.htm 12/13/2006
Register _, 2007 NATURAL RF.SOURCES
11 AAC 20.860 is re}~ealed and readopted to read:
11 AAC 20.860. Boat motor use. (a) Except as prohibited by 11 AAC 20.865, and
subject to the restricrions seY out in this section, the operation of a boat by the use of a boat motor
is allowed in the Kenai River Special Management Area.
(b) A person may not operate a motor or coinbiuaYion of ~notors with a total pxopshaft
horsepower rating greater than 50 Iiocsepower. For the purposes of this subsectiou, the oxiginal
propshaft horsepower rating must be clearly identiffed in the model number that is permanenUy
embossed, stamped or affixed on the motor sten~ bracket by the manufacturer and may not
exceed a rating of 50 pro~shaft horsepower. This horsepower rating limitafion does not appiy to:
(1) the operation of a boat on Kenai Lake, on Skilak Lake, and on the Kenai
River between the Keuai Lake Bridge and xiver miie 80.7; aud
(2) the operation of a boat by a Pecieral, sfate, or local governmental agency fox
the purpose of law enforcemeut or search and rescue, or for Lhe purpose of fish and game
managemenf under a park use pennit issued under 1 I AAC 18.010.
(c) A person nzay not operafe a boat in the Kenai River Special Management Area by the
use of a inotor that has been altered or disguised with xespect w the manufacturer's propshaft
horsepower raring, manufacturer cowling decals, or the model or serial numbers to produce more
than 50 propshaft horsepower.
(d) Effective Jailuary 1, 2008, a person may not opeiate a boat in the Kenai River Special
Manageinent Area by ihe use of a motor unless the motor is a four-stroke mowr or a direct fuel
injecfion two-stroke motor, as described in Attachment A of the Director's Decision on
1
Register _, 2007 NATURAL RESOURC~S
ReducCion of Hydxocarbon Pollution from Motorized Boats on the Kenai River, signed
November 16, 2006, and adopted Uy reference.
(e) EPfecYive January 1, 2008, apexson may not operafe a boat in Yhe Kenai River Special
Management Area by the use of a motor without displaying on the motor cowling a decal issued
by the Division that cerCifies that the motor is in compliance with the requirements of (d) of this
sect~on.
(fj Far the purposes oP this section,
(1) "propshaft hozsepowex xatulg" means Yhe boat motor's original manufactuxer
rated and labeied hoxsepower, the additioi~ of a jet drive unit fo any boat motor does not change
the equivalent propshaft horsepow~ rating of the moTor powerhead and driveshaft configuration
far the purposes of this section;
(2) "four-stroke" motor is an internal combustion engine whose cycle is
completed in four piston strokes and includes a suction stroke, compression stroke, expansion
siroke, and exhaust stroke;
(3) "direct fuel injected two-stroke" motor means one whose fuel is directly
injected into the top of the cylinder of an internal combustion engine whose cycle is completed in
two piston strokes. (Bff. 5/11/85, Registex 94; am 4/25/86, Register 98; am 7/1/89, Register 110;
am 7/1/98, Regrster 146; am _/_/_, Register _)
Authoritv: AS 41.21.020 AS 41.21.506
11 AAC 20 is unended by adding a new section to read:
2
Register _ 2007 NATURAL RESOURCES
11 AAC 20.861. Boat specifications. (a) A pereon may not operate a motorized boat ii1
the Kenai River Special Management Area that exceeds 21 feet in overall length and 96 inches in
overall width. This restrietion does not apply to boats operated in accordance with 11 AAC
ao.s~o ~b~~i~ ana ii A.ac zo.a6o ~b~~z~.
(b) The director iuay aufhorize a pexsm~ to use a motorized boat t]~at exceeds 21 'Feet in
overall length or 106 inches in overall width, provided they provide proof of ownership of that
boat fliat precedes the effective date of these regulations. When the director provides a~z
authorization under this subsection, the dixector shali issue a nontxausferaUle pei-mit under 11
AAC 18. A permit issued by the dueetor under this subsecrion expires no la1er than Deceinber
31, 2009.
(c) For the puxposes of this section,
(1) "overall length" means the s~raight-line measurement between the exttemities
of the boat, but docs not include trinz tabs or outboard moCOrs;
(2) "overall width" means the straight-line measurement between the two widest
extremities of the boat, measured at a right angle to the ovexall len~th measurement;
(3) "outboard motor" means a boat engine that, when propexly mounted on a boat
in the posiYion to operate, houses the engine and drive unit external to the hull of the boat;
(4) "trun tabs" means an extensiou of the bottom of a boat, at the transom, which
is no moxe than 18 inches long at its longest point; "trim Yabs" do not provide any inereased
floatarion, and their sole function is to provide trnn to a boat wh'rle underway. (Eff.
_/_/_, Register _)
Authority: AS 41.21.020 AS 41.21.506
Register _, 2007 NATURAL I2~SOURCES
11 AAC 20.865 (b) is repealed:
(b) 'I"he director may authorize a person who on August 30, 1998, owns properiy directiy
adjacent to the Kenai River between river mile 80.7 and Coopex Creek to conrinne to operate a
boat between river mile 80.7 and Cooper Creek Uy use of a boat motor with a total propshaft
horsepower rating or equivalent propshaft horsepower rating not greater than 35 horsepower.
When ihe director piovides an authorization under flus subsection, the director shall issue a
uontransferable permit undex ll AAC 18. A permit issued by the diTector under this subsection
expires uo later than August 30, 2003. (~fi'. 4/25/86, Register 98; am 2/3/88, Register 105; am
7/1/98, Register 146; am 5/3/2001, Registex 158, repealed_/ /_, Registex ~
Authority: AS 41.21.020 AS ~41.21.506
C~~~~~ O~ ~~~ I'{ FRANK H. MURKOWSKI, GOVERNOR
I rp~~
LI ~. ^ 550 W. 7'" AVE., SUITE 1380
ANCHORAGE,ALASKA9980'13561
PHONE: (907) 269-8700
FAX: (907) 269-8907
DEPARTMENT OF NATURAL RESOURCES
DIVISION OF PARKS AND OUTDOOR RECREATION
Director's Decision
Reduction of Hydrocarbon Pollution from
Motorized Boats on the Kenai River
November 16, 2006
Purnose: The Kenai River Special Management Area Advisory Board has recommended that tlte
Department of Natural Resources promulgate new regulations that would inexease the current
maxiinum horsepower limit froui 35 to 50 horsepower, limit the size of Uoats, aizd restrict all motors
used on the rivex after 7anuary 1, 2008 to those which meet the emission standards specifieti by U.S.
Enviromnental Protection Ageney (EPA) for motors manufactured in 2006.
'I'lus document s~ecifically addresscs how the KRSMA Board's recommendation for motor
emission restrictions will be implemented following the J'anuary 1, 2008 timeframe. The KI2SMA
Board's xecommendation is intended to reduce hydrocarbon pollution in the river that is caused by
outboard engines by requiring fhe use of cleaner burning outboard engines in 2008 and beyond.
The types of engines that produce the greatest levels of hydrocarbon pollution will no Ionger be
pennitted for use on the river.
Backarouud: The use of motorized boats for recreational and sport fishing access on the Kenai
River has becn widespread for over 30 years. In the early 1980's, growing concerns about the level
of use eventually lead to the legislative areation of the Kenai Rivex Special Managemeut Area
(KRSMA) in 1984, with ~nanagement assigned to the Division of Parks aud Outdoor Recieation.
The KRSMA includes Kenai and Skilak Lakes aud the entire rivex system downstream to rivex mile
4, plus a number of adjacent upland parcels along the river corcidor.
The world class fishery provided by the Keizai River has fueled an extensive guided and nou-guided
sport fishing inecca, with peak use ni July associated with the popular second runs of king salmon
and sockeye salmon. Most of the fishing for kings occurs fron~ boats using a variety of fishiizg
methods from baek trolling (Uow of the boat is faeing upstream with motor in forward gear, with
just enough power to slowly drift downsiream, slower than the rivex currenC), to driftin~ (boat is
perpendicular to river flow, with the motor generally used to maneuver back and forth to avoid
other boats similarly engaged.) With either method, when the back troll or the drift through the
targct area is coinplete, the boat operatox freguently motors back to the top of the hole to repeat the
pass. While the I~enai River is open to king salmon fishing in the entire 50 miles of river below
Skilak Lalce, several coz~centrat~ons of fishing effort occur, with the heaviest effort concentrated on
the lower 19 miles of the 105 mile long rivex system.
In the lafe 1990's, the K12SMA Advisory Board, in coopexation with local advocacy groups, woiked
oi~ a water quality nzonitoring framework to impleinent systenzatic water quality testing on the
"Develop, Conserve, and Enhance Natural Resources for Present a~ad Fuaure Alaskans.'
Reduction of Hydrocarbon PolluYion - Kenai River
ll/17/06
Pagc 2 of 4
Kenai Rivex. In 2000-2002, the Kenai Watershed Foium conducted systematic water quality
monitoring, and was surprised at the data that showed elevated levels of hydrocarUons within the
water column. A more extensive study contracted by the Alaska Deparhnent of Environmenta]
Conservation in 2003 ~ doeumented that outboard motors were the source of the contaminarion, and
that peak levels of hydrocarbons were directly correlated with heavy use on the rivex by motorized
boaters. The study further documented that there were exceedances of the 10 ugfL (parts per
billion) Alaska Water QualiYy Standard for total aromatic hydrocaxbons (TAH) during peak
motorized boatin~ periods. TAH is associated wiYh gasoline contamination.
Additioual water quality monitoring by the Kenai Watershed Forum in 2004-2006 confinned that
TAH continued to be a problem for the Kenai River during peak motoiized boat periods. In Fact, in
each year monitored beYween 2000 and 2006, it has been d~ocumented that there were exceedances
of the 10 ug/L Alaska Water Quality Standard for TAH. In 2006, the highest levels of TAH yet
wexe reported, at 20.2 ug/L. This level was reported on an extraordinarily busy day in which
appmximately 700 boats were counted on the lowex Kenai River.
Conventional carbureted 2-stroke outboard engu~es are inefficient systems. Duriug opexation, l~otlz
the intake and e~chaust ports are open at the same time, allowing fuel to pass direcfly through the
engine. As a result, as much as 20-30% of the fucl passes dixectly to Che air or water, reteasing
toxic and carcinogenic matexials such as hydrocarbons, to the environment.
Due to the colder waters in the Kenai River, hydrocarbons dc~ not readily volatize and dissipate info
the air, as they wouid in warmer waters typically found in the lower 48 states. As a result, a
signif cant amount of the hydxocarbons en~itted with engine exhaust become dissolved in the water
of the Kenai Itiver. The turbulence of the Kenai River contributes to relatively equal dietribution
of Uze contamination, from the rivei's surface to the bottom, with inereasing levels of contamination
found as one proceeds downstream due to the accumulation of pollution from the collecfive
activities of motorized boat traffic.
An ~PA contractor evaluated emission samples from hundreds of outboard motors from various
mauufacturers over the ycaxs, and establisl~ed the amount of pollurion emitted from the various
oufboard engine families. EPA emission standards for outboard engine manufacturers have been
established, with the most stringent federal standards set for 2006 models.2
An evaluation of the certification data shows Yhat 4-stroke engines and the relatively new
technology found with "direct fuel injected" (DFI) 2-stroke engines consistently produce low levels
of IrydrocarUons, as compared to traditional carbureted 2-stroke engines.
In both 4-shroke and DFI 2-stroke outboard engines, the timing of Lhe fuel injection is tl~e key. Fuel
is injected so that it doesn't hap~en when exhaust gases are being eacpelled, prevenYing fuel from
bein~ exhausted before it can be burned. Some electronie fuel injeeted (EFI) 2-stroke engines use
a device similar to a carburetor so tkiey don't resolve the issue of unspent fuel being expelled wiYh
flie exhaust gases. Not all EFI engines meet the new EPA standards - only DFI (a type of
elecnoilic fuel injecfion) 2-stroke engines currently meet the cleanest burning technology xequired
of new engines manufactured for use in the US. And, all 4-stroke engines meet the cunent
emission standards.
~ Kenai River Aydroearbon Assessment, Final Report, January 9, 2004, OASIS Environmental, Ine.
~ EPA Marine Sparlc-Ig»ition L~ng~ine Certification Data (http://www.epa.gov/otaq/certdata.htm#marinesi)
Reduction of Hydrocarbon Pollution - Kenai River
11/17/06
Page 3 of 4
Prouosed Re~ulation: The KRSMA Advisory Board's recominendafion Shat all motors be
compliant wifh "EPA's 2006 nzolor emission standards" cannot be imposed exactly as proposed, as
states are pre-empted from establishing standards or other requirements relafing to the control of
emissions.3 "Standards" are interpreted by Yha court as a quantitative 1eve1 o'f emissions. The court
also decided that ~PA's interpretation of "other requirements" - certification, inspection, or
a~proval - was a permissible interpretation. Other types of regularions were considered in-use
reeulation. In-use re~ulations were not explicitly defined, but the autharity for the state to ado~t
them was derived in part from the state's xight "otherv/ise to conh~ol, regulate, or restrict the use,
operation, or movernenY' of motor vehicles.
The State, therePore, cari adopt an in-use re~ulation that does not establish a quantitative level of
emissions, or that does not establish cerCiGcation, inspection or approval xequirements related to the
quantitative level of einissions.
Decision: The Division of Parks and Outdoor Recreation is committed to the purposes for which
the KRSMA was es2ablished by managing recreational use iu such a way that the fish and wildlife
resources of the Kenai River are protected, by ensuring that the water quality of the Kenai River is
maintained for all Ueneficial uses.4 Towaxd that goa1, and in order to reduce the levels of
hydrocarbon pollution on the Kenai River caused by motorized boat engines, all future engines
should be limited to the cleanest burning engine technology that is available - any 4-snoke or airy
DFI 2-stroke engines listed in Attachment A, or any futur~e engines that meet EPA manufacturing
staisdards for US sale, and that are built after the signing of this decision, subject to applicable
hoxsepower restrictions established fox thc KIZSMA.
~~
Jerry Lewansld, Director
Division of Parks & Outdoor Recreation
11/16/06
Date
3 EMA vs. F.,PA, decided Juty 12, 1996
~ AS 41.21.500 -AS 41.21.514
Reducfion of Hydrocarbon PolluYion - Kenai River
I 1/19/06
Page 4 of 4
Attachment A
Outboard motors that qualify for use on the Kenai River, as discussed in the Director Decision
addressing the xeduction of hydrocarbon pollution from motoxized boats on the Kenai River, include
the following engines oi types of engines:
1. Any 4-stroke motor, subject to applicable horsepower restrictions in effect at fhe time the
regulation is finalized
2. Direct Fuel Injuted 2-Siroke motors, as follows:
a. Nissan ar Tohatsu, mc~del 40 TLDI or 50 TLDI (subject to applicaUle horsepower
restrictions in place at the time the regulation is finalized)
b. Bombardier Motor Coiporation (Evinrude) model E-TEC 40 ar E-TEC 50 (subject to
applicable horsepowex resh~icfions in place at the time the re~ulation is finalized)
TaPhOX a17C~ Tal'bAX
December 11. 2006
Chris Degernes, Chief Field Operations
Division of Parks and Outdoor Recreation
550 W. 7`" Ave, Suite 1380
Anchorage, Alaska 99501-3561
Dear Chris:
P,O. Box 3501
Soldotna, Alaska 99669
907~262-7767
tarbox (~ ptiailaska. net
The purpose of this letter is to oppose the new regulations proposed for the Kenai River Special
Management Area (KRSMA). Specificaliy, I am opposed to increasing the horsepower from the
present 35 horsepower to 50 horsepower and establishing a maximum length boat of 21 feet on the
river (it should be smalier).
For the record, I am retired from the Alaska Department of Fish and Game QADF&G). I served in
Upper Cook inlet (UCI) as the Fisheries Research Project Leader for the Commercial Fish Division
from 1980 to 2000.
Presently, I operate a professional consulting firm dealing with fishery issues. I have a Bachelor of
Science degree from the University of Washington in Fisheries Science and a Master of Science
degree from Louisiana State University in Fisheries Science.
The State of Alaska, Department of Natural Resources (DNR) has proposed regulations which purport
to deal with two issues on the Kenai River - hydrocarbon pollution and bank erosion impacts from boat
wakes. DNR has not stated any social reasons for these reg~lations although there are social
consequences.
in my review of the scientific data it appears that these concerns are valid. Studies to date have
documented significant hydrocarbon levels in the Kenai River that are well above levels that impact
aquatic life. In addition, erosion rates of the river banks far exceed natural Ievels and pose a long term
threat to the resources of the river.
in contrast to the science behind these issues there is little science availatile to evaluate the solutions
proposed by DNR. In fact, DNR has not provided the public with any written or peer reviewed scientific
analysis of the impacts of the proposed regulations.
This is a serious deficiency in forming governmental policy. Instead, DNR appears to have relied on a
lay advisory board to make these recommendations which confused science with self-interest at best.
My comments below will deal with each issue separately.
HYDROCARBONS IN THE KENAI RIVER
This is a complex multivariate problem and one which requires good science and solutions to solve. I
have prepared the following to help understand the issue and evaluate what is defendable and what is
not. Here is my attempt at a factuai understanding of the issue:
• Page 2 December 11, 2006
1) Assuming 325 boats use the KRSMA daily during July and approximately 15 % are older 2 stroke
engines (from 2006 data} then 49 older 2 stroke engi~es and 276 4 stroke engines are using the
KRSMA.
2) Controlled scientific testing has shown when all other variables are equal that 4 stroke engines are
10 times more efficient than older 2 stroke engines. Therefore the 49 older 2 stroke engines are the
equivalent of 490 4 stroke engines reiative to hydrocarbon discharge.
3) The assumption of equal variables in the controlied studies is probabiy not appiicable here since the
guide industry, which has primarily 4 stroke engines, operates differently than the general public in
terms of hours on the water and total running time. Thus total fuel use could be much greater for 4
stroke engine users than oider 2 stroke engine users.
4) It is reasonable to assert that older 2 stroke engines are a major contributor to hydrocarbon pollution
in the river.
5) It is also reasonable to assert that at least a third to a one half of the measured pollution Ievels are
due to the present 4 stroke engines on the river. This will be higher if use patterns are radicaliy different
and actual in-river fuel efficiency is significantly different from the controlled studies.
6) The State of Alaska hydrocarbon standard of 10 ppb is violated in July.
7) Relative to the issue of going from 35 to 50 horsepower and hydrocarbon pollution, data provided by
the Department of Environmental Conservation (DEC) indicated that increased fuel use wili take piace
at higher horsepower. DEC has stated the level of increased fuel use is proportionai to the horsepower
increase.
8) No data have been provided by DNR to evaluate the present daily fuel consumption used by boat
operators on the Kenai River. A detailed model of impacts cannot be completed without this
information.
9) There is a Iack of data to evaluate peak hydrocarbon levels on a temporai and spatiai level in the
KRSMA. Measured leveis to date because of limited sampling probably do not represent peak values
for the KRSMA.
Therefore, based on the above I have the following conclusions:
1) With a goai to reduce hydrocarbon pollution there is defendable data to support the elimination of
older 2 stroke engines in July.
2) A total year long ban on older 2 stroke engines, while desirabie, is not defendable with the existing
data set and therefore can be discussed in the context of a longer phase out plan.
3) The data to defend the position that fuel discharge to the Kenai River will increase by going from 35
to 50 horsepower e~gines is defendable. Therefore, if the goai is to reduce discharge of hydrocarbons
in the KRSMA the limitation on horsepower should remain at 35 horsepower in the KRSMA.
4) There is a high probability that increased use of the KRSMA will be seen as 50 horsepower users,
many of whom did not detune their engines, return to the river. This negates some of the benefit of
reducing older 2 stroke engines.
5) To meet DEC water quality standards for hydrocarbons there is high probability that the number of
boats must be reduced in order to assure that the standard will not be violated in the KRSMA.
• Page 3
December 11. 2006
BANK EROSION AND USE PATTERNS ON THE KENA1 RfVER
The stated reason for DNR proposal to increase horsepower on the Kenai River from 35 to 50
horsepower is to allow `Yypical KRSMA power boats can operate more efficrently to achieve
planning(sic) speed and reduce the size of boat wakes." In addition, the regulation purports to make
engines standard. Finally, a size limit on boat length (21 feet and 106 inches wide) is proposed so that
larger boats and heavier boats wili not be used with the higher horsepower.
DNR is not consistent on this position. In a letter to the United Cook Inlet Drift Association (dated 17
November 2006) Commissioner Menge states "Our understanding of the research conducted on the
Kenai River on bank erosion caused by boat wake is that these regulation changes may reduce the
rypes of boating operations that cause the most destructive boat wake." i have to wonder if
Commissioner Menge knew this regulation would not accomplish anything meaningful and has allowed
a political agenda to take priority.
Therefore, DNR does not claim any wave height reduction will directly reduce erosion in the Kenai
River. In fact, DNR did not prepare a Director's findings on the boat wake height reduction and erosion
impacts. DNR has provided no data to the public which defines the anticipated wave height reduction
for the loads and boat types used in the KRSMA.
Erosion rates are a function of wave energy, wave height, number of waves hitting a bank, and the
erosion coefficient of the soils in the bank. Exampies of confounding issues which makes this
regulation questionable are:
1) Faster boats on the Kenai River as a result of horsepower increase wili result in increased wave
velocity. This will mitigate any benefit from a wave height reduction:
2) The wave height reduction, although not stated in any DNR finding, is assumed to be based on the
Phase 1 studies and Iess than 12% for the heavier and poorly designed vessels. The Phase 1 studies
indicated that hull design, load, and horsepower needed to be considered in any solution to erosion
problems along the Kenai River. A single variable solution is not viabie or defendable. Improved
design of vesseis and load considerations reduced wave height much more than horsepower per se
yet DNR has failed to take this into consideration in the proposed regulations.
3) DNR has stated that the horsepower finding is designed for the typical Kenai River vessel. However,
DNR has provided no data to support that conclusion. In fact, it is probable that the average boai size
today on the Kenai River is Iess than the maximum proposed. Therefore, allowing higher horsepower
will move the average boat size toward the maximum and therefore increase the average wave height
for all boats using the river. This will result in increased erosion, not a decrease.
4) DNR has not made public the Phase 2 boat wake studies which may help address this issue.
5) DNR has not taken into consideration the probable increase in boat use of the Kenai River as a
result of this regulation. Individuais that do not presentiy fish the Kenai River, because they eiect not to
detune their 50 horsepower engines, will be able to access and use the river under this regulation.
Increased growth in the fishery will increase the number of waves hitting the banks and with higher
average wave velocity thereby increasing bank erosion.
6) DNR has no ability to enforce the 50 horsepower regulation. While the regulation proposes an
inspection program the internal modifications to 50 horsepower engines are not viewable and
horsepower can easily be increased by over 20%. This will push vessels even faster with higher wave
velocity and therefore increase bank erosion potential.
• Page 4 December 11, 2006
My findings, based on the available data and comments from DNR and DEC representatives,
strongly suggests that increased horsepower in the KRSMA is not defendable. in fact, it is
likely erosion rates will increase as a result of these proposed regulations.
Breakdown in Logic for the Kenai River Resources
DNR has placed itself in a conflict of logic situation with these proposed regulations. On the one hand
DNR has taken a strong position against hydrocarbon discharges by older 2 stroke engines. In fact,
the situation is so dire that they are willing to ban them all year long starting in 2008.
However, DNR is willing to accept the worst erosion producing vesseis on the river and even try to
accommodate their use by increasing horsepower and resuitant hydrocarbon discharge to the KRSMA.
in addition, DNR is aliowing vessels larger than 21 to operate through 2010 which is longer than the
time line for 2 stroke engine removal.
This begs the question of why DNR wouid allow this to happen. The obvious conclusion is that one
user group - the general public who own older 2 stroke engines is not as significant economically in
DNR's opinion as the guided fishing industry that tends to have these larger vessels.
In fact, DNR appears to be favoring poiluters by the horsepower increase. Those who own
larger vessels which poliute via increased erosion and increased fuel use are not being asked
to sacrifice.
Other Considerations Retative to these Proposed Regulations
1) DNR has corrupted the public process with these proposed regulations. DNR has failed the general
pubiic by not providing any significant analysis of these regulation changes on resource protection
outcomes or economic impacts.
DNR has therefore made this a popular opinion issue - vote whether you want to be a polluter of the
river or a protector of the river. In fact, good public policy would have allowed a fuil and open
discussion of alternatives and impacts.
The KRSMA advisory board did not conduct any alternative option analysis, DNR has not completed
this task, and ADF&G has been siient. Therefore, these reguiations have created conflict in the
community with potentiai adverse impacts to all users when resources are negatively impacted.
2) DNR has not made available data for review. Internaily inside DNR a draft of the Phase 2 Boat
Wake study has been reviewed. In contrast, the public has not seen this report. DNR has not
indicated they wiil use the draft findings to evaluate this regulation impacts or not. It appears at this
time that DNR is ignoring or concealing a significant report in the decision making process.
3) DNR has not indicated what the impacts of these proposed regulations wiil be on communities and
areas outside the KRSMA. For example, banning older 2 stroke engines in the KRSMA will Iikely move
these vessels and motors downstream and outside the KRSMA. This has the potential of not reducing
hydrocarbon discharges at all in the river and creating conflict with other user groups downstream
(personal use dip net boat fishery). The lack of discussion with the City of Kenai and Alaska Board of
Fish on a comprehensive approach is a serious flaw in DNR's piecemeal approach.
• Page 5 December 11, 2006
4) DNR has made no attempt to resolve conflicts beiween agencies on these regulations and data
analysis. The DEC has indicated that moving to 50 horsepower will not soive the issue of hydrocarbon
pollution in the Kenai River. However, in a letter to UCIDA dated 17 November 2006 Commissioner
Menge states "On the matter of changing horsepower limits to 50 hp, our review of the data does not
give us the same conclusion." However, DNR has not made public any review of the DEC data. In
fact, DNR has made no findings available from internal discussions.
5) DNFi is circumventing DEC authority to prepare a recovery plan for the Kenai River hydrocarbon
poiiution. Under the Category 5 Impaired status DEC is required by the Clean Water Act to prepare a
recovery plan. DNR has known that the river is going to be listed and yet went forward with these
regulations despite DEC actions. This puts DEC in the position of having to start with new limitations
on any recovery plan. It confuses the data set and makes completing a comprehensive plan more
difficuit. Will DEC even consider low horsepower if DNR has just passed a regulation that increased
horsepower - not likely?
6) DNR has not provided any analysis of what increased horsepower means for safety of human life in
the KRSMA. The present limitation of 35 horsepower was based on safety considerations and yet
DNR feels that it need not mention what going to 50 horsepower means relative to this subject.
Thank you for the opportunity to comment on these regulations. It is my humble opinion, having
prepared and commented on regulations for over 20 years, that these proposed regulations have
serious flawa
These flaws are significant enough that a court challenge wouid have a high probability of success and
that the strife and conflict in the community as a result is not warranted.
Therefore, my suggestion is to table action on these regulations for at least 180 days. During that time
period DNR, DEC, and ADF&G should forrn an independent study team with experts from outside the
agencies. The goal of this team is to evaluate the options and consequences of various alternatives on
erosion and hydrocarbon reduction solutions in the KRSMA.
Upon completion of the independent review and written findings DNR can then evaiuate (based on
good science) and pass into regulations those solutions that are defendable and enforceabie.
Sincerely,
Kenneth E. Tarbox
President
A motion that the KRSMA board recommend to the Department of Natural Resources to
postpone action on the currently proposed Title 11 regulation changes at this time, in
light of recent developments and the following consideratians:
A DEC proposal to list the Kenai River as "impaired" has served to galvanize the
community to come together to address the problem of hydrocarbon pollution
from outboard engines. The KRSMA board has created a committee for this
purpose and local govemments and agencies have pledged to collaborate in the
effort.
2. The long-awaited 2005 Phase 2 boat wake study is due to be released in the very
nearfuYure.
3. The currently proposed regulation changes aze unlikely to address either the
hydrocarbon pollution problem or boat wake erosion sufficiently without further
steps.
4. If enacted, the proposed regulation changes will lead to very significant
expenditures by many users of the River, who will be justifiably irate at the
prospect of fm•ther restrictions on the use of newly purchased boats and motors.
This public sentiment will greatly inhibit further consideration of horsepower,
boat size, weight, and shape restrictions, and restrictions on time or azea of use.
Thes~ are the most effective tools we have.
5. These same tools are also most useful in addressing the closely related issues of
crowding, and safety, and consideration should be given to a11 of these concerns
in any final plan. ~
6. The community and the River itself require a comprehensive, stable, well thought
out and well grounded approach to these concems. The past work of the KRSMA
boazd can serve as a basis for creating such a plan, with the benefit of up to date
research and the coliaboration of others.
~ ~ ;.r ~
„~_.,
i
`~' k;' `'-