Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2001-09-20 KRSMA Board PacketSpecialNSa ~ ge ~~ntkrea '. "Working together...for theriver" LaDd~~OG3~ ~ OG^QQD *** Meeting Agenda*** Thursday, September 20, 2001 7:00 p.m. Kenai River Center I. CALL TO ORDER A. Roll Call B. Approval of 5/24/01 minutes C. Agenda Changes and Approval II. PUBLIC C®~IMENT III: NEW BUSINESS A. Kenai River Water Quality Study Report, Robert Ruffner, Kenai Watershed Farum B. Planning the 2001-2002 Board Goals and Objectives C. Establishing Standing Committees D. Boat Wake Study -Where do we go from here? E. Lower Kenai River Boat Launch Proposal -Update/Status F. Kenai River Watershed Nutrient Study, Brett Huber G. Snow River 7okulhaup -Update and Status of Lake Levels H. Board Member Nominations IV. OLD BUSINESS A. Update - MP 45-60 Sterling Highway Project B. Kenai River Center Update, Suzanne Fisler V. PUBLIC C®MIMENT VI. ADJOURNMENT A. Board Comments B. Date/Agenda of Next Meeting , e Kenai Area Office, Box 1247, Soldotna, AK 99669, Soldotna 262-5581 \~\ Kenai Peninsula Borough, Box 850, Soldotna, AK 99669, Soldotna 262-4441 1 , , p Alaska Division of Parks antl Outtloor Recreation, Department of Natural Besoe¢es, in cooperation with the Kenai Peninsula Borough. _.';-."~ KENAI RIVER SPECIAL MANAGEMENT AREA ADVISORY BOAKD MEETII~C May 24, 2001 Kenai River Center I. CALL TO ORDER A. Roil Call Present: Jim Hall for Robin West, Bill Shuster, Lance Trasky, Chris Degernes, Deric Marcorelle, Ted Wellman, Jim Richardson, Paul Shadura, Jim Golden, Brett Huber, Janette Cadieux, Charles Quarre Absent: Rick Wood, Jeff King, Ann Whitmore-Painter, Tim Navarre, and Rick Ross B. Approval of 4/19/01 aninntes Approved as written. C. Agenda Changes and Approval 01d Business addition: Item D. Kenai Watershed Nutrient Study, by Brett Huber. Old Business addition: Ite~~, E. DOT Stakeholders Committee for the Cooper Landing bypass route, by Ted Wellman. II. PUBLIC COMMENT -Ted asked that public comments for the boat wake study be presented during the public comment period only. Mr. aim A. Richardson commented about the Legislative appropriation for a new boat ramp in the Lower Kenai River. He believes it is not a good idea. The proposed property is on the edge of state property that was previously purchased because of its vahtable wetlands. The proposed property is a high bank area of the river, which would take considerable excavation to make it a usable boat ramp. Mr. Richardson stated that the loss of wetlands is not justified by this project, as it is not needed. He recommended that the KRSMA Advisory Board send a letter to the Governor with copies going to the Director of Parks, the BVOS Trustees, Sportfish Division, stating what is wrong with this site and why it is not appropriate for intensive site development. Robert Ruffner updated the Board on the water quality-monitoring program. A successful round of sampling was done in April The results arrived today and KRSMA Advisory Board Page 1 May 24, 2001 Meeting Minutes there were no red flags. He said they are seeMng funds to continue this program through the DEC Non-Point Pollution Program. The proposal was asking for around $80,000 and DEC agreed to fund $45,000. This means not everything will be done this year but they will be able to do the MOU work planned. There may be some additional funds forthcoming. The next sampling will be in 7uly. The MOU comments have been rECeived from everyone except for DEC and the language was accepted. Ed Oberts commented on the agenda item regarding the mineral withdrawal in the Russian River area. He said multiple use should be allowed and our Borough could use more mining operations. dYI. N'EYV YIU5INE5S A. Boat make Study - teleconferenee with Dr. 5tsve Mayno. d, AC®E- WES Ted said he appreciates Dr. Steve Maynord making himself available for the teleconference meeting, and asked Dr. Maynord to respond first to the written questions from the board. Dr. Maynord: Some obvious results from the data show how the V hull boats per~£ormed versus the flat bottom hulls, showing thaC the V hull boats had a larger wave height than the flat bottom boats. Dr. Maynord said he took equations comparing the V hull to the flat bottom boats with the same length and there was a 30°7o difference in wave height The speeds were not significantly different when the same weight was used between these boats. The hull shape is clearly a significant factor in the wave heights. Dr. Maynord stated that they also evaluated the contribution of passenger loading, but that did not explain the difference in the wakes alone. It would be hard to break down information on the propellers because there were three different motors used in the study. Brett asked if hull design would typically be a contributing factor in defining wakes. Dr. Maynord said that the bow shape is a critical parameter in defining wave height. Dr. Maynord said that the issue of the 35 hp vs. larger motors only affects the max power results. Max wave was not affected by the differences in horsepower. Three of the four boats produced a reduction in wave height with 40 or SO hp motors on them. The lighter boats can get on step faster and easier to produce less wave height vs. heavier boats not getting on step very fast with the 3S hp motors. Dr. Maynord did not understand the Lowe information which showed an increase in wave height with the 40 hp motor. The data was checked again and is correct. He concludes that the Lowe with a KRSMA Advisory Board Page 2 May 2A, 2001 Meeting Mi~rufes greater motor power and some change in trim could be why the trends in information were different. Brett asked if there was a weight difference in outboards used. Dr. Maynord said the motors were same weight, just dehmed. He said it is pcssible since the Lowe is the lightest and smallest boat tested that the change in power produced achange in the trim, and we did not change the trim settings during the tests. Jim Golden asked if putting a 70hp on the same boats would show a further reduction in wave height. Dr. Maynord said that as we go faster we will expect some change in height and does not think it would be much different from 50 to 70 hp than it would be from 35 to 50 hp. He cautioned, however, that regression equations should not be used outside the range of data on which they are based. Ted asked how the wakes differed between the Koffler vs. the Willy Predator for similar loading when each used a 50 hp motor. Dr. Maynord referred to table 24 on page 58 of the draft report. There he said we see the numbers compared there and these numbers are the average over all loadings and distances. He said you can see the comparison between the 35 Co 50 hp. Paul asked whether any stability tests were done during the study. Dr. Maynord said no, the goal for these tests was to run typical weight loadings with sandbags in typical placements. He also suggested that in the future you make some trim measurements to compliment this report with the same vessels used in the study. He said this might have explained some of the load differences. Jim Golden wanted to make the point that some of the 13-20% changes on Table 24 only involve an inch or two differences in heights here. Steve said yes that is correct and a good point. The percentages seem high but the difference is in inches. Brett said that there are comparisons for loading from a heavy 6-passenger load to a light 3-passenger load, but no comparison for in between from 4-5 passengers. Ted said there is quite a difference in the weight of the boats. Did you consider the weights a great factor in generation of wakes? Dr. Maynord said if you go to page 20 you can see the difference in weight from lightest to the heaviest loads and you can see the trends of the weights tend to closely follow which boat produces Che maximum wave heights. The Lowe produces the .smallest wave height being the lightest boat, and Che Willy Predator produces KRSMA Advisory Board Page 3 May 2Q, 2001 Meeting Minutes the greatest wave height, being the heaviest. Clearly there is a relationship in wave heights and boat weights. Dr. Maynord said there have been some studies in Australia and Seattle where Ghey cooked at wave height and wave energy but neither parameter by itself is enough to delineate the seriousness of the bank erosion that may occur. The energy calculations tend to follow the same trends of the max wave height in terms of classifying different boats. Dr. Maynord said there are practical thresholds that exist above and below a certain height wake. Paul asked if there have been any studies showing how waves compound. Dr. Maynord said that if we had individual wave events, waves in phase would show an amplification of magnitude, or if out of phase they would subtract from each other and create a wave climate that is different from individual boats. Janette asked that in regards to the energy that strikes the shore, does the wave speed affect the energy. Dr. Maynord said on page 10 the energy is equal. to the product of Che wave height and the Iength of the wave, stating that a faster wave impacts a bank with greater energy. Brett wanted to get back to the erosive threshold He said it would seem there are a number of factors in regards to erosive threshold including the distance of waves and type of bank and wanted to verify that there was nothing in this study that addressed thresholds. Dr. Maynord saidthat is true and that was not one of his study's objectives. He said that it was his understanding that there was going to be follow-up work done after this study. Lance asked Dr. Maynord to discuss the differences in the Kenai River vs. Johnson Lake. Dr. Maynord said on page 85 it shows the results with the same boats and loadings from both Johnson Lake and the Kenai River. The compared data from the boats on both the lake and river show hardly any difference between the areas regarding max power. There was less than a'/a" difference in wave heights. Charles asked how one wake affects another, or compounds other wakes when the Kenai River is crowded. Dr. Maynord said there is interference in compounding waves. The waves can be in phase that creates peaks and higher wave heights or they can be out of phase and cancel each other out. In summation, Dr. Maynord said this document is still a draft and he welcomes all suggested changes to make it more readable and any questions about the conclusions. I~RSMA Advisory Board Page 4 May Zd, 2001 Meeting Minutes Jim Golden asked what Dr. Maynord would have done differently in this study. He said he would have measured trim with different loads and motors on the same boats. Another thing would be to take people familiar with the river and the concept of max wave and ask them if this mode of operation is frequent enough and exist over a Long enough length of the bankto be concerned about it: Or is the max power, which they were told was the main emphasis of this study, truly the main issue here. How signif7cant is the max wave issue based on boats that operate on the Kenai River? Lance asked what parameter we would use to make the trim measurements suggested. Dr. Maynord said there are little devices that you can buy that tell you the tilt. This would measure the trim on the axis of the vessel and how that changes with different loading. Dr. Maynord said this might explain the difference in wave heights that were in thc. report. B. Legislative Appropriation for a new Lower Kenai River boat launch parcel 'Ted said the purpose of this agenda item is to provide information to the Board about this recent issue. The Legislature appropriated $350,000 to DNR to purchase a 10.4-acre parcel upstream several lots from the City of Kenai's Cunningham Park, for Che purpose of constructing a new boat ramp. He stated that this came as a surprise to many of us, and we do not know much about it. We shouldnot jump he gun before we learn more facts about the proposed purchase and whether it is good place for a boat launch. Our job is to advise agencies regarding this proposal and how it affects the Kenai River Comprehensive Management Plan. Chris reported that a recent site visit showed that the upper portion of the 10 acres is well-treed, dry ground; halfway to river it turns to slope wetlands and then tidally influenced wetlands near the riverbank. There are cultural sites on the bank and in the woods. The site is immediately downstream from the Cone property, which was purchased in the mid 1990's as EVOS land due to its sensitive wetland character7stics. Charles said that there is a high level plateau and it would take extensive work to create a platform for a boat launch. What is the difference in elevation between the terrace and the bank? Chris said it is probably 15-16 feeC difference with a 15-20% bank angle or more. Paul asked if this would be flooded during an over water condition combined with a high tide. Chris said yes, it would be. Lance said the water at a high tide does go back into the property a ways. He also said there is salt tolerant vegetation located on the terrace above the river. KRSMA Advisory Board Page 5 May 24, 2001 Meeting Minutes Bill asked if the outside bend would be a problem in Chis. Lance said that could be a problem. Ted requested that this be put on the agenda for the fall to discuss again. C. USF5 Russian River Mining Vdathdrawal Proposal, Mike I£ania, Seward District Ranger Ted gives a bi7ef talk about what brought this subject about. Mike Kania was not available to speak to the Board tonight. Ted asked the board what action it wished to take regarding this proposal. Paul asked how many claims there are in that area. Bill Shuster: One recognized by the Forest Service and two under contention. Paul requested that Red Smith be permitted to make his public comments now. Ted offered Red the opportunity to address the Board. After that the board can decide if there is sufficient information to make a recommendation to the USFS by May 29`". Red said the proposal is not just for a mining withdrawal, but also a withdrawal from all public land laws including mining laws. Ted asked what minerals are being mined. Red said it is a calcium carbonate deposit. Ted asked what the ore is used for now. Red said this ore is not being used for anything as of yet. Paul said the effect on the Russian River drainage is his main concern and believes Mr. Smith had very good comments. Lance said he does not believe this withdrawal would invalidate these current claims. Charles said that based on the last meeting, nothing has changed, and he supports the withdrawal. Charles made a motion to support the USFS's request that these lands be withdrawn from mineral entry, and Lance seconded it. Jim Richardson stated the role of the board is to look at the contribution from the tributaries and the impact they have on the Kenai River. He also asked what the impact would be if the claims were proved up and made private property. KRSMA Advisory Board Page 6 May 24, 2001 Meeting Minutes Brett asked how we consider the negative public comments and what agencies wanC when we have only heard from two members of the public speak on the topic. Ted said this board does represent various perspectives of the rivercommunity and.believes this is not,a big board issue and he does not have any reservations of leaning one way or another. Lance asked if the head of the Russian River is closed to mineral entry. Bill said half of the river, down the middle, is closed to mineral entry under Refuge management. The other side would be open to mineral claims, except for the lower portion of the river which is already closed to new mineral entry. Jim Richardson wanted to clarify that this issue has no effect on existing claims, only future claims. Ted said that is his understanding. All those in favor of issuing a letter in support of this withdrawal: All Nays: None Abstained: Paul and Bill D. Cooper Creek Erosion Concerns, Bill Shuster, USFS Near the confluence of Cooper Creek and the Kenai River is a large eroding hillside. This is a site that was heavily mined during the early part of the 1900's, and was relatively stable until the past couple of years. A large amount of sed,:ment has slumped from ±l.e hillside and reached C^oper Creek. The USFS was able to stop the majority of this spring's run off and erosion with an extensive silt fence. This summer, the Youth Restoration Corps will be working to stabilize the slope and work on bio-restoration. IV. OLD BUSINESS A. Update -Beaver Creek/Wolf Lake Marathon's pipeline construction resource damage, Jim Hail, Kenai National Wildlife Refuge Jim Hal] provided a PowerPoint presentation to the Board to illustrate this issue. Project started in January and is located on Marathon's Beaver Creek Oilfield, on the Kenai National. Wildlife Refuge. This pipeline connects the Beaver Creek Oilfield with the Wolf Lake pad. The route follows the open weCland areas to reduce the impact in the winter and to avoid destruction of some old growth timber. This was the first time an oil company on the Refuge has had to complete an EIS, and the first time a restoration plan was required to return habitat to a near original condition as possible. On January 27, 2001 KRSMA Advisory Board Page 7 May 24, 2001 Meeting Minutes hydro axing started. The weather conditions were warmer than expected, so they did not have a contingency plan for dealing with exposed wetlands and water. When it was discovered that the pipeline excavation work was causing siltation into a lake, the projects was shut down until silt fences could be installed. Additional problems occurred when the early break up caused more melting and water quality impacts. aim assured the Board that his agency and EPA would be warking with Marathon to ensure that the site is restored. B. Recreat9on Impact Study -Future plans Ted Wellman and Lance Trasky needed to leave the meeting, so Brett took over the meeting management. He stated that this agenda item was included so Yhat the Board would hear that the Legislative re-appropriated the unexpended funds in the original appropriation to do the Boat Wake Study and the Recreational Impact Study. Those funds were re-appropriated to the 50!50 Habitat Program. The board members need to think about how we go about getting needed funds to move a study like this forward. Chris suggested that the board think about Chis study this summer and consider looking at it again in the fall. Paul said he feels strongly that this study should continue and does not understand why the money was re-appropriated. (;. Kenai River Center Update; Suzanne Fisler Suzanne said there are two more guide orientations left this season, May 26`" and June 7"'. As of this date, there are 268 registered guides on the Kenai River. Last year there were 380 at the end of the season. Low water and slow fishing have contributed to a slower registration this year, but it is expected that a number are still planning to register for the season. The Unity Trail proposal design was presented to the public last week. The preferred alternative design will start from Kenai, following the west side of Bridge Access Road towards the viewing platform, and come up to the roadbed by the bridge. The lanes across the bridge will be narrowed to accommodate a new railing and footpath. The trail will continue into the Kenai River Flats SRS parking lot and curve around under the bridge to continue towards Birch Island and then link into the K-Beach portion of the trail. Some of the agency concerns were that DOT appeared to select a preferred alternative prior to a public meeting: There are still concerns about displacement of nesting waterfowl and migratory birds. State Parks will set up a meeting with the consultants to talk about potential plans for Birch Island and the Kenai River Flats to make sure the EIS reflects accurately what our plans are. Suzanne stated that she will bring the board more plans in the fall. KRSMA Advisory Board Page 8 May 24, 2001 Meeting Minutes Suzanne said there was a report atthe last meeting about a road built at Angler Acres and a question about whether it was in the wetlands. EPA and the Corps of Engineers both looked alit and theprior property owner had a .,jurisdictional: determination of wetlands done by the Corps. There was a sliver of uplands that went to the riverbank and this is where the road was placed. The problem was that the overburden was pushed into the wetlands and fill was placed by the wetlands. The Corps is requiring them to remove the side cast material and the stockpile fill in the wetlands. The Kenai Watershed Forum has funded the Borough staff at the River Center to implement the 50-foot ordinance throughout the Peninsula, with a grant of $110,000. A planned update of the ADF&G Streambank Restoration Guide was funded for $120,000. The U.S. Fish $i Wildlife Service evaluation of the grate walks has now been funded for another round of evaluation of docks and river structure permits. D. Update on Kenai Watershed Nutrients Study Brett said he will give a detailed report at the next meeting in the fall. E. DOT stakeholders committee The Board has been asked to provide a representative for the Stakeholders Sounding Board for the Mile 45-60 Sterling Highway Project Ted had previously asked if Janette Cadieux would be willing to represent the Board on the new committee, and wanted to know if anyone on the board was ippv'Seu' iii this. Charles Quarre said he has"been appointed to the Stakeholders group as a member of the Kenai River Property Owners Association and will be at the meeting on May 23'x. Chris asked if there is any opposition to Janette being appointed to the committee. There was no opposition to the nomination. V. PUBLIC COMMENT None KRSNIA Advisory Board Page 9 May 24, 2001 Meefing Minutes VI. AI9J®UKNMENT A. Board Comments Chris wanted to thank the board for support of the DNR management of the KR5MA over the last few years. Paul says that we should not lose sight of new studies Chat need to be made after the first studies are done. B. Date/Agenda of Next Meeting September Z0, 2001 KKSMA Advisory Board Page 10 May 24, 2001 Meeting Minu[es