HomeMy WebLinkAbout2010-11-08 Harbor Commission PacketAGENDA
ITEM 1: CALL TO ORDER ROLL CALL
ITEM 2: AGENDA APPROVAL
ITEM 3: APPROVAL OF MEETING SUMMARY October 11, 2010
ITEM 4: PERSONS SCHEDULED TO BE HEARD
ITEM 5: OLD BUSINESS
a. Discussion On -site Survey Forms
b. Discussion Kenai River Recreation Study Draft
ITEM 6: NEW BUSINESS
KENAI HARBOR COMMISSION MEETING
NOVEMBER S, 2010
CITY COUNCIL CHAMBERS
7:00 P.M.
a. Discussion /Prioritize Capital Improvement Project List for FY 12,
FY13, and FY14.
b. Discussion Kenai Dock and Boat Ramp Mission Statement and Goals
ITEM 7: REPORTS
a. Director
b. City Council Liaison
ITEM 8: NEXT MEETING ATTENDANCE NOTIFICATION
a. December 6, 2010
ITEM 9: COMMISSIONER COMMENTS /QUESTIONS
ITEM 10: PERSONS NOT SCHEDULED TO BE HEARD
ITEM 11: INFORMATION
a. Kenai City Council Action Agendas of October 6 and 20, 2010.
b. City of Kenai 2010 Meeting Schedule
ITEM 12: ADJOURNMENT
PLEASE CONTACT US IF YOU WILL NOT BE ABLE TO
ATTEND THE MEETING:
CAROL o 283-8231 OR, KEVIN LYON 283-8240
ITEM 5: OLD BUSINESS
KENAI HARBOR COMMISSION MEETING
OCTOBER 11, 2010
CITY COUNCIL CHAMBERS
7:00 P.M.
AGENDA
ITEM 1: CALL TO ORDER ROLL CALL
ITEM 2: AGENDA APPROVAL
ITEM 3: APPROVAL OF MEETING SUMMARY September 13, 2010
ITEM 4: PERSONS SCHEDULED TO BE HEARD
a. City Manager Rick Koch Commission Duties and the Relationship
between Commissions, Administration and Council
a. Discussion On-Site Survey Forms
b. Discussion Update on SY2010 Municipal Harbor Facility Grant
c. Discussion Town Hall Meeting Topics
ITEM 6: NEW BUSINESS
a. Discussion Kenai River Recreation Study Draft
ITEM 7: REPORTS
a. Director
b. City Council Liaison
ITEM 8: NEXT MEETING ATTENDANCE NOTIFICATION
a. November 8, 2010
ITEM 9: COMMISSIONER COMMENTS/ QUESTIONS
ITEM 10: PERSONS NOT SCHEDULED TO BE HEARD
ITEM 11: INFORMATION
a. Kenai City Council Action. Agendas of September 1 and 15, 2010.
ITEM 12: ADJOURNMENT
flevvt 3.
KENAI HARBOR COMMISSION MEETING
OCTOBER 11, 2010
CITY COUNCIL CHAMBERS
7:00 P.M.
VICE CHAIR BILL OSBORN, PRESIDING
MEETING SUMMARY
ITEM 1: CALL TO ORDER ROLL CALL
Vice Chair Osborn called the meeting to order at approximately 7:07 p.rn. Roll was
confirmed as follows:
Commissioners present:
Commissioners absent:
Staff /Council Liaison present:
A quorum was present.
ITEM 5: OLD BUSINESS
5 -a. Discussion On -Site Survey Forms
P. Morin, B. Osborn, W. Nelson, R. Peters
W. Niederhauser, T. Thompson
Public Works Director W. Ogle, Council Member
H. Smalley
ITEM 2: AGENDA APPROVAL
MOTION:
Commissioner Peters MOVED to approve the agenda as presented and Commissioner
Nelson SECONDED the motion. There were no objections. SO ORDERED.
ITEM 3: APPROVAL OF MEETING SUMMARY September 13, 2010
MOTION:
Commissioner Peters MOVED to approve the meeting summary of September 13, 2010
and Commissioner Nelson SECONDED the motion. There were no objections. SO
ORDERED.
ITEM 4: PERSONS SCHEDULED TO BE HEARD
4 -a. City Manager Rick Koch Commission Duties and the Relationship
between Commissions, Administration and Council
City Manager Koch reviewed the Capital Improvement Plan and the Harbor Master
Plan.
Commission requested a work session be scheduled for October 25, 2010 at 6:00 p.m.
to discuss the Capital Improvement Plan and the Harbor Master Plan.
There was general discussion; Commission would be discussing two forms at its next
meeting. (November 8, 2010)
5 -b. Discussion Update on SY2010 Municipal Harbor Facility Grant
Public Works Director Ogle reviewed the Municipal Harbor Facility Grant application.
5 -c. Discussion Town Hall Meeting Topics
General discussion occurred. Commission discussed the following issues:
Increase parking for personal use fishery.
Training for personnel on the oil spill containment boom.
These issues would be discussed at the October 25, 2010 work session.
ITEM 6: NEW BUSINESS
6 -a. Discussion Kenai River Recreation Study Draft
Commission requested information from the City Manager, including who would be
attending the KRSMA meeting on October 14, 2010. The study would be reviewed at
the November 8, 2010 Harbor Commission meeting.
ITEM 7: REPORTS
7 -a. Director Ogle reported the gate for Boat Launch Road would be
fabricated by Fireweed Fence and installed north of the bird viewing platform.
7 -b. City Council Liaison Council Member Smalley reviewed the City
Council action agenda items included in the packet.
ITEM 8: NEXT MEETING ATTENDANCE NOTIFICATION
8 -a. November 8, 2010
No Commissioners noted they would be absent from the November 8, 2010 meeting.
ITEM 9: COMMISSIONER COMMENTS /QUESTIONS
Morin inquired if Jack Sinclair would be discussing the Drift Boat Launch in
connection with the Kenai River Recreation Study draft.
ITEM 10: PERSONS NOT SCHEDULED TO BE HEARD None
ITEM 11: INFORMATION
1 1-a. Kenai City Council Action Agendas of September 1 and 15, 2010.
HARBOR COMMISSION MEETING
OCTOBER 11, 2010
PAGE 2
ITEM 12:
MOTION:
ADJOURNMENT
Commissioner Peters MOVED to adjourn and Commissioner Morin SECONDED the
motion. There were no objections. SO ORDERED.
There being no further business before the Commission, the meeting was adjourned at
approximately 9:18 p.m.
Meeting summary prepared and submitted by:
Corene Hall, CMC, Deputy City Clerk
HARBOR COMMISSION MEETING
OCTOBER 11, 2010
PAGE 3
Where do you live in Alaska:
Where/How do you plan to dip net:
South Beach via Cannery Road
North Beach via South Spruce Street
By boat at the City of Kenai Boat Launch
How many are in your party:
What Accommodations are you using:
None
Local Lodging
My own Camper/Tent/Trailer
Local Trailer or Camp Grounds
1 1
City of Kenai Dip Net Survey
if interested, you can participate in a more lengthy survey at the City of Kenai Website,
www.ci. kenai.ak.us
Thank you for your response
Item 5 4.
Do you have any suggestions that would enhance your experience such as more parking, better
access, rest room facilities, fish cleaning facilities, trash containers, food vendors, etc:
Where is your Permanent R sidlence ?(Check rope) Kenai Sa €s otna Nikiski Homer
Seward Ninnic €hIk Anchor Point Anchorage_ Peh ne? /Wasi €a Out-of-State
How �sr pea *B in your party? (C rde one F 2 3 4 5 6
How many tkmes have you used the Kenai City Boat Launch this year? (Circle one)
9 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 /0 11 12 13 14
15 16 17 18 119 20 21 22 23 24 25
Pr?mary Purpose for using Facility (Check on r Recreation
Commercna9 Fishnn Cress the net Other
How many Vehkias dcl your pasty park in the Lot? (Cftde .one) 1 2 3 4
D p nee'tt`6 ng Spans Fish rtg
Agency Review Draft
Prepared by...
Doug Whittaker, Ph.D. and Bo Shelby, Ph.D.
Confluence Research and Consulting
Prepared for..
State of Alaska
Department of Natural Resources
Division of Parks and Outdoor Recreation
May 2010
Item 56.
Kenai River Recreation Study
Major Findings and Implications
I ";3r Page if
Acknowledgements
's anti r: l c at ns
Methods
Executive Summary
Alaska State Parks commissioned a study of Kenai River recreation use in the summer of 2009. The
overall goal was to describe use patterns, user characteristics, impacts and tolerances, responses to
impacts, and the acceptability of management actions that might be used to improve environmental health
or the quality of recreation experiences. This summary was presented in Soldotna, Alaska in February
2010; the final report should be "on the streets" in summer 2010.
The study included focus groups with stakeholders; collection and analysis of use data; an on -site user
survey; and follow -up surveys with users, guides, and landowners.
Use data. The study organized use data from several sources, including vehicle or boat counts onsite;
ADF &G boat counts on the lower river; overflight boat counts from Kenai Watershed Forum; and launch,
campground, ferry, or parking data from other agencies.
On site survey. Users were surveyed at 25 locations on three segments from late May through
September. Over 2,300 groups were contacted; 2,180 provided completed surveys (92% cooperation
rate), including 896 bank anglers, 691 drift anglers, 466 powerboat anglers, and 127 non anglers.
Follow up surveys. 65 to 87% of onsite users (depending upon the group) provided addresses for a
follow -up survey. A final sample of 852 users completed follow -up surveys (65% response rate),
including 318 bank anglers, 274 drift boat anglers, 191 powerboat anglers, and 69 non anglers. All 385
registered guides were sent a follow -up survey; 218 completed surveys (64% response rate of those with
"good" addresses), including 153 powerboat guides, 47 driftboat guides, and 18 scenic raft or other
guides. A sample of 494 landowners stratified by the three segments was sent a follow -up survey; 208
completed surveys (45% response rate).
Highlight findings
Use levels. Due to an economic downturn, weak second king run, and mid season floods, 2009 was not a
high use year, particularly during king salmon season and the second red salmon run. However, the first
red run on the upper river attracted high use, and use levels were "normal" during silver and trout dolly
seasons.
Characterizing users, guides, and landowners. Questions about "most important" recreation
opportunities provided profiles of different groups on variables such as age, gender, residency, Kenai
experience, boat ownership, and target species. Most Kenai anglers are men >80 who fish in small
groups (2 to 5). Users take diverse trips; for example, 30% of powerboaters sometimes use driftboats and
29% of drift anglers sometimes use powerboats.
Perceived crowding. A. standard question used in many recreation studies shows some Kenai locations
and times can be very crowded (e.g., bank anglers on the Upper River during the first red run, drift
anglers on the Upper River on Sept weekends, powerboat anglers on high use days on the Lower River;
79 to 98% report crowding). Most locations and times had "high- normal" crowding (50 to 65 and a
few had "low normal" (35 to 50 or "no crowding" 35 Crowding was higher while fishing than
while using facilities, parking, or traveling to fishing.
i.tF F 6 R Ll'f ae 20'10 Pa e 9i�
Use impact relationships. Correlations between use measures (e.g., Russian River ferry users per day,
boat counts on the Lower River) and various impacts (e.g., perceived crowding, distance between bank
anglers, competition for fishing locations, interference from boats) show that higher use levels are related
to higher impacts. Combined with information about impact tolerances, data help show when use
produces unacceptable impacts.
Impacts and tolerances. Similar to findings from a 1992 study, most Kenai users identified tolerances
for impacts; only 10 to 20% report that social impacts "don't matter to me as long as I'm catching fish."
Example tolerances for bank anglers include less than three line entanglements and fishing at Ieast one
rod length from others; boat -based anglers tolerate fishing competition and boat interference no more than
25% of the time.
Issue priorities. Follow -up surveys had respondents rank 24 management issues on an "importance"
scale; few were rated "not at all" important. The highest ranked issues related to environmental impacts
(e.g., litter, bank trampling, wildlife impacts, and powerboat effects on erosion, hydrocarbon pollution,
and water clarity), but discourteous behavior of users and boating safety were also important. These are a
starting point for high quality recreation. Facility or access improvements and use level issues were lower
but also important (particularly for certain sub- groups). Higher ranking use issues included boats on the
Lower River in July, bank and boat anglers during red salmon runs, and boats on the Upper River during
the late summer trout season.
Responding to crowding. Most respondents (70 to 90 said they sometimes feel crowded and
described ways they respond. About 45% try to avoid others while staying in the same area, and about
30% said they take trips during the middle of the week, at a different time of day, or to a different
segment. About 24% go less frequently, 23% resign themselves to a more crowded experience, and 21%
become dissatisfied.
King salmon angling use. Guides reported that several factors affect when, where, and how long they
fish for kings, including personal knowledge, personal success from recent days, and seeing others having
fishing success. Nearly all agreed that "being first" at a hole is important and that king fishing generally
diminishes through the day. Because of this, it may be challenging to address crowding by redistributing
use in space or time.
Development actions. Among all groups, there is majority support (usually 60 to 75 for development
actions including new launches on the lower river, launch improvements on all three segments, new or
improved restrooms, and improved trails or bank fishing platforms (especially if this allows some closed
angling areas to be reopened).
Education and regulation actions. There is majority support (but typically less than 60 for education
and regulation actions related to boating safety, including no wake zones or "driving lanes" in congested
areas, and requirements for all boat users to wear PFDs. However, powerboat user support for all these
actions is more qualified and most powerboat guides oppose them. Powerboaters oppose (but guides
support) requiring operators pass a written test for a Kenai "boating license."
"Drift only" issues. Majorities of driftboat users (80 driftboat guides (85 and bank anglers (55
support additional "drift- only" days on the Lower and Middle River (there is one day a week of "drift
only" use during the king season now), while majorities of powerboat users {50 and powerboat guides
(70 are opposed. Opinions about "drift only" days on one segment at a time suggest "compromise"
options may be workable. There was little consensus about the best times for "drift only" days, but
DRAFT Repo,'
'a iv
It
support is greatest in higher density periods. The study also reviews other issues that need to be
addressed if additional drift only days are considered.
Use limit actions. Similar to the 1992 study, about 68% of users say they would never support boating
use limits or they are not needed now, while about 20% might support them {depending upon how the
permit system works) and 10% believe they are necessary now. Among those who might support limits,
over 80% want limits to freeze or reduce use. Support for specific use limit actions depends largely on
who the action would limit. Unguided users support limits on guides or guided use, white opposing limits
on all use (which would include them). Guides oppose limits on guides or all users, with the exception of
Upper River guides, who support limits on unguided users (guides are already limited on the most popular
segment of the Upper River). There was little support for an all -user registration system that might be
used to help redistribute use through information. Less than 20% of users provided estimates of
capacities; among those who did, estimates were similar to current averages on high use (but not peak)
days.
Guided unguided use issues. In response to statements about guided and unguided use issues
(developed in focus groups), there is general agreement that some guides can be aggressive and that the
number of guided boats can detract from experiences. Similarly, many groups agree that some unguided
users have inadequate boats, equipment, or skills for high density fishing, Responses help understand use
conflicts, suggesting improved education regulation options might diminish some "frictions" between
groups. There is also agreement about "sharing the burden" of reducing overuse, although groups
disagree on specific actions. Most disagreements appear to be based on "reasonable self-interest" in their
own chances of improved conditions or lost access.
Fees. Just under half of all users are willing to pay user fees; drift anglers were the only group with a
majority reporting a willingness to pay. Of those willing to pay in 2009, average amounts were $5 to 7
per day and $40 to 50 per season.
Visual impacts from riversides development. Most users favor current levels of development (about
55 or reductions (about 20 Of those favoring more development, most prefer slight increases, and
less than 5% prefer doubling or tripling development (which current regulations allow).
Final comments
The preceding chapters document use and impact levels on the Kenai River and support for management
actions that might be used to address them. Taken together, information supports a common narrative
about the Kenai: there are times and places where use and impacts diminish the quality of experiences,
and the river is "not what it used to be." Results also show considerable support for some actions
(particularly development and education) to address these problems, but more divided opinion about
several regulation options, changes in the type of use (e.g., more drift -only times /segments), or use limits
(for guides or all users).
Kenai recreation use is a classic "tragedy of the commons" situation there is no incentive for
individuals or groups to constrain its own growing use, even though the collective impacts may inevitably
degrade the resource. The study provides agencies, stakeholders, and the public use information to make
conscious decisions about the kind of recreation opportunities and conditions they want on the Kenai
River. The goal should be "management by design" rather than "management by default."
DRAFT Report June 2' 0
Table of Contents
Introduction 1
Study objectives 2
2. Methods 7
Agency use information and "count" programs 7
Fieldwork 7
Focus groups and interviews 8
On -site survey 8
Follow -up surveys 10
User follow -up survey 10
Guide survey 11
Landowner survey 11
Survey sample sizes 12
Analysis 12
Reporting 12
Cautions and study context 12
3.. Use Information Characterizing 2009 14
Factors influencing use levels 14
Salmon runs and fishing success 14
Weather 16
Flows and flooding 16
Economic downturn 17
Other potential factors 17
Use level estimates 18
Effort and harvest on the entire river 18
Lower River 19
Middle River 22
Upper River 24
4. A Profile of Kenai River Users, Landowners, and Guides 28
Categorizing respondents 28
Activities and segments 28
Percent reporting opportunities 29
Most important opportunities 30
Guided vs. unguided use 32
Camp on the river 32
Types of boats 33
Land ownership and property characteristics 35
Age and gender 36
Alaska residents 36
Hosting and visitation information 37
Experience on the river 38
Trip characteristics 39
Group size 39
Trip lengths 39
Typical boating segments 39
i Report; 2010 Page vi
Trip characteristics 40
Target species and fishing statistics 40
Non angler activities 42
5. Lower River King Fishing Trends 43
Factors influencing fishing locations 43
Early morning fishing success 44
Fishing techniques 44
King salmon trends in recent years 45
6. On -river Crowding, Impacts, and Use Impact Relationships 46
Perceived crowding 46
Perceived crowding by segment season group "context" 47
Crowding comparisons with other resources 49
Crowding during different parts of a trip 51
Impacts and tolerances 52
Reported impacts 53
Tolerances for impacts 56
"Impact problems" 60
Use impact relationships 60
Other relationships among on -site survey variables 67
Crowding and Satisfaction 67
What impacts influence crowding? 67
7. Issue Importance 70
For all users 70
Differences between user groups 71
For guides 73
8. Responding to Crowding 75
General crowding measure 75
Responses to crowding 76
9. Changing Conditions, Past Use, and Displacement 79
Overall trip quality and management 79
Past use and displacement 80
10. General Management Strategies 83
User opinions toward general management strategies 83
Differences between user groups 84
Landowner opinions toward general strategies 84
Guide opinions toward general management strategies 85
11. Recreation Facility Development Maintenance Actions 86
Development actions for the entire river 87
Development actions on specific segments 88
Integrating development findings 89
DRAFT
June 2C 0 Page wii
12. Education and Regulation Actions 91
Education regulation actions for the entire river 92
Education regulation actions for different segments 94
Integrating education and regulation actions 95
11 "Drift- only" issues 97
General support opposition for "drift -only" days 97
How many additional "drift only" days? 98
Preferences for days of the week 98
Preferences for months 98
Prospective use of "drift only" days by guides 99
Developing "drift only" alternatives 101
Conceptual and process issues 101
Specific considerations for drift -only alternatives on the Kenai 102
14. Capacities and Use Limit Actions 105
Background 105
Philosophy toward use limits 106
Should limits reduce, freeze, or increase use? 108
Opinion toward a daily boat registration program 109
Opinion toward parking time limits 110
Specific use limit actions Lower River 111
Specific use limit actions Middle River 1 12
Specific use limit actions Upper River 113
Estimating boat and guide boat capacities 114
Lower River boat capacities 114
Lower River guide boat capacities 1 16
Upper River boat capacities 118
Other comments on use limit actions 119
Recotnmended use level monitoring 121
Lower River 121
Middle River 121
Upper River 121
15. Guided /Unguided Use Issues 123
Statements about guides 123
Statements about unguided users 124
Statements about other guided /unguided use issues 126
Other differences between guided unguided users 127
Other information about guided use 127
Other comments on guided unguided use issues 131
16. User Fees 133
Opinions about user fees 133
Other fee considerations 134
17. Non Recreation Development Issues 135
Preferred levels of development 135
Opinions toward land use regulations and permitting 137
DRAFT Report June 2010 Page viii
lipn 0:v a pp:a and Ogns
18. Concluding comments 138
19, Supplemental Report Sections 140
20. References 141
DRAFT Report jone, 2010 Page
1. Introduction
The Kenai River is widely known as one of the most outstanding recreation resources in Alaska. It has
world record Chinook salmon, large runs of Sockeye and Coho, outstanding rainbow and Dolly harden
fisheries, abundant wildlife, spectacular scenery, and interesting whitewater. With multiple access points
for bank, float, and powerboat use, the Kenai attracts local, state, national, and international use. This
popularity has led to high use densities at some times and places, and. the Kenai is considered one of the
most crowded fishing rivers in the country. For at least three decades, river managers have been
challenged by the social and biophysical impacts of high recreation use on the Kenai.
Several agencies or governmental organizations have (sometimes overlapping) management
responsibilities on the Kenai, including the Division of Parks and Outdoor Recreation in the Alaska
Department of Natural Resources (hereafter referred to as State Parks), Alaska Department of Fish and
Game (ADF &G), U.S. Forest Service (FS), U. S. Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS), Kenai Peninsula
Borough (KPB), the cities of Kenai and Soldotna, and the Alaska Board of Fisheries. State Parks is the
lead managing agency for recreation use on the river and adjacent state land, which includes several State
Park units. Designated as a "Special Recreation Management Area" (KRSMA) in 1984, State Park
responsibilities include Kenai Lake (14,500 acres); the Upper River (17 miles); Skilak Lake (25,000
acres); the Middle River (29 miles), and the Lower River (25 miles, ending about 4 miles from the mouth
at Cook Inlet).
State Parks prepared an initial Comprehensive Management Plan in 1986, focusing on facility
development, fish and wildlife habitat protection (particularly regulations to control development in
riparian zones), and boating regulation (horsepower limits and non motorized zones), Plan
implementation included a "carrying capacity" study in 1992 -93 (hereafter referred to as the 1992 study),
which documented several "impact problems" and support for management actions. A Comprehensive
Plan revision in 1997 addressed continuing issues related to recreation use, including facility needs,
motorized vs. non motorized use, bank vs. boating use, commercial vs. non commercial use, bank erosion
from powerboats, and riparian degradation from hank anglers.
The 1997 Plan also identified the need for periodically collected information about recreation use and
impacts, including a user survey. Since adoption of this Plan, monitoring or other studies by agencies
have addressed some of these needs, but State Parks was interested in a more comprehensive study. A
2004 settlement to litigation regarding proposed Kenai guide limits required additional information about
river use and impacts before such limits could be considered. The AIaskan Legislature provided funding
for the study in 2008 and it was conducted in 2009 -10.
This report provides an overview of major findings and implications for management. It integrates
information from focus groups, fieldwork, surveys, and previous studies to assess the "state of recreation"
on the river and suggest ways that problems might be addressed. A supplemental report offers additional
information about methods and results, including:
1. Use information;
2. Fieldwork;
3. Focus group notes;
4. Survey methods;
5. Additional on -site survey results;
6. Additional follow -up survey results;
7. Verbatim comments from surveys;
8. Notes from field technicians;
9. Excerpts from Forest Service bear incident
report
Study information will be considered by State Parks, the KRSMA Advisory Board, other agencies,
stakeholders, and the public before additional recreation management actions are implemented.
Study objectives
p
The overall goal of the study was to describe user and trip characteristics, use levels, impacts, impact
tolerances, attitudes toward management strategies, and acceptability of specific management actions.
The study was primarily directed at "recreation experience" issues rather than "biophysical" impacts (e.g.,
bank trampling, boat erosion, hydrocarbon impacts), although respondents were asked about the
importance of these issues and some management actions that could be used to address them.
The study replicated parts of the 1992 capacity study, but also addressed more recent issues, and collected
more specific information about use impact relationships and support for specific management actions.
Study objectives included:
Describe "study year" use patterns, focusing on daily and atone -time estimates to compare with
survey findings, and developing specific use impact relationships.
Summarize trends in use patterns based on existing agency data to provide context for study year
information.
Summarize "study year" weather, fish escapement, angler effort and harvest, and other potential
factors that may influence local, statewide, or out -of -state use.
Describe specific geographic distributions of drift and power boat use at high density times and
locations.
Describe user and trip characteristics for different groups.
Assess overall importance of management issues for user groups, segments, and seasons.
Assess overall evaluations of use levels and perceived crowding.
Describe reported impact levels and impact tolerances for user groups, segments, and seasons.
Compare reported impacts with tolerances to define "impact problems."
Develop relationships between reported impacts and use levels at specific times and locations
(segments and sub segments).
Assess public support/opposition for several general strategies and specific management actions that
might be used to address impact problems.
Assess place and time displacement of current river users due to crowding or other impacts, and
describe potential resource /activity substitutions (that may affect use on other regional rivers).
Assess proportions of users employing different "coping strategies when faced with crowding,
conflict, or impacts greater than tolerances;
Ensure that all information is collected for representative samples of major Kenai user groups: drift,
power, and bank anglers; non- anglers, guides, and landowners;
Collect and organize information by user group, segments, and seasons. The three major study
segments are identified in Map 1; more detailed maps for the three segments follow.
Compare findings from the present study with those from 1992 when possible.
Provide opportunities for agencies (e.g., ADF &G, KPB, USFS, and USFWS) and regional
stakeholders (e.g., sport fishing groups, guides, environmental groups, local businesses, and
landowners) to help develop issues, impacts, and management strategies to be addressed in the study.
w 2010 P,
CRAFT Report June 2010
Map 1. Kenai River segments (as used in this report).
i ns
Note: Several Kenai management issues are beyond the scope of the study, including personal use
fisheries at the mouth (outside the KRSMA boundaries); allocation between sport, commercial and
subsistence fisheries; fishing regulations (the purview of the Board of Fisheries); and land management
decisions on non -state lands (although results may help federal and local governmental agencies with
their decision making).
RivorgtiPst
an-
Is!
Pastures
Y Tidal
orm 3o Yn
Cove
€13 hole
Stowaris
Map 2. Lower Kenai River (River Mile 5 to 21).
Page 4
hone 2010
Middle Kenai River
Sterlin to Soldotna Bridge
Sdolit•ake
Afoose
Rivet
tiorgata- dirg3t
unnyRcr
Ripe,
Kenai National
Map 3. Middle Kenai River from Soldotna Bridge to Sterling (River Mile 21 to 36).
oose Rivitr
Lantitr9
4v,
Naptowf
RaPids First Hole
'dd e r final River
SkIak Lake to Sterling
Sterling Highway
Kenai National
Wildlife Refuge
Ti)ird Hole Levier
Kenai Keys Skilk
Lat)dng
j 4„..4114 ily T°I H° Rainbow
Rive I pc Hole 1 Th orri p sort s H o ,i
Hoe Ailey
Keep National
Map 4. Middle Kenai River from Sterling to Skilak Lake (River Mile 36 to 50).
Kenai National
wildlife Refuge
Lower
Russian
Kenai i onai
National efuge
'dlife R i
Wi s
iortsma'
Jm's Ferri' %,4t 1
St{"111$1g Lailding
HigfIviaY
R%9
River
Lake it'ilak Lake
Kenai La e to S
Chugach Bridge&
National Nati
1 atinch
Forest
Prirlcass-,-`
oi
j tr 1
74 enal
i-
Lariinj Lake
ssn Russian Rie'. Cooper
Rive Campground Ck CG
10
Map 5. Upper Kenai River (River Mile 65 to 82).
2. Methods
a
Several types of information were collected during the study. Summaries of method components are
provided below; additional information is available in the supplemental report sections on 1) focus
groups; 2) use information; 3) fieldwork; 4) onsite- survey methods; and 5) follow -up survey methods.
The chapter concludes with several cautions about study findings.
Agency use information and "count" programs
Several agencies operated independent use monitoring or "count" programs that helped summarize use
during the study year or place that year in a larger context. Information sources are listed below;
additional details are provided in the supplemental report on use information:
Boating and user counts on the Upper River collected by a photo time lapse program (2004) or
through "exit interviews" in 1994, 1999, and 2004 by USFWS.
Angier effort and harvest data collected by ADF &G creel surveys from previous years.
Weekly fishing report assessments by ADF &G during Chinook season.
Daily boat counts on the Lower River collected by ADF &G from mid -May through July.
Salmon run information (escapement) collected by ADF &G for the study year and previous years.
Guide information collected by State Parks.
Aerial boat counts conducted for hydrocarbon monitoring by Kenai Watershed Forum and /or
Department of Environmental Conservation.
Russian River Ferry and Sportsman's launch and parking information (USFWS concession).
Russian River Campground and Day Use information.
Daily Pillars launch and parking information.
Monthly use information from State Park units {e.g., Cooper Landing, Morgan's Landing, Bing's
Landing, izaak Walton).
State Park ranger counts of bank anglers and boats on selected days.
USFS staff counts of bank anglers in specific zones in the Russian River confluence area.
Use information was collected in databases that allowed comparisons across different sources, and links
to impact information from on -site surveys. Graphs and descriptive statistics were developed to describe
seasonal, weekly, and time of day use patterns for different segments.
Fieldwork
This study expanded field data collection from the 1992 study to ensure "at- one -time" use estimates for
specific river segments could be associated with the on -site survey information. In addition to the count
programs described above, "at -one- time" boat, trailer, and parking counts were conducted by study
technicians at all sampling locations. Several specific observation stations were also established to
improve information about geographic distributions of specific types of users (e.g., different craft, anglers
using different fishing techniques, guide /non -guide proportions) within certain segments. Stations and
protocols are provided in the supplemental report on fieldwork.
Periodic fieldwork was also conducted on all three segments during the 2009 season to provide context
for study findings. This included on -land, floating, and powerboating trips with ADF&G and State Parks
field staff. Trips focused on photographing typical use patterns, impacts, and facilities; learning about
ADF &G count programs; interviewing users; and developing supplemental observations of sub- segment
use patterns. Additional information about fieldwork is provided in a supplemental report.
DRAFT IR. pori Jute 2010 Page
Focus groups and interviews
A series of meetings or interviews with agency staff, stakeholders, and user groups were conducted from
January to March 2009 to review issues and help develop survey items. The primary purpose was to
review:
Conclusions from the 1992 study and 2002 monitoring program, then develop priorities for this study;
Impact "indicators" studied in 1992 and 2002, then help decide which should be replicated;
Management strategies studied in 1992 and develop new actions to be assessed in this study;
Use and field work data collection options.
Focus group meetings were conducted with guides (2 meetings); Kenai River Sport Fishing Association;
Kenai Area Fisherman's Coalition; landowners who live on the Kenai Peninsula; landowners who live in
Anchorage; Cooper Landing area residents (landowners and guides); long -time users in the Anchorage
area (recruited from Alaska Outdoor Forum); and agency staff or KRSMA river use committee members
(including staff from ADF &G, State Parks, USFWS, USES, KPB or other non governmental
organizations such as Kenai Watershed Forum). Additional interviews were conducted with individual
guides, Kenai Guide Academy instructors, local Chamber of Commerce staff, and landowners.
Candidates for focus groups and interviews were developed with assistance from leaders of forrnal
stakeholder groups, KRSMA board members, and other experienced users identified by agency staff. The
goal was to have participants represent a diversity of opinions within the identified groups, but many had
broad experience with several segments and types of uses.
Focus groups ranged from 4 to 15 participants; they were conducted with a single facilitator (Doug
Whittaker), and several were attended by agency observers. Interviews were conducted by phone or in
person by Whittaker. Interviews and focus groups were structured to cover a full range of topics; the
supplemental report on focus groups includes notes from the sessions. Focus group participants and
interviewees were invited to pre -test survey instruments. Notes from the focus groups are included in the
supplemental report.
On -cite survey
DRAFT R. June 211O
The on -site survey used similar methods to those employed in the 1992 study. Technicians were provided
with a "roving" sampling schedule designed to survey groups of users (bank anglers as they fish and boat
based anglers as they take-out) at several locations on each segment through seasons (defined after
discussions with stakeholders and agencies). Technicians surveyed one person per group (e.g., 1 person
per bank angler group, 1 person per boat) chosen randomly.
The technician provided respondents with a one -page survey about users' trips, overall trip and crowding
evaluations, and impacts, focusing on evaluations of that day's trip. in some instances, technicians read
questions and recorded responses (because respondents were busy de- rigging boats or bank fishing). The
survey also asked for contact information (email or mail address), which gave users the opportunity to
complete a follow -up survey (see below).
2009 on -site sampling targeted users during angling seasons, but also sampled some non angling users
(e.g., scenic rafters, wildlife viewers, campers) who are present during those times. The study did not
focus on sampling during the non fishing seasons (e.g., before trout season opens on the Upper River).
The on -site survey did not target personal use fishery (dip-net) users at the mouth of the river and outside
KRSMA (although some boat -based dip nesters launch upstream and were included in the sample).
The overall goal of the on -site survey was to represent the diversity of 2009 users on the Kenai River,
which is related to several variables:
Geography (Upper, Middle, and Lower rivers, and by location within those segments)
Activity (powerboat anglers, driftboat anglers, bank anglers, and non-anglers)
Type of use (guided vs. unguided)
Time of year (primarily delineated by salmon run timing)
Day of the week (primarily weekends vs. weekdays, plus special regulation days)
Time of day
The on -site survey sampling goal was to ensure that the sub groups of interest had a sample of about 30
for descriptive statistics and analysis. For larger sub groups (e.g., all Lower River powerboaters), the
goal was sample sizes about 200, which provide "margin of error" about +8% (at the 95% confidence
level). Sample sizes of 400 (for larger -still groups such as "all bank anglers produce a margin of error
about ±5
The 2009 sampling effort had several elements, including:
Segment stratification (roughly equal sampling effort by the three segments)
Type of day stratification (weekends vs. weekdays);
Random sampling by specific days within weekend/weekday strata;
Random sampling by time of day (in general, between 11 am and 8pm);
Quotas that limited the number of surveys from any given location /time period to avoid "over
sampling" a particularly high use setting;
Professional judgments that defined the frequency of sampling by location and season to include a
diversity of locations and maintain logistical efficiency for technicians.
Minor adjustments based on in- season considerations (e.g., adding more powerboat sampling in late
July and August in response to low use levels during king season; reducing some bank angling
locations due to no or very ]ow use).
The supplemental report provides additional details about the on -site survey sampling plan. Sampling
locations included 15 locations on the Lower River (including Pillars, Centennial Park, Eagle Rock,
Cunningham Park, Poachers Cove, and River Bend); 13 locations on the Middle River (including Bing's
Landing, Swiftwater Park, Morgan's Landing, Izaak Walton, Kenai River Center, Rotary Park, Funny
River, and Lower Skilak) and 6 locations on the Upper River (including Russian River
Ferry /Sportsman's, Jim's Landing, Sterling Highway turnouts, Russian River campground /day use area,
and Upper Skilak).
The supplemental report provides additional information about sampling effort and response by location
and month. The bank anglers sample included roughly equal samples from both red runs and periods
outside red salmon season. The powerboat sample had unexpected lower numbers from the king runs due
to poor king returns, the economic downturn, and flooding in late July; we adjusted sampling to capture
more powerboat anglers after July. The driftboat sample was larger than expected because of high use
levels on the Upper .River.
In total, the 2009 study surveyed 2,180 users on -site (including 896 bank anglers, 466 powerboat anglers,
691 driftboat anglers, and 127 non anglers). The survey was conducted over 428 time- and location
specific "sessions" (totaling 671 hours) at over 30 different locations on over 90 days from late May
through late September (34% of hours on the Lower River, 31% on the Middle River, and 35% on the
Upper River). Table 2 -1 provides the number of on -site users contacted, the percent who completed
DRAFT R rt Agile
surveys, and a "cooperation rate." It also shows the proportion of users who gave addresses for follow -up
surveys.
Table 2 -1. Onsite survey contacts, refusals, completions, and cooperation rate.
Contacted
Refused
Completed
Cooperation rate
Provided addres
follow-up
Follow -up surveys
User follow -up survey
Bank
anglers
987 709 527 141 2,364 Y.
91
8
91%
Drift boat
anglers
18
97%
Powerboat Non anglers Total
anglers
63
4
88%
14
127
90%
185
2,180
92%
Content for the on -site survey was developed from the 1992 study and revisions were suggested by focus
groups and interviews. The survey was pre tested by focus group participants and agency staff.
Technicians were trained to provide a consistent approach to users and preamble about the survey. A
one -page "frequently asked questions" (FAQ) brochure was available for interested participants; it
described the study, the confidentiality of responses, and contacts for more information. The
supplemental report on onsite methods provides the on -site survey instruments, survey protocols, and
FAQ.
On -site survey analysis used sampling and stratification variables (e.g., type of user, target species,
guided /unguided, high use days vs. low use days) to conduct comparative analyses. In general, statistics
for small sub groups were reported separately only when differences were statistically significant and
substantively important (as discussed when results are presented).
As with the 1992 study, the 2009 study included a follow -up survey that allowed more detailed questions.
The follow -up survey was sent to a sample within each group of onsite respondents, a sample of
landowners, and all guides (details below).
All follow -up surveys included questions about user and trip characteristics, issue priorities, responses to
crowding, past use and potential segment or activity displacement, support for general management
strategies, support for specific management actions, "drift -only" issues, guided unguided use issues, and
visual impacts from development. Most of these topics were addressed in the 1992 study, but many
questions were modified or added after focus groups and agency input. The guide survey included
additional questions about king salmon fishing trends and "drift only" issues; the landowner survey
included ad.ditionaI questions about properties and trespass issues.
Respondents could take the survey on -line or by mail. On -line respondents were sent one email invitation
and three reminders. Mail survey respondents were sent the survey and a cover letter, a post card
reminder, and two additional reminders (the last containing a replacement copy of the survey in case they
misplaced the first).
IJR,AFT Report June 2010 Page 10
Guide survey
In total, l ,650 on -site respondents provided email or mail addresses, 126 were illegible or duplicate
addresses (because some people were surveyed more than once) and 221 were "bad addresses" (returned
undeliverable by regular mail or bounced by email). This provided a total follow -up survey sample frame
of 1,303 potential respondents; of these, 852 or 65% returned completed surveys. This was similar to the
response rate for the 1992 study (68 Additional information about the sample is provided in the
supplemental report on follow -up survey methods.
A series of questions asked survey respondents to identify their 1 and 2n most important recreation
opportunities (and any others that they do). Results were used to group respondents into the four primary
user groups (bank angler, drift boat angler, powerboat angler, or non angler; see details in supplemental
report). Of the 852 follow -up survey respondents, 318 were bank anglers, 274 were driftboat anglers, 191
were powerboat anglers, and 69 were non anglers.
This method of categorizing users was different than for the 1992 study, which grouped users by the
activity they were doing and the segment they were visiting on the day of the onsite survey. The 1992
method limited information about other segments and activities and may have "artificially" grouped
users; the 2009 method allows users to self identify their most important activities and segments.
State Parks had a list of 385 registered guides for 2009, which included outfitters, guides, and a few other
commercial service providers (e.g., shuttle services, rental boats, etc.). All were sent an invitation to take
the survey on -line or through the mail. In total, 43 addresses were undeliverable, so the final sample
frame was 242. Completed surveys were received from 218 individuals, a response rate of 64 This
was slightly lower than the 1992 response rate of 76 although that survey was only sent to a sample of
guides, so the total samples size in 2009 was higher (218 vs. 143).
Using other information from the State Parks guide database, we were able to do a non- response check.
Our final sample was representative regarding the proportion of fishing guides, Alaskan residents, and
independent guides (as opposed to those who work for an outfitter). Based on the same questions about
1st and 2n most important opportunities, the final sample included 157 powerboat guides, 48 driftboat
guides, and 13 scenic raft guides or other commercial service providers. Details are provided in the
supplemental report.
Landowner survey
Kenai Peninsula Borough (KPB) estimates there are approximately 3,500 properties along the Kenai
River (most along the Middle and Lower Rivers). KPB provided a random sample of 200 landowners on
the Lower and Middle River; all landowners with property adjacent to public easements; and all
landowners on the Upper River (because there are only 82).
From this initial sample of 682, 188 were removed because they were duplicates, corporations, or
governmental agencies (we only wanted to send surveys to private individuals). We sent a postcard
invitation to take the survey to the 494 remaining. Of these, 32 were "bad addresses," providing a final
sample frame of 462. Completed surveys were received from 208 individuals (a response rate of 45
including 81 from the Lower River, 108 from the Middle River, and 19 from the Upper River. Thirty -five
were landowners adjacent to easements. This was lower than the 1992 response rate of 74 although
that survey was sent to a smaller sample of landowners (200), so the total samples size in 2009 was higher
(208 vs. 147). Based on the same questions about "most important opportunities," the final sample
DRAFT Report ;ne 2010
included 74 bank anglers, 14 driftboat anglers, 99 powerboat anglers. and 21 non anglers. Details are
provided in the supplemental report.
Survey sample sizes
Analysis
Taken together, follow -up surveys were completed by 1,278 individuals, including 852 users, 218 guides,
and 208 landowners. Table 2 -2 provides sample sizes by types of users.
Table 2 -2. Sample sizes by types of users for the follow -up user, guide, and landowner surreys.
Bank ang
Driftboat anglers
Powerboat anglers
Non anglers
Total
Reporting
Users
318
274
69
52
Cautions and study context
Guides
48
13
2
Landowners
74
14
21
Total
191
397
335
443
103
This primary study report integrates information from components of the study; the supplemental report
provides additional detailed information (e.g., results for different subgroups, the full range of questions
in the survey, verbatim open -ended comments etc.). Analysis was based on recreation research protocols,
including those used in the 1992 study and 2002 monitoring on the Kenai, and several other studies of
Alaskan and Lower 48 rivers. Unless differences are small, analyses separate relevant sub groups. This
strategy avoids characterizing an "average user who doesn't exist" (Schaefer, 1976), addresses concerns
about unequal group sample sizes, and helps show how management actions might affect different
groups. It also creates some artificial divisions between users that may encourage polarization (e.g.,
driftboaters vs. powerboaters, guided vs. unguided users). Additional information on specific analyses is
provided as results are presented.
Presentations of results and implications were made to 1) the KRSMA river use committee and 2) at a
public meeting in February 2010, allowing feedback on concerns or additional analysis. A draft report
(this document) will be presented to KRSMA advisory board for internal review in April 2010. The final
report is expected in June 2010.
Study results apply to 2009 conditions and users. The study provides information from Kenai users in
2009 a "snapshot" of conditions and user attitudes from one year. For the onsite survey, information
from previous years has been reviewed to help put study findings in context. For the follow -up survey,
responses reflect evaluations of the river or management actions that are probably not dependent on year
to -year variations. This issue is explored through comparisons to 1992 study findings.
The study explores a, full range of management actions, including controversial ones. To be
comprehensive, the study included several actions that are unpopular with some groups or agencies.
RAFT Report ur 2010 Page 12
gs an
Effective management actions usually involve "costs" money, time, agency effort, or restrictions on
how people use the river. As the adage goes, "if the choices were easy, they would have already been
made."
The study does not advocate specific action, but tries to clarify their trade -offs identifying what
problems they may address (e.g., problems they may address, new problems they may create, which
groups would benefit). Managing agencies (and. specifically State Parks through its KRSMA advisory
board process) will consider study information when making management decisions, but will also
integrate other information (e.g., biophysical studies, use trends, stakeholder and public input) through a
public process. Issues are likely to be "handled" through programmatic decisions or case -by -case
amendments to the existing plan.
The study develops some management options and recommends specific monitoring. Some study
results (or information from other rivers) suggest potential solutions that deserve additional attention.
These suggestions provide a "starting point" for additional discussion among agencies, stakeholders, and
the public. The study also recommends future monitoring that may help agencies or the public become
better "calibrated" to use and impact levels, also intended as a "starting point" for agency consideration.
The study generally focuses on State Parks responsibilities, but some issues cross jurisdictional
boundaries. The Kenai has a complex management environment, and decisions by one agency can affect
use and impact patterns that create problems for others. It is beyond the scope of this report to sort
through jurisdictional challenges, so we generally discuss management solutions without assessing
specific agency responsibilities. We encourage multi- agency decision- making in these situations, even as
we recognize these have their own difficulties. As study results are presented, our goal is to anticipate
new problems or identify connections to past management decisions.
Surveys are not "votes" on study issues. There is a tendency to consider survey results as referenda on
specific issues, but we caution against this. The purpose of this study is to provide information, identify
group positions, and search for solutions that address problems (or share the burden of addressing them).
In addition to studies, good planning integrates information from stakeholder input, public testimony at
workshops and meetings, laws and legal mandates, and agency missions and regulations.
The stud) assumes the overall goal of managing for a diversity of high quality recreation opportunities.
The Kenai provides many recreation opportunities, including those with low, moderate, and high use
levels. No particular opportunity is better or worse than others, but all opportunities cannot be provided
on every mile of river. This means careful management is required to insure high quality. The study is
designed to clarify differences among opportunities or management options; agencies make these
judgments with public and stakeholder input through their planning processes.
DRAFT Rcpoil June 2010
3. Use Information Characterizing 2009
tic
This chapter surnrnarizes use and related information for 2009, and compares it to similar information
from other years for context. A supplemental report provides supporting evidence and more detailed use
or related information for specific fisheries, seasons, and locations. Other sections of the report
(specifically Chapter 5 on king salmon use trends, Chapter 16 on guide /unguided use issues, and Chapter
15 on use limits and capacities) also provide detailed use information or integrate it into discussion.
Factors influencing use levels
Salmon runs and fishing success
Early king (Chinook) run
This run is primarily tributary spawners; they arrive in early May and (by definition) the run ends .July 1.
It is historically much smaller than the late king run; the long term (1986 -2006) average in -river return is
about 17,000 fish (with about 6,000 harvested or lost to catch release mortality). In 2009, sonar
estimates suggest about 11,000 early run kings entered the river, making this a lower than average return.
The tuning of the run was normal, but started slowly; per day sonar counts did not exceed 100 fish until
May 27. Counts exceeded 300 fish on only 15 days, with the sustained period of higher counts occurring
from June 5 to June 14. Only three days exceeded 500 fish per day; the highest day was 603 on June 11.
Fishing was generally "slow" through this run, with ADF &G creel information suggesting it took over 60
hours per unguided angler to catch a king in most weeks (the exception was the week of June 4, when the
average was 37 hours). For guided anglers, it generally took about 40 hours per caught fish (with the best
week at 23 hours per fish).
Late king (Chinook) run
This run is main stem spawners and much larger than the early run. By definition, kings entering the river
after July I are categorized as late run fish. Fishing for the late run closes July 31, but a few kings
continued to arrive after that date. Sonar counts were discontinued on August 3. The long term (1986-
2007) in -river return is about 42,000 fish (with about 13,000 harvested or lost to catch release
mortality). In 2009, sonar estimates suggest only 25,700 fish entered the river, making it one of the
poorest returns on record.
The timing of the run was normal, but after an initial period of higher daily counts numbers dropped and
did not rebound. Per day counts through the sonar exceeded 600 on most days through July 23, but
averaged about 500 afterwards. Counts exceeded 1,000 fish on only 9 days, with the sustained period of
higher counts occurring from July 11 to 22. The highest count was 1,249 on July 17. In an average year,
counts will exceed 1,000 fish on over 20 days, and it is not uncommon for nearly half of those to exceed
1 ,500. In "good years," counts from 2,000 to 3,000 may occur on a handful of days.
Fishing success was better than the early run as anglers were allowed to use bait, and success rates
approached long term averages early in the month. It took unguided anglers about 8 to 21 hours to catch
a king during this run, with the rate degrading through July (particularly in the last week of July). For
guided anglers it took between 10 and 14 hours, with success rates following the same timing pattern.
DR %'T Repod i wr .n 2l:' 14
Early red (Sockeye) run
The first red run is primarily Russian River spawners and is smaller than the late run. 2009 had about the
same number of fish through the Russian River weir as the long term average of 52,000 fish. The run
came in two distinct surges in 2009 (and appeared to coincide with neap tides). The first surge was
substantial enough to meet escapement goals and allowed ADF &G to liberalize angler limits from 3 to 6
fish per day (on June 17, one week after fishing opened). ADF &G assesses creel for this fishery through
its statewide harvest surveys which has not been published for 2009, but several sources suggest that
success rates were good to excellent throughout this run, particularly on the Upper River (where most use
is concentrated). However, several long term users remarked that fishing was also unusually good (and
use levels were higher) for the early run at some Lower and Middle River locations (especially during the
first week of the run).
Late red (Sockeye) run
The second red run is substantially larger than the first. The long term average is about 900,000 fish
through the sockeye sonar counter near Sterling Highway Bridge in Soldotna; the 2009 count was about
745,000 or 83% of the average. This run also arrived in two distinct surges, with peak counts from July
14 to 21 (averaging about 39,000 fish per day) and a shorter, smaller peak from July 27 to 31 (averaging
about 32,000 per day). Per day averages did not exceed 8,000 fish until July 11, were about 13,000 fish
per day between the peaks, and averaged less than 10,000 per day after the second peak.
ADF &G statewide harvest survey results have not been published for 2009, but several sources suggest
that success rates were fair to good in the early part of the run on the Lower and. Middle River, but
declined substantially after water levels rose about July 23 and then again in early August. On the Upper
River, there were short periods of "excellent" red fishing from. July 13 -15 (before the flooding) and from
August 2 -15 (after flooding had subsided; it was not affected by the second flood).
A &G statewide harvest surveys indicate the catch averages about 315,000 sockeye each year (1997-
2006), although this fluctuates from 217,000 (1998) to 389,000 (2005). Segment data suggest about 37%
are caught in the Lower River; 36% downstream of Moose River on the Middle River; 13% upstream of
Moose River on the Middle River; and 13% from the Upper River (the remainder come from unspecified
locations). Longer term data from 1981 to present show percentages have been increasing on the Lower
River and Middle River below Moose River, while decreasing upstream of Moose River and in the Upper
River.
Silver (Cohn) runs
ADF &G does not track silver returns via sonar, so in- season estimates are unavailable. Some sources
suggested that 2009 silver success rates were "typical" although others suggest they were "better than
average," particularly on the Lower River. Silver success rates appeared to slow from August 14 to 20
during a second round of flooding on the Lower and Middle River. Success rates for silvers on the Upper
River (Heim, 2009) suggest the best fishing was from Aug 20 to Sept 3, but it never reached "good,"
"excellent," or "superb" levels.
ADF &G statewide harvest surveys indicate Kenai silver harvest levels have recently averaged about
43,000 fish per year (1997- 2006), with about 59% caught in the Lower River, 21% in the Middle River,
and 11% in the Upper River, and the remainder in lakes or unspecified locations. About 70% of silvers
are harvested from the first run (which typically occurs from late July to late August 25, with a peak in
DRAFT Repo t-. Juua 2010 Page 15
the Lower River about August 15). The second run is typically considered from late August through
September, with a peak in the Lower River about September 15.
Trout and Dolly Varden fisheries
ADF &G assessments of trout and Dolly fisheries and success rates are not yet published for 2009, but
several sources suggest that 2009 success rates were "typical" of recent years (and generally considered
"excellent The highest use targeting these species is on the Upper and Middle Rivers. Fishing success
ratings from the Upper River (Heim, 2009) suggest trout fishing was best from August 1 through
September 6, and from September 14-20.
From ADF&G statewide harvest surveys, about 113,000 Kenai rainbow are caught each year (1997-
2006). Only about 2.5% of rainbow are retained; a shift to a catch and release fishery (in the mid- 1980s,
22 to 27% retained fish). About 11% are caught in the Lower River; 9% downstream of Moose River on
the Middle River; 24% upstream of Moose River on the Middle River; 55% from the Upper River; and
the remainder in unspecified locations.
From ADF &G statewide harvest surveys, about 98,000 Dolly Varden are caught in the Kenai each year
(1997- 2006). About 6% are retained; a continuing shift toward a catch and release fishery (in the early
1990s, 15 to 34% retained fish). About 15% are caught in the Lower River; 9% downstream of Moose
River on the Middle River; 22% upstream of Moose River on the Middle River; and 53% from the Upper
River; and the remainder in unspecified locations. This is similar to the rainbow distribution.
Weather
Weather during 2009 was generally warmer and sunnier than average (particularly from May through
mid- August, and in late August through early September). Warmer temperatures and a substantial
rainstorm in the Kenai Mountains in late July led to flooding that affected fishing success and access (and
diminished use). A glacier dam outburst above Skilak Lake also created flooding on the Lower and
Middle Rivers in mid- August.
Flows and flooding
Substantially higher than normal flows occurred during two distinct floods, from July 23 to August 8 (the
"first flood and August 13 to 21 (the "second flood A third flood occurred in October 2009, but
outside the study period. Figure 3 -1 graphs flow levels (and shows days with substantial rain).
The first flood was caused by rain in the Kenai Mountains and affected the entire river, but with greater
flooding on the Middle and Lower Rivers. Starting from typical mid- summer peak flows about 7,000 efs
at Cooper Landing and 14,000 cfs at Soldotna, the peak at Cooper Landing was 10,500 efs on July 31;
flows dropped below 8,000 cfs by August 4. At Soldotna, flows peaked at 24,000 cfs on August 1, and
dropped below 18,000 cfs by August 8.
The second flood resulted from a glacial lake outburst in the mountains above Skilak Lake, causing
flooding only from the lake downstream a week after the first flood. At Soldotna, flows increased from
17,000 cfs to a peak of 26,000 cfs on August 17. The river returned to typical summer high flows {below
18,000 cfs) by August 21. Both floods inundated recreation facilities (docks, launches, and angler
boardwalks /platforms) or made bank fishing in many areas challenging.
DRAFT Repot .Sine 2010 Page 16
Economic downturn
Other potential factors
aS ,yh o �h ,�3 yo 6: �o K.', 4 Q ti� ti^ ,yo
e �1\ v s� S ao 4
sJ s P
'70 P� 1?-` P .0 4' 49
Figure 3 1. 2009 flow levels at Cooper Landing and Soldotna USGS gages.
There was a major economic recession in the United States in 2009, which may have affected local and
national visitation to the river. Alaska summer tourism visitation was down an estimated 7% (passenger
arrivals) and the number of post cruise land -based users (estimated to comprise two thirds of Southcentral
Alaska tourism arrivals) was down about 13% (McDowell Group as reported by Bradner, 2009). On the
follow -up survey for this study, guides were asked to estimate whether the number of client -days on the
river were "substantially lower" -5 to -30 "lower" (0 to -5 "about the same," "higher" (0 to --5
or substantially higher (+5 to +30 than previous years. For all guides taken together, 20% reported
"substantially lower," 34% reported "slightly lower," and only 6% "higher" or "substantially higher" (sce
supplemental report for more details).
King salmon fisheries in the Susitna basin were closed due to poor returns early in 2009, which may
have affected Kenai River fishing levels. When Kenai red salmon fishing opened on June 11, no other
substantial Southcentral salmon fishery had opened previously. When this first red run appeared strong
(and especially after limits were increased to 6 fish per day one week into the season), high latent demand
led to high use levels.
In contrast, when rod and reel fishing for the second Kenai red run peaked in mid -July, the July 10 -31
Kenai personal use fishery targeting reds at the mouth had been open for a week and was on track to
having the highest use on record (despite flooding at the end of the month that made dipping
challenging).
DRAFT Report June 20_ 1G Page 17
Use level estimates
Overall, the personal use fishery at the mouth appears to have substantially reduced fishing pressure
among rod and reel anglers on the rest of the river over the past decade. The personal use fishery did not
exist during the 1992 study, and the number of personal use "days fished" (people fishing x number of
days) has more than doubled from 10,500 in its first year (1996) to just over 26,000 in 2009 (ADF &G,
2009).
By definition, recreation use studies pay attention to use information. Forty years of capacity research
shows that other factors besides use levels affect impacts, but use levels "drive" many impacts and are an
integral part of recreation management. Accordingly, we have tried to profile use levels on the Kenai for
various segments and seasons below.
Most recreation use information is reported for large areas (e.g., for an entire river) or for long periods of
time (e.g., for a month, season, or entire year). This is important for some management issues (e.g., total
harvest estimates, economic impact analyses), but is less useful for assessing impacts at specific times or
locations. It is important to include more specific use measures, each of which specify units (e.g., user
days, people, or trips), timing (e.g., at one time, per day, per week, per month, per season), and location
(e.g., at a launch area, in the entire segment, at specific attraction sites). For the Kenai, "at one time" or
daily estimates for specific segments and sites are probably the most relevant for this report, although
some annual or run specific information is also provided.
With all use information, the goal is to understand overall use patterns. However, visitor impact
management tends to focus on peak levels, which is when impacts are more likely to reach
"unacceptable" levels and require management attention.
Use information comes from several sources (as noted when results are presented). Most use information
is based on counts of boats, cars, or anglers at public facilities. There may be considerable bank use from
private property that was not assessed in this study.
Effort and harvest on the entire river
ADF &G statewide harvest surveys estimate about 315,000 angler -days of effort on the Kenai River each
year from 1997 -2006. This is an increase over 1977 -1995 average of 278,000 angler -days. 2009
estimates will not be available until fall 2010.
Segment distributions of angler effort (1997 -2006) suggest about 47% occurs in the Lower River; 26% in
the Middle River (below Moose River); 12% in the Middle River (above Moose River); and 13% in the
Upper River (with the rest unspecified by location).
Species harvest on the Kenai (1997 -2006) suggests anglers keep about 16,000 kings; 225,000 reds;
43,000 silvers; 10,000 pinks (with large disparities in odd and even years); 3,000 rainbow; and 6,000
Dolly Varden per year. With rainbow and Dollies, many more fish are caught and released.
DRAFT Report Just 2010
Lower River
Bank angling
n
Bank angling on the Lower River during 2009 was highest during the second red run, but was also
substantial during kings, silvers, and the first red run. Entire segment counts were not conducted, but site
counts indicate use levels and patterns:
Cunningham Park had rare bank angler use during red or king runs, but it had consistent use during
silver season. Maximum 2009 bank angler counts were 22 at one time (Aug 21). With 230 feet of
shore, this creates spacing of about 9 feet between anglers (assuming anglers are evenly spaced and
an average width of 2 feet per angler).
The beach across from Beaver Creek is a popular bank angling site (accessed from boats) during the
second red run. An average of 14 anglers was observed at this site during second red run, with a high
of 45. This beach also had similar high use levels (41) during silvers over Labor Day weekend. With
a length of about 800 feet, spacing between anglers at these peak levels is about 16 feet.
Eagle Rock has almost no bank anglers until silver season; then it averages about 4 at one time.
River Bend campground has substantial bank angling use during the second red run, with up to 20
anglers at one time.
RiverQuest properties offer some bank angling during the second red run, with up to 15 anglers at one
time during peaks in 2009.
Ciechanski SRS (immediately adjacent to RiverQuest) usually attracts only 2 to 3 bank anglers at one
time during the second red run, but 15 were observed on one day.
Big Eddy SRS typically had 5 to 10 anglers at one time during the second red run, but the island
beach (directly across the river; accessible by boat) had as many as 41. That beach is about 680 feet
long, so evenly distributed anglers at this peak equates with about 15 feet between anglers.
Poacher's Cove may have 1 to 3 anglers in king or red seasons, but 14 to 16 were observed at Pipeline
SRS (across the river) during the second red run.
Centennial Park is a primary bank angling area during kings, reds, and silvers. King and silver
fishing is concentrated near the boat launch parking lot; red fishing occurs along the entire property
(usually clustered at stairwells down the bank). Average numbers at one time were 4 (with peaks
about 10) during kings; 30 (with the peak of 47) during reds and 21 (with a peak of 29) during
silvers. The shore from boat harbor to trees is about 800 feet long; it provided spacing of about 15
feet during red peaks and 26 feet during silvers.
Bank anglers visible from the Visitor Center boardwalks (including those under the bridge or fishing
from private land across the river) averaged about 17 during the second red run (with a peak at 37).
Boat based angling
Boat based angling is highest on the Lower River during the second run of kings (July), but is also
substantial during silver season. Some boats also access bank angling areas for reds during July.
Accurate counts of boats during king runs are provided by ADF &G (four counts daily on a sample of
days during first and second king runs) and overflight information (from the Kenai Watershed Forum
turbidity hydrocarbon monitoring on three days in July). Parking counts at major launches through the
entire season provided estimates of silver season boat use levels.
Figure 3 -2 shows ADF &G boat counts for the 2009 king seasons. The figure reports the highest count for
a given day (out of four counts daily; time of counts is randomized; the peak count is typically the first
count that occurs after 6 am, when guides are allowed on the river). The figure also distinguishes
between boats that are engaged in fishing vs. "active" boats (not fishing at the time of the count); and
DkAFT Report' Tune 2010 Page
between "drift only Mondays" and all other days (fishing from a powerboat is prohibited on Mondays).
Chinook sonar counts are also shown to help illustrate relative fishing success.
Figure 3 -1. Highest daily boat counts (fishing active) during king season on the Lower River, 2009.
Results suggest several findings about 2009 Lower River boating use during king season:
Use increased through the season, peaking toward the end of July. If flooding had not occurred in the
last week. of July, use levels would probably have gone higher.
Use levels on powerboat days during the first run (before July 1) rarely exceeded 100 boats at one
tune, but ranged around 150 to 350 in July (when bait is allowed and fishing success was
considerably higher).
Use levels tend to be highest on Saturdays (the weekend day when guides are allowed) and Tuesdays
(after a day of lower fishing pressure due to "drift- only" fishing regulations).
Counts from 2005 -2008 show common peaks on Tuesdays and Saturdays in late July were about 450
boats at one time, so 2009 peaks between 300 and 350 were lower by 20 to 30
Parking counts at the Pillars also show 2009 was a low use year. In recent years, the lot was closed
(because it filled) nearly every morning the last three weeks in July; in 2009, this only happened on 3
days.
Sundays had lower use than Saturdays; guides are not allowed to fish commercially on Sundays.
The proportion of active boats averaged about 17% and was higher in late July (26 possibly
because more boats had to search longer for good fishing locations.
Use levels on "drift- only" days (which rarely exceeded100 boats) were considerably lower than
powerboat days. On powerboat days, drift boats account for less than 2% of boat counts.
Use on drift -only Mondays increased through July until the last week, which was affected by
flooding.
Count data suggests that the proportion of guided boats during "guide hours" (Tuesday through
Saturday, 6 to 6) averaged about 65 with slightly higher proportions in the first run (67 than the
second (59 The maximum number of guide boats in 2009 was about 210, but in other years may
have reached 250 or 300. The maximum number of guided boats is probably more static than the
DRAFT Report Jvne 20/0 Page 20
total number of boats, so the proportion of guided boats is sometimes lower on the highest use days.
(See further discussion in Chapter 15 on guided /unguided use issues).
Pillars boat trailer counts during first run king season averaged 19 and never exceeded 34; during July
they averaged 42 and never exceeded 62. The capacity of the parking lot is about 80 spaces; the
number occupied by trailers vs. vehicles varies).
Pillars trailer counts during silver season averaged 14, rarely exceeded 20, but had one unusually high
day in mid- August (40). Based on this information (assuming Pillars trailers to ADF &G count ratios
are similar in king and silver seasons), silver boat counts in 2009 probably averaged between 80 to
100 boats at one time and rarely exceeded 150. Assuming relatively even distributions, this would
produce boat density averages of 4 to 5 per mile (with a maximum of about 7 per mile).
Time of day patterns during high use king salmon runs can best be illustrated by the number of boats
passing Eagle Rock per hour (counts conducted by the Kenai Watershed Forum). Figure 3 -3 shows a
distinct peak in early morning followed by a declining limb through the rest of the day when guided
powerboats are allowed (Sat. and Tues.). In contrast. the Sunday pattern shows no early morning peak
and lower use levels overall, with "drift only" Mondays having even lower use still.
Scats passing per hour
i
f2a frcn7anto7en
Tin innldahty
0
Fn Jtfl7 SatJul Sun Jul 19 Mon Jul 2a Tue Jul 21
Figure 3 -3. Overflight boat counts in mid -July showing example daily use patterns.
Explanations for these use patterns include:
A large proportion of the "fishing fleet" (over half on Tuesdays through Fridays, and only slightly
lower on Saturdays) is guided, which have a starting time defined by regulation (6 am). This dictates
the timing of the main peak.
Regulations require anglers who catch and keep a king to stop fishing for the day, so some boats leave
the river as anglers catch fish.
Unguided users who want to fish prior to the guide opening have a window between "first light"
(about 3 to 4 am in July) and the 6 am guide opening, but many take -out after guides appear or after
completing an average trip length (about 6 hours).
DRAFT Report June 2010
8 am guide
"CriftKxty"
Mooday
Page 21
Fishing success may decline through the day. However, guides that offer two trips per day sometimes
create a mid- day "bump," and some unguided users may wait until after guide hours (6 pm) to start an
"evening session."
Sundays do not show an early morning peak, and have less use overall. This is most likely due to the
lack of guide boats, but church attendance might also slightly diminish use levels.
Drift -boat Mondays show considerably lower use and no obvious peak.
KWF overflight and ADF &G counts on these same days suggest that the early peak is less pronounced on
same segments than others, with the early peak most likely to occur lower in the river (below Beaver
Creek), which would be reflected in the Eagle Rock boats passing data (since most launches are
upstream). This may have reflected tide timing on those days. Questions on the guide survey address
some of these issues; see Chapter 5 on king salmon fishing use and trends.
Sub segment use patterns are also evident in the KWF data and ADF &G boat counts. In general, the
highest densities (boats per mile) on high use days in 2009 were between the Sonar (RM 8.5) and Pillars
(RM 12.3) and may exceed 25 boats per mile, but similarly densities are possible below the Sonar (when
tides are conducive to fishing) or upstream of the Pillars (particularly from the Poacher's Cove to
Honeymoon Cove). Additional discussion of boat distributions and their implications for management
are provided in Chapter 5 on king salmon use and trends.
Middle River
Bank angling
Boat -based angling
fl
Bank angling on the Middle River in 2009 was highest during the second red run, but also occurred
during the first red run and silvers. Segment counts were not conducted for bank anglers, but site counts
indicate use levels and patterns.
The highest levels at Swiftwater Park occurred during the second red run (average 17; peak 35).
During the first red and silver runs, the average was 6 with peaks of 19 and 15, respectively.
A bank angling area on Agrium property and the adjacent FWS access site averaged 11 anglers at one
time during the second red run.
Funny River Road anglers (including Kenai River Center. Rotary Park, and Funny River SRS)
averaged 41 anglers through the second red run, with a peak of 85. Counts at Kenai River Center
averaged 9 anglers (with a peak of 14) during the second red run; Rotary Park had 18 anglers during
the tail end of the second red run, but none after flooding began. These areas were surveyed only
during the second red run.
Morgan's Landing averaged 16 anglers (peak of 25) during the second red run, but never exceeded 6
at other times.
lzaak Walton averaged 14 anglers (peak of 17) during the second red run, but never exceeded 7 at
other times.
Sampling at Bing's focused on the launch area, which often had no bank anglers (and averaged under
2). However, a peak count at the "rapids hole" near Bing's Landing (public easement) had 25 anglers
during the first red run.
Boat -based angling is highest on the Middle River during July and August, as anglers target kings, second
run reds, early run silvers, and trout /Dollies. Unlike the Lower River, there is no systematic boat
counting program, although State Parks rangers and overflight information (from the Kenai Watershed
DAFT Report June 2010 Pa 22
horn
Forum monitoring) provide "spot counts" for certain segments. Parking counts at major launches,
fieldwork counts, and shuttle company statistics also help indicate use levels and patterns.
On three days in mid -July (Sat 18, Sun 19, and. Tue 21), KWF overflights (5 per day) counted an
average of 56 boats on the Middle River, with 28 (50 upstream from Kenai Keys. The peak count
for the entire segment was 70 (at two different times on Saturday). The peak count above the Kenai
Keys was 43.
O These counts produce an average of 1.9 boats per mile of the entire Middle River (29 miles), but use
is not distributed evenly. There were about 1.0 boats per mile from Soidotna Bridge to Moose River;
1.4 boats per mile from Moose River to Kenai Keys; and 5.1 boats per mile from Kenai Keys to
Skilak Lake outlet. Even the highest at- one -time counts on the highest use sub- segment (Kenai Keys
to Skilak) were only 7.8 boats per mile, far less than the 25 boats per mile found on parts of the
Lower River.
Boat counts from other days suggest boat levels may range higher than the KWF counts. On six days
from mid -July through mid September, rangers counted an average of 72 boats from Moose River to
Skilak (5.3 boats per mile). Peaks from these counts were 98 on Saturday, July 25 and 91 on Labor
Day Saturday (September 5). These peak densities were about 7 boats per mile over the longer
Moose River to Skilak distance. It is likely that densities sometimes exceed 10 boats per mile on the
higher use Kenai Keys to Skilak sub segment; this is supported by counts in "Rainbow Alley" (a
roughly one mile reach near the lake outlet) on Sunday September 6 (Labor Day weekend), when the
average was 9, with a range from 3 to 13.
Ranger counts showed about 31% of boats in the Middle River were guided, with an average count of
23 and a high of 34. In July, guided boat counts never exceeded 10 (many guide boats were in the
Lower River); in September, they averaged 29.
2004 FWS interview data from Bing's Landing and Lower Skilak show guided use makes up about
25% of all boats in July and this use is focused on the early part of the day (6 am to 2 pm); in
October, guided use is about 22% of all use and is evenly distributed across the whole day. In both
periods, powerboats made up about 80% of all use.
Bing's Landing trailer counts suggest that use from June through mid- August (average of 16 per
count) is generally lower than from mid August through mid- September (average of 26), The
average over the whole season was 21. The highest count was 55 on September 12.
Lower Skilak boat trailer counts on nine days during surveying averaged 12, with a peak of 22 in late
August. Discussions with a Middle River shuttle service (Finch, 2009) suggest that higher trailer
counts probably occurred on many days from mid -July through mid September. The "first lot" down
by the launch is typically at capacity with. 12 to 15 trailers, and shuttle drivers reported frequently
having to retrieve vehicles from Lot 13 (an additional capacity of 10 to 15 trailers) and sometimes Lot
C (additional capacity of 20 to 30 trailers; although this was rarely full). They rarely saw trailers in
Lot D. FWS monitoring tracked trailer and angler counts in late July 2004, reporting an average of
13, with a peak of 35. FWS counts also varied through the day, with peaks in mid afternoon. These
data also showed that some boats may be on the river (or lake) overnight (between 3 and 19, with an
average of 9). Caribou Island or other Skilak property owners are encouraged to use Lower Skilak
with its larger parking areas through a FWS 72 hour parking limit at Upper Skilak.
2004 FWS monitoring suggested a 60 to 40 ratio of boats from Bing's Landing vs. Lower Skilak on
the Middle River, but 2009 counts suggest even higher use from Bing's. Neither 2004 and 2009 data
account for use from private property on the Middle River; there are dozens of boats docked at private
cabins on the reach.
Shuttle counts from the Middle River (Finch 2009) offer additional evidence of seasonal and segment
use patterns. The company averaged 3.1 shuttles per day over the entire season (from May through
September), but averaged less than 1 per day in May and June, just over 3 in July and just over 5 in
DRA F l p i, °f u Page 23
September. The most popular shuttle was from Skilak to Bings (76 but 13% had trailers shuttled
from Skilak to izaak Walton (13 and Skilak to Centennial Swiftwater (9 Nearly all shuttles
were driftboats.
Time of day use patterns during mid -July are distinctly different from those on the Lower River, as
illustrated in by KWF overflight counts. Figure 3 -4 shows that use builds quickly and is sustained
through the day. Although guide hours are in effect, more varied target species and lower use levels lnay
help distribute use more evenly over time.
Nurnber of ponaboals (firm o et
Total: N€c[cke Fir
(Soldctna Bridge to Sid lakLake)
4 o°
ke
Sat ail 18
Q
cS
Op O�
tiry' 4`O'
Sun Jul 19
TueJ€d 21
Figure 3 -4. Overflight boat counts in mid -July showing patterns on high use days.
Upper River
Bank angling
Bank angling on the Upper River during 2009 was highest during the first red run, but also substantial
during the second red run. There is relatively little bank angler use associated with silvers or trout/Dollies
(except by bank anglers using boats for access). Segment counts were not conducted for bank anglers,
but several sources indicate bank angling use levels. (Note that the study did not focus on Russian River
anglers).
Russian River ferry daily use probably provides the best indicator of Upper River bank angling use
patterns, as shown in Figure 3 -5. Ferry use shows first red run use was higher than second run and
silver season use, with peaks topping 1,300 anglers per day. The peak in the second run only reached
about 500 per day. The graph also shows sharp drops during high water in late July.
Daily ferry use levels are not perfectly correlated with "at one time" use on either side of the ferry.
The number of ferry tickets is also partially driven by the time it takes anglers to catch their limit;
DRAFT Report June 2010 Page, 24
when the fishing is "hot," ferry turnover may drive the number of "tickets" more than the total
number on the far shore. However, Ferry vehicle and passenger counts show a similar use pattern.
0
6 -Rassian River Les Antr cans _C
ai
yI1 11 I
Figh ureter period
Tralitcrel {de ray rut
peek m 14 Muer
NN- '1 ,mo 1 J�h s °r e 3 'J y o ,�`1" Os •s ,yo 3 ce
Figure 3 -5. Indicators of bank angling use levels on the Upper River, 2009.
160
100
Forest Service angler counts on the Russian River side of the Kenai helped assess "at one time" use
on this shore through the year. One "count zone" was between the Russian River confluence and a
distinctive tree about 700 feet downstream traditionally the highest density bank angling location on
the river when it is open (this is part of the "sanctuary Although highly correlated with daily ferry
use (r 0.72), variation in counts at this site were sometimes surprising. For example, mid afternoon
counts on a Friday (150) were three times larger than a anid"afternocn count on the following Sunday
(45). Nonetheless, counts showed a similar pattern to Ferry use: during the first red run, counts in this
area were generally higher, averaging 98 anglers and peaking at 150. During the second run, the
average was 45, with a peak of 112. In between runs, the average was 39 and the peak 47.
At counts over 100 for this area, after considering the width of angler's themselves, spacing between
anglers is about five feet. At counts of 150, distance between anglers is probably just over two feet,
and probably feels like "shoulder to shoulder." At counts around 50, spacing between anglers
approaches about 12 feet.
Other counts on the Russian River side suggest there are lower densities as one moves downstream
toward the Ferry and then past the powerline. Correlations between counts above and below the ferry
were moderate (r 0.43), suggesting distributions along this shore may not be even. Counts of bank
anglers on the island across from the Russian Confluence were also much lower and even less
correlated with "confluence to tree" counts (r 0.5).
a Russian River day use parking (number of people and vehicles) was highly correlated with daily ferry
use (r 0.92), showing a similar higher use pattern for the first run. However, onsite survey sampling
suggested that relatively few Russian River day users actually fished the Kenai (most fished the
Russian).
DRAFT Repos°t June 2010 Paget
Boat -based angling
Boat -based angling (which includes anglers fishing from the shore accessed by boat) is highest on the
Upper River during the two red runs, but can also be high during trout /Dolly and silver seasons in Late
August and September. Like the Middle River, there is no systematic boat counting program, although
parking lot counts at major launches, fieldwork counts, shuttle company statistics, and a 2004 FWS study
help indicate use levels and patterns.
FWS concessionaires track daily Sportsman's launches, which is perhaps the most reliable daily
indicator of boating use. As shown in Figure 3 -6, use was higher during the first red run, with an
average of 52 boats launched per day and a peak of 107. In the second red run, the average was 24
with a peak of 55. After mid August during the trout /Dolly /silver season, the average was 27 with a
peak of 48.
FWS data also show a distinct weekend peaking pattern (with higher use on Saturday than Sundays).
With the exception of the first red run, weekend peaks tended to range between 30 and 50 launches
per day while weekdays were usually under 20.
1(X3
l0
6o
40
20
0
Launches frornSperlsrrEres
Fisi
cpers
1 i i i. ii: 111 dii,:ii1,11 :1 =ii: .:i :111111 ,E i,li =,.i,Eii
4.45k yh c o w y ,p. 1, ^3 ^ry o p,� 1 "a r` �p t�
.)s‘ oo �o �3` v P' 4 4*
Figure 3 -6. Sportsman's Access Area launches on the Upper River, 2009.
FWS interview information from Jim's Landing in 2004 suggests that about 55% of trips launch from
Sportsman's, 33% from Cooper Landing, 10% from private land (mostly outfitters) in Cooper
Landing, and 2% from Jim's Landing to run the Canyon. A small percentage of trips may also put in
at Cooper Landing and take -out at Sportsman's. Applying these percentages to 2009 Sportsman's
data suggests that as many as 200 boats may have been on the river on the highest use Saturday
during the first red run, but more typical first run averages (and weekend peaks during the second run
and trout /silver season) were about 100 boats per day. On weekdays outside the first red run, typical
daily totals are probably Iess than 50.
DRAFT Report a June 2010 Page 26
These are similar use levels to those reported from the FWS photo counts just below the ferry in 2004
(which was comprehensive when the video cameras were working, but undercounts total use because
it does not include boats that took out at Sportsman's or put in at Jim's). In 2004, the first red run
average was 91, with a peak at 188 (compared to 2009 estimates of 100 and 200). in the second red
run in 2004, the average was 78 and the peak was 144; after the red runs, the average was 71 with a
peak of 123. 2009 estimates suggest slightly higher estimates on weekends, but lower estimates on
weekdays.
Trailer counts at Jim's Landing are another indicator of use and show a similar pattern. The first run
average (44 with a peak of 65) was higher than the second (26 with a peak of 49) or the trout /silver
season (average of 30 with a peak of 6I).
FWS 2004 video monitoring suggests that 34% of boats were rafts, 33% were driftboats, 21% were
larger catarafts, 8% were small "fish cats," and 2% were canoes or kayaks. 2009 survey data show
similar craft proportions (see user profile information).
FWS 2004 data suggest about 31% of all boats were guided (16% on angling trips and 15% on scenic
trips). About 55% were unguided trips (about 44% angling and 6% scenic). The remaining 15%
were unable to be classified as guided /unguided or angling/scenic.
Based on 2004 FWS video and Jim's Landing exit interviews, sampling at Jim's between noon and. 7
pm (similar to those used by the 2009 study) covers about 72% of all boat trips. That data also
suggests that takeouts are not evenly distributed, with highest take -out use between 3 and 7 pm
(about 25% of daily launches take out in any given 2 hour period between those hours). About 15%
of total daily use takes out between 1 and 3 pm.
Shuttle counts from the Upper River (Wildman 2009) suggest that use in August and September may
be higher than June and July. The company never exceeded 5 shuttles per day through July, but
commonly exceeded 20 on weekends through September (with a peak of 30 on September 19). This
service appears most popular among trout- focused driftboat users.
DRAFT Repo rt 2010 Page 27
4. A Profile of Kenai River Users, Landowners, and Guides
This chapter summarizes important characteristics about users, guides, and landowners, and their trips
an the river. It organizes information by the major "groups" used for analysis in the rest of the report.
The supplemental report includes additional data from on -site and follow -up user, guide, and landowner
surveys.
Categorizing respondents
For the on -site survey, users were categorized by the activity they were doing on the day they were
surveyed (which dictated the survey form they received). The four types included:
Bank anglers, including all anglers who did not use a boat during their trip;
Powerboat anglers, including anglers who use a powerboat to access bank fishing areas;
Driftboat anglers, including anglers who fish from rafts, catarafts, and drib boats even if they used
kicker motors for parts of their trip; and
Non- anglers, including campers, hikers, wildlife viewers, and scenic rafters.
Responses to other questions were also used to categorize respondents, including:
Segment of river when surveyed (I.,ower, Middle, Upper);
Target species (especially kings, reds, or "other" [which included silvers, pinks, trout, and Dollies);
Whether the user was on a guided trip.
For the follow -up survey, users, guides, and landowners were categorized by the type of activity they self
identified as their "most important." The five choices included:
Bank angling (including personal use fishing from shore);
Powerboat angling (including personal use fishing from a boat);
Driftboat angling;
Scenic boating; and
Other non angling activities, including camping.
If a respondent did not indicate a "roost important" activity, we reviewed other information to determine
their user category (see details in supplemental report).
Responses to other questions were also used to categorize respondents, including:
Segment of river (identified in their "most important" activity /segment;
Type of boat they use;
Whether they always /sometimes /never take guided trips;
Whether they own land along the river (and on which segment); and
Alaska residency.
Activities and segments
Respondents were asked to identify which activities and segments they used on the Kenai. River, as well
as their first and second most important activities and segments.
DRAFT Report n June 2010
Percent reporting opportunities
For users and landowners, Table 4 -1 shows the percent reporting activities on specific segments. Results
highlight the diversity of trips that people take, and support having respondents self identify their most
important type of trip. Other findings include:
Relatively fewer bank anglers take boating -based trips compared to the number of boating -based
anglers that take bank angling trips.
There is considerable "crossover" between driftboat and powerboat angling trips, although majorities
in each group do not participate in the other.
There is less "crossover" between angling and scenic rafting, although 20% of driftboat anglers have
taken Upper River scenic rafting trips.
Landowners have a activity segment profile similar to powerboat anglers.
Table 44. Percent engaging in activity! segment "opportunities" by major groups.
59 45 26 1 2 57 19
Bank angll
Personal use from beach 17 10 6
Lower River
Middle River
Upper R ver
Drift angling
Lower River
Middle River
Upper River
Powerboat angling
Personal use iron) boat
Lower River
Middle River
Scenic rafting
er Rver
Middle River
Upper River
Camping
DRAFT Report alert .010
Bank Driftboat Powerboat Scenic
anglers anglers anglers rafters
Campers
15
4
54 19 34 6 30
9
20
16
2
25
50
83
10:
16
6
20
31 24
15
37
3
Note: Percentages within groups can exceed 100 because users could check "any that apply
9
9
24 13
64
18 9 100
Landowners
8
24
46
16
27 21 22 22
3 35
72 0 17 46
48
22
0
Page 29
For guides, Table 4 -2 shows the percent offering different activity /segment opportunities. Guides also
show diversity among trips, although they are more likely to specialize in one type of angling trip
(powerboats vs. drift boats) or scenic trips. Note: Boating -based fishing guides offer "bank angling"
(usually for reds) via boat -based access, so this is different than users identified as "bank anglers" in the
user survey. Other findings include:
Powerboat guides are less likely to offer bank angling on their trips than driftboat guides.
There is some "crossover" between drift and powerboat guides, but most do one or the other. .Less
than one -fifth of driftboat guides offer powerboat trips and less than a third of powerboat guides offer
driftboat trips.
There is generally less "crossover" between angling and scenic guides, although 30% of Upper River
driftboat guides offer scenic trips.
Table 4.2. Percent of guides who offer activity/segment "opportunities."
an
i angling
Lower River
Middle River
Upper River
Drift angling
Lower River
Middle River
Upper River
Powerboat angling
Lower River
Middle River
Scenic rafting
L ower Rive
Middle River
Upper River
Most important opportunities
OR F i Report
20
Powerboat guides
3
10
19
81
14
26
13
98
Drifitboat guides
6
64
32
77
17
Scenic guides
14
14
0
14
14
14
67
6
9
30!
29
71
1. This includes some guides who also offer dnftboat trips on the Upper River, where boat -based bank angling is common.
Table 4 -3 shows the most important" opportunities for users, landowners, and guides. Because this
variable was the primary way respondents were categorized, percentages are given only for opportunities
that vary within a group (e.g., driftboat opportunities for driftboat anglers). Campers are not shown (by
definition, 100% reported camping most important).
More bank anglers find the Middle and Upper Rivers most important.
Many more driftboat anglers and guides consider the Upper River most important.
More powerboat anglers and powerboat guides consider the Lower River most important.
Landowners are more interested in powerboat angling on the Lower River.
Page 30
4 -3. Percent of users, landowners, and guides identifying opportunities as "most important."
Bank an
Personal use frorn beach
Lower River
Drift angling
Lower River
Middle River
Upper River
Powerboat angling
Personal use from boat
Lower River
le River
Scenic rafting
Lower River
Middle River
Upper Ri er
8
20
Middle River 34
Upper River
Bank Drift- Power
anglers boat boat
anglers anglers
19
88
Scenic
rafters
Land-
owners
All
guides
2
7
Note: Percentages within groups may oat equal 100 due to item non response for most important" opportunity.
Power- Drift
boat boat
guides guides
30
Users, landowners, and guides were also asked to identify their second most important opportunity. A
cross tabulation of first by second most important opportunity is given in the supplemental report (not
shown here), but key findings include:
Of users reporting driftboat angling most important, less than 10 percent chose any powerboating
opportunity second. Of users reporting powerboat angling most important, 24% chose Middle River
driftboat angling and 13% chose Upper River driftboat angling second. Taken together, results
suggest more powerboat anglers may be slightly more interested in driftboat trips than the converse.
Of guides reporting a powerboat angling trip most important, over 75% chose the other powerboating
opportunity second. There is a core group of powerboat guides whose focus is exclusively
powerboat -based angling. Of guides reporting Upper River driftboat angling most important, 26%
chose a powerboating opportunity second (with most choosing the Middle River). Taken together,
results generally suggest driftboat guides are more likely to be interested in powerboat trips than the
converse.
About one quarter who chose driftboat angling first chose bank angling second. Less than 15% who
chose powerboat angling first chose bank angling second.
ORzFT Report June 2• 0 Page 31
Guided vs. unguided use
Table 4 -4 shows the proportion of users and landowners who take guided fishing trips or utilize other
commercial services. Findings include:
Just under half of driftboat and powerboat anglers take guided fishing trips sometimes, with 23%
taking them "frequently."
Among bank anglers, 29% have taken guided fishing trips from a boat, but only 6% do so frequently.
No scenic rafters or campers take guided fishing trips frequently, but over 20% have taken them
"sometimes."
Over half of scenic rafters take guided scenic rafting trips.
Few anglers take guided scenic raft trips (13% or less).
Few Kenai users rent boats on their trips (Less than 10% among the three angling groups). Scenic
rafters and campers are slightly more likely to rent boats.
Most landowners do not use commercial services; 98% never rent boats, 91% never use shuttles or
take a scenic rafting trip, and 79% never taking guided fishing trips.
Table 4 -4. Proportion of users and landowners that use commercial services.
Landowners
318
Bank anglers
Driftboat anglers 274
Powerboat anglers
Scenic rafters 33
Campers
Mixed use
191
23
208
Camp on the river
DRAFT Report June 2010
Never Sometimes Frequently Sometimes 1
frequently
take guided fishing trip guided rafting
71
22 2
55
23
6
12
Sometimes Sometimes
frequently frequently
rent boat use shuttles
7 12
47
6 14
25
18 26
0 11
2 9
Table 4 -5 shows the proportion of users and landowners who camp on the river (not in developed
campgrounds). Most users never take overnight trips, suggesting the Kenai is primarily a "day use
frontcountry" river. However, 26% of driftboat anglers and 38% of scenic rafters camp on their trips.
Discussions with rangers and fieldwork suggest there are about 1 to 16 "backcountry" campsites in
common use on the Upper River or near the inlet to Skilak Lake and an additional 10 to 12 on the Middle
River (all between Skilak and Kenai Keys). There are no commonly used campsites below Kenai Keys or
on the Lower River (more private land and public land typically has developed campgrounds or "no
camping" regulations).
Ba
Driftboat anglers
Po rerboat angters
Scenic rafters
Campers
Landowners
Types of boats
use a bo
canoe
driftb6
raft or cetera
powerboat
Bank Drift
anglers anglers
45
DRAFT Report me 2010
N
18
274
91
33
208
Of those who use a boat, what percent use...
Stuciy
never
93
72
86
63
87
4 0
19 69 30
88 39 9
3 16` 5
26 29 91
Power-
boat
anglers
Scenic
rafters
22
19
12
�S
Table 4 -5. Percent of respondents who camp on the river (not in developed campgrounds).
sometimes
23
74
22
4
Respondents were asked if they use a boat on their trips; for those who did, other questions asked about
types of boats and other characteristics. Results are given in Table 4 -6. Notes: User and landowner
respondents did not have to own boats just use there (could be rented, a friend's, a guide's, etc.). For
guides, the question referred to boats used during guiding. This was for any opportunity (not just their
"most important and percentages can exceed 100% because they could check more than one type.
Table 4 -6. Percent who use boats (and which type) on Kenai River trips.
Campers All users
72!
6i.
00
48
frequently
6
2
19
1
Land
owners
All
guides
13 41
77
Many Kenai River users have used boats on the river (even among bank anglers and campers). Key
findings include:
Drift anglers were more likely to report use of driftboats or rafts, while powerboat anglers were more
likely to report use of powerboats.
Bank anglers were more likely to use driftboats or rafts rather than powerboats.
Landowners were more likely to use powerboats, but many who have both. Further analysis shows
that among landowners that use powerboats, 23% also use drift boats; among those who use drift
craft, 82% also use powerboats.
Other analysis suggests that among the majority (54 of guides who use a raft or driftboat, 73% also
use powerboats. Among guides that use drift craft, 16% use rafts or catarafts and 92% use drift boats.
e. rpollS;
Of those who use a boat, respondents were asked which boat they used most often; results are given in
Table 4 -7. These percentages sum to 100 because uses could only name one. Findings include:
Roughly similar proportions of bank anglers use motorized and non motorized. craft "most often."
A majority of drift anglers use driftboats more often than rafts, catarafts, or fish cats.
About 4% of drift anglers report they use a powerboat most often, just as small proportions of
powerboat anglers use driftboats or rafts "most often." They were probably unsure how to classify a
driftboat with a kicker.
Most landowners and guides use a powerboat most often.
Table 4.7. Most often used boat types on Kenai River trips.
Bank drift Powerboat Scenic All
anglers anglers anglers rafters users
kayak <1 0
canoe <1 0 0
driftboat 26 59
raft or cataraft 20 30 5
"fish cat" 2 7
powerboat 49 4 90
0 <1
14 33
77 22
41
Land-
owners
All
guides
0
8
90 73
Of those who use driftboats, rafts, or catarafts, 55% of users and 58% of guides use a motor (typically
kicker motors less than 10 horsepower) for different purposes. Key findings include:
6 Scenic boaters are more likely use a kicker to cross Skilak after running Kenai Canyon (18%) than for
any other reason (less than 6 on the Lower or Middle River.
Drift anglers were most likely to use kickers for crossing Skilak after a Canyon trip (35 but were
also likely to use them to access the Middle River from Lower Skilak (20 travel upstream to re-
drift a reach on the Middle River (18 or travel against the tide on the Lower River (10
Among drift guides, percentages using kickers were higher than for users. About 36% use them to
cross Skilak after a Canyon trip, 31% use them for re- drifting reaches on the Middle River, 25% use
them to access the Middle River from Lower Skilak, and 20% use them to travel against tides on the
Lower River. Only 9% use them to back troll on the Middle River.
Among guides who reported driftboats as their most often used craft, over half use them to cross
Skilak after a Canyon trip (55 or to access the Middle River (50 smaller proportions use them
to re -drift reaches on the Middle River (11%).
Among landowners who use drift craft with kickers, the most popular purposes are to cross Skilak
after a Canyon trip (29 access the Middle River 17 re -drift reaches of the Middle River (20
or travel against the tide on the Lower River (17
Respondents who use powerboats were asked to report boat lengths, hull types, and percent using four
stroke motors. Results are summarized in Table 4 -8. Compared to guides, users and landowners (on
average) are more likely to have smaller boats, flat hulls, and not have four stroke engines (now required
in July; soon to be required on the entire river).
DRAFT Repel June 2010 Page 34
Have a dock
Have a tisiting plafo
Table 4 -8. Information about powerboats (among those who use them).
'Le ngth (average)`
Length (interquartile range)
Huii ty�pC or`semi fee
Hull type °la fiat
foul` E st e m for
Percent on Lower
Percent on Middle River
Percent o> Upper River
Have residence on property
Not a resident
Part time resident
Pistil time °resident
Use a boat from the property
Fish from the property
DRAFT Rep rart June 2010
All uses who
reported about
powerboats
n =279
18,E
16 to 20
i7
33
Have natural materials erosion control
Have non- natural erosion control (rip rap}
Offer some kind of lodging
Cabins
Rooms (e.g., motel)
after
Users for whom
powerboat trips
most important
n =191
18.5
17to20
77
23
93
Land ownership and property characteristics
4 -9. Property characteristics among guides and landowners.
Landowners
52
89
18
40
67
31
9
41
Not
asked
Gu who
reported about
powerboats
n =165
20.0
20 to 20
77
23
Landowners who
reported about
powerboats
n =187
183
17to 19
61
Most users at public facilities do not own land on the river; the 4% who reported owning land from this
study is similar to proportion in 1992, This also supports the decision to sample landowners separately
(because few utilize public facilities where sampling can occur).
Guides who own property
51
36
85
38
53
73
63
45
14
30
2
39
Page 35
Age and gender
anc
Among guides, 30% own land, a substantially higher percentage than for users. There are obvious
advantages to staging guided trips from private property or integrating guide services with lodging or
other commercial activities (see Table 4 -9). Findings include:
Compared to non -guide landowners, higher proportions of guides own property on the .lower River,
which is the focus of guided king fishing. Lower proportions of guides do not reside on the property.
Similar proportions of all landowners have docks, fishing platforms, and erosion control on their
banks.
Majorities of both groups fish or use a boat from the property.
Respondents were asked to report their age and gender (Table 4-10). Findings include:
Over 80% of anglers are men and they tend to be older than the general population.
Non anglers are more likely to have gender balance (within a few points of 50 -50).
Landowners are generally older than users.
Guides tend to be slightly younger than users but are more predominately male.
Differences between other groups were generally small.
Table 4-10. Age and gender of major groups.
Ali users 50 83
All landowners 63 82
All guides 44 95
Alaska residents
DRAFT Reps June 2010
Mean age
male
Respondents were asked about their residency in Alaska; results by group are in the supplemental report.
Proportions were similar to those from 1992; key findings include:
The highest proportions of Alaskan residents were among unguided powerboat anglers (84 and
unguided driftboat anglers (79
The lowest proportions were among guided powerboat anglers (36 and guided driftboat anglers
(39
Over half of bank anglers (52 and campers (62 were AK residents.
Among landowners, 85% were AK residents.
Among guides, 72% were AK residents.
Hosting and visitation information
Respondents (except for guides) were asked about the number of days they hosted guests from in /out of
state (if they live in the Kenai Basin) or about the number of days they visit the area (if they live outside
the basin). Summary information is provided in Table 4 -11; additional data are provided in the
supplemental report. Findings highlight the substantial number of visitors who stay in the area with local
residents or in commercial lodging (contributing to the local economy).
Table 4 -11. Hosting and visitation information for users and landowners.
Among tt e who live in tt e ater d
Average days hosting out of state
3ediar da ys :thosting. of state friendea m.
Average days hosting in -state friends /family
Mediatii,days hosting instate endstfamily
Among those who visit the watershed
l e tian days are k Patiins la
Median days in Alaska
IQ camped in a can round
stayed in hotels /motels
st ayed with family and friends
day users
camped in the backco ntry
stayed in bed and breakfast lodges
20% n=168
15.6
18.3
Users
0
80 n =684
11
21
1g
12
Landowners
d 20
20.1
14
26
15
Not applicable
RAF June 2010
Experience on the river
On -site surveys asked users to describe their experience on the river (number of years and days per year).
Medians for major groups are provided in Table 4 -12; additional data for segments and sub groups are in
the supplemental report. Findings include:
6 About 62 to 76% of Kenai users have been using the river for less than 5 to 8 years, 24 to 38% were
visiting for the first time in 2009. For most users, conditions in recent years are "what they know."
However, there are also many long -term users. Averages were much higher than medians due to
some high outliers (so medians reflect the "central tendency" of the distribution of responses better),
but some groups average over a decade of experience using the river.
For example, unguided drift anglers averaged 11 years of experience while guided drift anglers
averaged 4 (and over half of these users were first year visitors). Unguided powerboat anglers
averaged 23 years, while guided powerboat anglers averaged 9. Some examples:
Unguided drift anglers averaged 17 days per year while guided drift anglers averaged 5.
Unguided powerboat anglers averaged 14 days, while guided powerboat anglers averaged 9.
Powerboat anglers generally have more years of experience, while bank and powerboat anglers tend
to use the river more days per year.
Table 4 -12. Years of experience and days per year for major user groups.
Median years on Kenai
first year
Median days per year
Bank anglers
Drift anglers
Powerboat anglers
Non anglers
38
30
29
24
9
The guide survey also asked experience questions (years on the river, years guiding, and days guiding per
year). Results are summarized in Table 4 -13; additional data are in the supplemental report. Findings
include:
Guides average over 20 years on the river and 13 years guiding. Few guides had less than two years
experience.
m Scenic guides guide fewest days per year, while drift guides guide the most. Drift guides probably
have a longer season because they tend to target trout Dollies into early fall, while some powerboats
guides stop guiding after kings (July) or early silvers (August). Scenic rafting may tail off in late July
when the weather typically turns colder and wetter.
More days per year is generally associated with more clients per year, but drift boat guides average
slightly more clients per trip than powerboat guides (4.0 vs. 3.3).
Non anglers had slightly higher percentages of first year users and spent slightly fewer days on the
river.
Notes: The guide survey asked about days per year for a "typical year" (not 2009) to avoid confounding
results for a potentially "atypical" year like 2009. A separate question asked guides to roughly estimate
whether the number of days guiding or clients were different in 2009 (details are in the supplemental
report).
T Report Jtme 2010 Pa e 3B
Table 4-13. Years of experience and days per year for guides.
Average years 20,1
Percent in first two years 4
Average years guiding 12.7
Average days /year (not 2009) 63
Airerage clientsiyear (not 2009) 221
Trip characteristics
Group size
Trip lengths
Typical boating segments
All guides
Power
Drift
21;.6 15.6 1
<1 13
3.9 8.8
61
202
75
Scenic
54
29
07
43
124
The on -site surveys asked several questions about specific trip characteristics. Findings for major groups
are summarized below. More details are in the supplemental report.
Over 90% of all groups have 6 or fewer people. Other findings include:
Boat -based angling groups average 3 to 4 per boat (depending on type of trip and segment).
Two thirds of bank anglers fish alone or with one partner only.
Guided fishing boats average about 1 person more than unguided boats.
For powerboat anglers, group sizes are slightly larger during kings compared to trips after July.
Non guided users had a median group size of 4, but sometimes traveled in larger groups (especially
for scenic rafting trips).
Most Kenai River users take day trips, although many camp in developed campgrounds. Among day
users, typical trip lengths are 5 to 8 hours on the river (does not include travel times to the river,
launching, Other findings include:
1dLiT "1C1111]g, ctG.�i, iir,ui„gS InCiCiu'i3:
Bank angling trips average about 6 hours for all three segments, with small differences between
seasons or target species.
Drift angling trips average about 7 hours, with trips on the Middle River slightly longer (8 hours) and
trips on the Upper River slightly shorter (6 hours). This fits with some logistical considerations
regarding the Middle River (time crossing Skilak).
Powerboat angling trips average about 6.5 hours, with slightly longer trips (8) on the Middle River
after July (when the focus shifts to trout, Dollies, and silvers).
Drift anglers
Drift anglers were asked to identify their put -in and were interviewed at their take -out which can help
identify the popularity of various "floats." Detailed findings are presented in the supplemental report.
Findings include:
DRAFT put June 2010 Page 39
Trip characteristics
Non anglers
Powerboat anglers on Lower River
Target species and fishing statistics
Most Lower River drift trips (63 start from Centennial Park, although others start at Pillars (10
and RiverBend (12 Eagle Rock (4 or other private land launches/docks. Most end at Pillars or
Eagle Rock, although a few continue to private launches at Beaver Creek or Kenai Boat Ramp.
Most Middle River drift trips (75 start from Lower Skilak, although a few anglers (less than 7%
each) start from Dot's (Kenai Keys), Bing's Landing, izaak Walton, or easements off Keystone Road.
i Most Upper River drift trips (74 start from Sportsman's Landing, but 23% begin at Cooper
Landing Bridge. Very few start at Jim's Landing (the most popular take -out) or private land in
Cooper Landing. Note: The proportion taking the Sportsman's mm Jim's Landing trip appears higher
among 2009 users than the 2004 FWS (where the proportion was 55 This may indicate a shift to
shorter trips and a greater focus on angling time in the productive waters below Sportsman's.
Powerboat anglers on were asked to identify the segments they used on the Lower River. Detailed results
are in the supplemental report; findings include:
Eleven percent of powerboat anglers could not specify the segments they use. The number is higher
among anglers targeting kings (19 and especially among guided anglers targeting kings (36
Many of these anglers may not know where they fished because they rely on the boat driver or guide
to select the most promising locations.
Of those targeting kings who did specify segments, the highest use occurs from the Chinook sonar to
Pillars (50 and Pillars to Poacher's Cove (46 Far fewer anglers used the river below the sonar
(9 or above Poacher's Cove (16
Of those targeting other species, use is more evenly distributed, with 32% using the mouth to sonar;
47% using sonar to Pillars, 30% using Pillars to Poacher's, and 11% using Poachers to Soldotna
Bridge.
Note that anglers reporting use of a segment does not necessarily correlate with the amount of time
spent in each segment. ADF&G boat counts during king season offer opportunities for more in- depth
analysis of segment distributions.
Powerboat guides were asked to identify the launch they use most often.
For the Lower River, 38% use public launches most often (Pillars at 22 Centennial at 19 and
Swiftwater at 4 but private launches are also well -used (including 22% combined at Stewarts,
RiverBend, and Poacher's Cove; 4% at Eagle Rock, and 18% at other private residences).
O For the Middle River, most guides (63 use Bing's Landing, while some use Loweer Skilak. (8
Swiftwater (7 Centennial (7 and other private launches/docks (12
Most non- anglers in this study were scenic rafters on the Upper River (81%). About 67% were on scenic
raft trips (with one -third of the sample guided). About 10% used the Lower River and 9% used the
Middle River.
Onsite surveys asked anglers to identify 1) all species they were fishing for; 2) their primacy target
species; 3) how many fish they caught, released, and kept (ail species); and 4) whether other anglers in
O :.f �eoott June 2010 Page 40
Sank anglers
.Drift anglers
Powerboat anglers
aijoi S It v
1)
their group were successful. The primary goal was to categorize anglers by target species and indicate
individual fishing success (which might con with other variables in the study). These questions
were not intended to estimate harvest, catch and release rates, or address other fishery management issues,
although information provides relative indicators of fishing success rates that generally fit with ADF &G
fishery statistics from multiple sources. General conclusions are provided below; more detailed
information is in the supplemental report.
O Most bank anglers fish for reds: 50% on the Lower River, 84% on. the Middle River, and. 90% on the
Upper River.
King salmon are the primary target for 14% of Lower River bank anglers and 3% on the Middle
River; silvers are the primary target for 30% on the Lower River anglers and 7% on the Middle and
Upper River.
Trout and Dollies are primary targets for less than 3% of bank anglers on any segment (Note: this
does not include boat -based anglers that may fish for these species from the bank or wading).
a Success hooking fish is largely driven by target species. More than two thirds of red and silver
anglers hooked at least one fish; king anglers had lower catch rates.
On the Upper River, first red run anglers hooked (10.5) and kept (2.3) roughly twice as many fish as
second red run. anglers (4.9 and 1.0), which fits with the run limits (6 for the first, 3 for the second).
Total kept fish is well below limits; despite anecdotes, most red anglers do not "limit out."
Drift anglers fish for a variety of species, but there are segment /season differences. For example,
88% of Lower River drift anglers target kings on "drift only Mondays" compared to 4% on the
Middle River.
Reds are not the primary target for most drift anglers, especially on the Lower and Middle Rivers
(less than 8 but 26% target reds on the Upper.
Silvers are the primary target for less than 1 1% on the Lower and Middle, and only 2% on the Upper.
Trout /Dollies are the primary target for about 70% of Middle and Upper anglers.
Success hooking fish is largely driven by target species, with trout/Dolly anglers averaging 1 1.9
hooked fish, red anglers 6.8, silver anglers 3.6 and king anglers 2.0. These success rates are generally
similar to powerboat anglers and higher than bank anglers.
Success hooking fish was weakly correlated with the number of days an angler fishes per year (r =.14)
and being on a guided trip (r =.21).
Powerboat anglers also fish for a diversity of species, with specific targets for seasons and segments.
During kings, the focus is on the Lower River (87% identify kings as primary before August),
compared to the Middle (21
In the second red run, 32% of Middle River powerboat anglers target reds first compared to 11% on
the Lower River.
After July, silvers become the focus for 92% of Lower River powerboaters and 48% of Middle River
powerboaters. Most of the remaining Middle River powerboat anglers (45 target trout /Dollies.
Success hooking fish is largely driven by target species, with trout /Dolly anglers averaging 13.5
hooked fish, red anglers 2.9, silver anglers 4.1 and king anglers 0.6. These success rates tend to be
WRAF Report dur e 2010 Page 41
higher than those for bank anglers, but similar to drift anglers (the notable exception is kings, where
drift anglers did better).
o Success hooking fish was not correlated with the number of days an angler fishes per year; there was
a strong correlation between success and being on a guided trip for trout (r =.46), but it was somewhat
lower for silvers (.27) and not significant for kings or reds.
Non- angler activities
Non- anglers during the on -site survey were asked to indicate activities they did on their trips. Rafting
was the most common non angling activity (67 but 54% reported viewing scenery, 44% viewing
wildlife, 34% picnicking or rafting, and 28% camping. Asked to identify a single primary activity, 56%
reported rafting and 14% camping, 10% viewing scenery, 8% picnicking, and 3% viewing wildlife.
°RAF Report June 2010 Page 42
ang
5. Lower River King Fishing Trends
This chapter provides information from guides who target kings on the Lower River; the information
comes from the guide follow -up survey. Information helps characterize important use patterns and
factors that influence where anglers fish, with implications for other management issues.
Factors influencing fishing locations
Guides were asked to rate the importance of factors influencing "when, where, and how long" they fish
for king salmon, Responses were on a 5 -point scale from "not at all important" to "extremely important."
Figure 5 -1 ranks responses of all guides who answered these questions (n =134) by mean scores;
additional analyses in the supplemental report examined differences between drift (n =24) and powerboat
guides (n =114).
!Moderately Vely Edmrnely
Average invariance rating
Figure 5 -1. Importance of factors influencing where, when and how long king guides fish.
Findings include;
Guides consider personal knowledge and recent success most important.
Tides are also important. Focus group discussion and fishing guide books suggest that many users
target incoming tides in the lower segments of the Lower River and then move upstream during slack
or outgoing tides. This can concentrate use, increasing crowding. Water clarity and water level
(often related) may make some fishing areas more challenging and further concentrate use when
conditions are poor.
Success of other anglers, fishing reports from recent days, and fishing reports while on the river are
moderately important and may also concentrate users. Like some wildlife viewing opportunities (e.g.
whale watching), success attracts more use, which might increase crowding, competition, and
potentially decrease future success.
rf Jwia 2010 Page 43
Fishing techniques
e The number of boats seen at a location appears to have a smaller influence on where guides go.
Actual success appears to count more.
Few guides base their fishing location choices on the number of fish in the river (from sonar or net
counts from ADF &G), or proximity to their launch.
Differences between powerboat and drift guides were generally small, although drift guides rated
tides less important (it is logistically challenging to time tides without a motor), and seeing many
boats, sonar counts, client preferences for locations, and proximity to launches more important.
Differences appear related to specific drift trip logistics (difficulty fighting tides, need for easy launch
and shuttle) or greater sensitivity to higher densities.
Early morning fishing success
The spike of powerboating use as guide hours open (6 am, Tuesday through Saturday) is a well known
phenomenon on the Lower River. The survey asked guides about reasons for the "rush" as fishing opens;
responses were on a five point agree disagree scale with a neutral option (Figure 5 -2). Most guides agree
that "being among the first boats at a location when guide hours open (6 am) is important" and "aside
from tidal considerations, king salmon fishing is generally better in the morning and diminishes through
the day."
cr akol l o t lyc k aite o
�0 gY/0 4/0 2!/0 CA Zo 4/0 6V, WA 10.4
Figure 5 -2. Percent of guides that agree /disagree with reasons that may explain 6 am peaks.
Focus group discussion suggests this is mostly about perceived competition for "early biters," fish that
enter the river or reach holes when angler densities are low over night and have not yet been exposed to
many lures /bait. Guides noted that early morning unguided users who are allowed to fish before the 6 am
opening are very successful. ADF &G boat count and creel survey technicians note anecdotal evidence
that many anglers have success early in the day, but they are less certain that success rates continue to
diminish through the day and some guides apparently agree.
These findings suggest that strategies to reduce crowding by redistributing use to later in the day are
likely to be resisted by many anglers. Similarly, guides opposed "staggered guide hours" (e.g., if half of
the guides start an hour later than the other half on alternating days) in the 1992 and this study (see
Chapter 12). Taken together with information from focus groups, many guides simply appear reluctant to
give up the most productive hour every other day even if they might have less competition the next day.
Guides were asked to estimate the percent of time they fish with different techniques. Most prefer back
trolling (70 fewer back bouncing (21 and drifting/dragging (22 Conflicts between anglers using
DRAFT Report June at() Page 44
different techniques (especially when densities are high) were mentioned in several focus groups. These
tend to occur in specific traditional "drifting/dragging" reaches (see additional discussion in Chapter 12).
King salmon trends in recent years
Guides were asked whether they agreed or disagreed (on the same 5 point scale with a neutral option)
with several statements about king fishing trends. Results are shown in Figure 5 -3.
100% 80%
60% 40% 26% 0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%
%n "sb ngly or "slightly' disagree %'"slighthl' or "s1mngly" agree
Figure 5 -3. Agreement with statements about king salmon fishing trends in recent years.
Findings include:
Most guides agree use is shifting farther downstream, with more boats fishing the tides. In focus
groups, some described trolling and back bouncing techniques that increase success in these areas
even when tides are less favorable. These trends may increase the miles of river anglers can fish,
which can reduce crowding. However, if this success becomes well publicized, it may also
concentrate use in these Iower river areas.
Most guides believe the number of unguided users has increased during guide hours, but ADF &G
boat count data do not confirm this. Although total use levels may be higher in recent years
(excepting 2009), it is not clear that unguided use accounts for the increase. Guided boats accounted
for about two- thirds of Lower River counts during the 2009 king season and this is much higher than
the one -third estimate given in the 1992 study.
Fewer guides agree that "fewer boats recognize traditional drifting/dragging (not back trolling)
areas." Guides who drift or drag more often were more likely to agree with this statement.
Many guides agree there are more rental boats and inexperienced boaters during guide hours. We
don't have independent confirmation of this trend, but it fits with guide opinions about
guide /unguided conflicts and boating safety (see Chapter 15).
Preferred fishing technique did not predict any other fishing trend.
DRAFT Report Page 45
6. On -river Crowding, Impacts, and Use- Impact Relationships
This chapter presents an site survey information about perceived crowding, reported impacts, tolerances
for impacts, and use- impact relationships. Crowding provides a broad indicator of visitor impact
problems and whether use is below, at, or over capacity. Reported impacts (and related tolerances) can
help identify potential management standards for indicator impacts and whether current conditions are
exceeding them. Use impact relationships show whether managing use (through direct limits or indirect
methods) is likely to reduce impacts.
Perceived crowding
Most theorists recognize a difference between use density and crowding, but even scientists sometimes
use the word "crowding" inappropriately when referring to high density (Shelby et al., 1989). Density is
a descriptive term that refers to the number of people per unit area. It is measured by counting the
number of people and measuring the space they occupy, and it can be determined objectively. Crowding,
on the other hand, is a negative evaluation of density; it involves a value judgment that the specified
number is too many. The term perceived crowding is often used to emphasize the subjective or evaluative
nature of the concept.
Perceived crowding combines descriptive information (the density or encounter level experienced by the
individual) with evaluative information (the individual's negative evaluation of that density or encounter
level). When people evaluate an area as crowded, they have at least implicitly compared the conditions
they experienced (impacts) with their perception of what is acceptable (standards). if they conclude that
the area is crowded, it would appear that the existing conditions exceeded their definition of a standard
(one criterion for an area being over capacity
Researchers have developed a simple measure of perceived crowding (Heberlein Vaske, 1977). The
question asks people how crowded they feel during their visit. Responses are given on a 9- point scale:
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
Not at all Slightly Moderately Extremely
Crowded Crowded Crowded Crowded
The approach is simple and easy to apply. Two of the nine scale points on the crowding scale label the
situation as uncrowded, while the remaining seven points label it as crowded to some degree.
The scale can be analyzed in different ways. The scale has traditionally been collapsed into a
dichotomous variable (not crowded versus any degree of crowding; the formula that was used here). This
provides a conceptually meaningful break point between those who labeled the situation as not at all
crowded (scale points 1 and 2, a positive evaluation), and those who labeled the situation as slightly,
moderately, or extremely crowded (scale points 3 through 9, a negative evaluation).
Since 1975, this single item indicator has been used in over 200 studies conducted across the United
States (e.g., Alaska, Arizona, California, Colorado, Delaware, Maryland, Michigan, Minnesota, Nevada,
New I lampshire, Oregon, Pennsylvania, West Virginia, Wisconsin), Canada (British Columbia, Alberta),
New Zealand, Australia, and Korea resulting in crowding ratings for over 500 different settings /activities.
The activities included hiking, backpacking, wildlife viewing, wildlife photography, hunting of many
types, fishing of many types, rafting, canoeing, tubing, motor boating, rock climbing, sailing, and driving
for pleasure. The areas studied represented considerable diversity, with some showing extremely high
DRAFT R 7
a 2010 Page 4
density and use impact problems, others showing low densities and no problems, and still others actively
utilizing management strategies to control densities and use impacts.
A meta analysis of 35 studies (Shelby, et al.. 1989) identified five "rule of thumb" categories of crowding
when the scale was collapsed in the manner described in Table 6 -1. A substantially larger meta- analysis
by the same authors supports continued use of this simple analytic technique, which helps categorize
whether a resource is likely to have capacity visitor impact problems (and helps managers consider
potential responses).
Table 6 -1. Carrying capacity judgments based on levels of perceived crowding.
0 -35% Very low crowding
5- 50°la normal
50 65% H igh normal
80- 100 /0 Greatly over capacity
Source Shelby, Vaske, Heberlein (1989).
Perceived crowding by segment season group "context"
Crowding usually limited by management or situational factors (remote location,
difficult access, or permit programs).
iblerrds;are urrliliy to exist, may 0.0:00.0000.0i density opperkurities.
Studies or focused management attention may be needed if increased use is
expected, allowing management to anticipate problems.
Studies management probably necessary to preserve experie
use ere likely change apes t f c p artim available,
Impacts and crowding related problems are likely; manage for high- density
recreation.
For the Kenai, percent feeling crowded for several segment season group "contexts" are provided in
Table 6 -2. Results indicate several general findings:
Five of the six highest crowding ratings were on the Upper River. As discussed in Chapter 3, the first
run red season on the Upper River had the highest use levels and densities on the entire river, and
boat use during trout /dolly season approached use levels during the peak early red run. These use
levels produce high crowding and may be opportunities needing management attention.
Higher use days for Lower River for powerboat anglers during the second run of kings also showed
high crowding.
There are many "low normal" and "high normal" crowding ratings, as well as some "no crowding"
situations that may provide rare low density experiences.
DRAFT Report June 2010 Page 4
Table 6-2. Percent feeling crowded and mean crowding scores for 2009 Kenai River groups.
Upper early red run bank
Greatly over capaci ty irnpact problems likely, manage for high density
Upper weekends in Sep drift 88
Over capacity: Studies and management likely needed to preserve quality
Lower on high use king days power
Upper weekends drift
Upper unguided drift
Upper weekends bank
HI Normal: Monitor if use increases expected
Middle second run peak bank
Lower second run ;peak bank
Upper all drift anglers
Upper all bank anglers
Upper weekdays in Sep drift
Upper weekdays bank
Upper second run bank
Lower prinnary target kings power
Lower dnff
Upper weekdays dri
Percent feeling
crowded
Low Normal: Unlikely to be a problem; may offer important low density experiences
Lower on tow use king days power
Middle bank
Upper drift guide
Upper bank
Lower bank
Middle drift unguided
No Crowding no pr c bierr likely. to
Middle drift
Middle guided driiff
Middle after kings power
Lower other times power
Middle other times power
Lower after kings powerboat
DRAFT Report June 2010
y experiences
34
Mean
88
4
79
70
69
4.0'
66
pro
3.
64
64
63
62
62
7
3.7
56
3.1
53
47
47
45
39
30
22
17
5.4
47
4.1
3.8
3.7
3.7
3.7
3.6
32
3.2
2.9
2.9
27
2.4
2.2
2, 1
2.0
1,7
4
Page 48
n5
Table 6 -2 includes mean crowding scores which are a highly correlated with "percent feeling crowded"
and can be used to compare groups. Findings include:
Crowding was statistically higher on weekends vs. weekdays for all drift anglers, particularly on the
Upper River and. in September. Use levels show a strong weekend pattern and crowding scores
follow.
Weekends vs. weekdays were not statistically different for powerboat anglers, probably because
Tuesdays are among the highest use days and Sundays (with no guiding allowed) tend to have
weekday use levels. High use and low use days (defined by actual use levels) show significant
crowding differences.
There were no weekday vs. weekend differences for bank anglers on the Upper River during the first
red run. Use levels followed the run arrival and increase in harvest limits, not the day of the week.
Crowding comparisons with other resources
Table 6 -3 (following page) shows crowding ratings for other rivers in Alaska or the Lower 48, including
Kenai groups /segments /seasons from the 1992 study. Taken together with the 2009 findings in Table 6-
2, conclusions include:
There are times and places on the Kenai (in 1992 and 2009) when crowding is as high as any river
studied. These "hot spots" are at greater risk for impact and congestion problems that discourage
return use "displacement or cause users to adjust their expectations to fit with the new higher
impact conditions "product shift These phenomena are further discussed in Chapter 8.
Results also show many situations where crowding levels are much lower. Managing for a diversity
of use, impact, and crowding levels makes sense in a complex system like the Kenai, but it is
challenging to develop standards that define "how much crowding is too much Additional
discussion is needed to identify when conditions "break down" and reach unacceptable levels.
Comparisons between 1992 and 2009 are challenging. However, a few situations persistently rank
among the most crowded (first red run bank angling use on the Upper River, drift angler use on the
Upper River during red runs and on weekends during trout season, and lower river powerboat anglers
in July).
Second run red bank anglers were generally more crowded in 1992 than 2009. This finding is
particularly interesting given that riparian protection efforts have closed about 26 miles of Kenai
River bank fishing areas. In general, it appears the increase in personal use fishing opportunities at
the mouth has reduced rod and reel fishing use during the second run, which has reduced crowding
among bank anglers.
D FT Repot a June 2010 rage 49
Table 6 -3. Percent feeling crowded at other rivers (including the Kenai in 1992, 2002).
Feeling Crowded Resoume
Greatly over capacity Should be managed for high densi
4179 Deschutesrver, r t9
100 Kenai River, Ak 1992
iDe hurter R ver, r 19B6i
94 Colorado River, Az
'32 Kenai R€ver, Ak 1992
89 Little Susitna River, Ak 1990
88 gates" Rive: Or 1986
86 Kenai River, Ak 1992
84 .:r�lkan fiver Ak 799
81 Kenai River, AK 2002
Over capacity: Studies and management likely needed to preserve quality
BU KanektekllRiver 41996 Guides'i
78 Kenai River, Ak 1992 Middle River powerboaters on high use days
78 Lakee Creek Ak 1999
75 Waimakariri and Rakia Rivers, NZ
72 Grand Canyon Az
69 Kanektok River, Ak 1996 Unguided floaters
65 Gulkana Ak 1999 Alt users Sourdough Launch Area
High Normal: Should be studied if use increases expected;
65 Kam€ R ver, k 1992
64 Talachulitna River, Ak 1990
atrlkena 3 lver; 1k 1999
Kenai River, Ak 1992
Gulkana River Ak:1999
Kanektok River, Ak 1996
62
60
59
55 l�erral River, Ak 1992
54 Delta River, AK 2004
53 Gr odrles River, Ak. 1 9
53 Kanektok River, Ak 1996
51 Giikana River Ak
51 Kroto Creek (Deshka), Ak 1990
Delta River Ak 2004
&fiver Air 1992
Delta River, Ak
43 idnews River,
42 Togiak River, Ak 1996
48
46
44
41 len, River, Ak C2
36 Goodnews River, Ak 1996
DRAFT Report Jun 2010
No Cro ndin no prof lenv rn low arisi
33 Gulkana River, Ak 1999
TOOK "River, Ak 1996
27 Delta River, Ak 2004
25 Delta River Ak 20 t
14 -19 Gwaii Haanas, BC 1998
4 Attrabaarrrirrrapta fivers; ail
ies; might be described as sacrifice area
Boaters on weekends
Upper river bank anglers on high use days
Lower riverbOaters on weekends
Anglers at Thanksgiving (high use period)
Lower river powerboaters on high use days
All users
Boaters on 'weekdays
Upper river driltboaters on high use days
M users-Richardson Highway Bridge
Lower River powerboat anglers in July
1Jnitkei o be a problem may offer unique lour densit ex
experiences:
n
Populalpinlorrirrlis
All u
Salmon anglers
managers might anticipate problems
Lower river bank anglers on low use
Middle river bank anglers c)ays
All users
AI[ "peers Lvv Maur St€m
All user "s Sourdough Segment
All users
irddle River dnftboaters on tow u se da
Lower Tangle Lakes
{�trrr3er. users
Guided users
All users Upper l air$ Sferrt
All users
ren
Upper Tangle Lakes
Madre aver powerl tern low days
All respondents overall
Allsr
King salmon season
Middle Fork users
All users Middle Fork
Alt 4asers
Lower River
tipper Delta and Poke Area
Touring kayakers at various areas
17uhitewater Viers at various areas
Pa
Bank an gers
At parking areas
While fishing
e cleaning;
Overall
Drift anglers
At put -in
At take -out
While fishing
Overall
Powerboat anglers
At pu i
At take -out
Crowding during different parts of a trip
In addition to the overall crowding question, Kenai users were asked to report how crowded they felt
during different parts of their trips (e.g., finding parking, at the boat ramps, while fishing, etc.); see Table
6 -4. Findings include:
Crowding "while fishing" was higher than crowding during other parts of the trip or overall. In
general, this suggests that congestion at facilities or while traveling to fishing areas is less of a
problem than finding an uncrowded place to fish (improved facilities will not reduce crowding while
fishing, and could make it worse if facilities attract more use).
The disparity between crowding while fishing and other parts of the trip are generally larger for hank
anglers than drift or powerboat anglers.
Drift anglers tend to feel more crowded at take -outs compared to put -ins. Among powerboat anglers,
differences were smaller.
The highest crowding percentages were for Upper River bank and drift anglers, and Lower River
powerboat anglers.
Crowding percentages were higher for king powerboat anglers while traveling to fishing on the
Lower River, the segment /season with the highest boat densities.
Table 6 -4. Percent feeling crowding during different parts of trips (by segment and group).
Lower River
34
44
Middle River
34
Upper River
While traveling on river
Highest crowding percentage in bold.
DRAFT Repori June 2010
32
45
57
42
53
18
39
Kings as primary Lower (not kings
13
7
51
6
64
6i2'
Middle (not kings)
21
4...
24
Phil fis
28
Page 51
Impacts and tolerances
Impacts social or biophysical conditions experienced by users have been a topic of recreation research
for at least three decades. In backcountry settings, the focus is typically on river or trail encounters
(number of other groups seen per day), camp encounters (number of groups is sight or sound while
camping), or camp sharing. In higher density frontcountry settings, the focus shifts to "interference" and
"competition" variables, some of which were developed on the Kenai in the 1992 study and repeated in
2009 (Table 6 -5).
Table 6 -5. List of impacts measured through the on -site survey.
Impact
Al] groups;'
Discourteous behavior
Bank anglers
Fishing competition
Angler proximity
ine entanglemen
Boat interference
Oft and po werboat.ang
Fishing competition
Put -in waiting time
Ta waiting ttr
Powerboat anglers only
P Report Jung 2010
How often did you see others causing
problems such as littering, being
aggressive, violating regulations, etc.
en did you sego
eriltlidyotitha
uncrowded place to'
Description
pa
or you, etc:
nding
was the average distance between
you and the next angler?
How often di
with others tt
How often did boats interfere (come to
close or create large wakes) with your
fishing today?
How often did you have trouble finding an
Haw long did you wait
How loc
QS ape
Response categories
Number of incidents reported
shoulder to shoulder (<3 ft); one rod (6-
10 ft); one car (15 -20 ft); two cars (30-
40 ft); casting distance (60 ft); out of
sight.
Number of times
uncrowded place to fish? 0, 25, 50, 75, and 100% of the time
i terfere
In minutes
r a idents! Wit
u tool evasive l
Page 52
Reported impacts
of discourteous incidents
of courteous incidents
Angier proximity impact
E si ing co p t on impact
Entanglements
Lower River Bank Anglers
of discourteous incidents
of courteous incidents
Angler proximity impact
Fishing corn tton impact
Entanglements
DRAFT Report auye 2010
Middle River Bank Anglers
cif hs urteous incidents
of courteous incidents
•Angler prrom impact
Fishing c impact
Er�tas glements
Boat interference
Tables 6 -6 through 6 -8 summarize reported impacts (means, medians, and the 25% 75% "typical
range The median response represents "50% of the sample reported this number or less," and is a
better measure of central tendency than averages because of outliers. These tables provide a general
description of conditions; analyses presented later in the chapter show how impacts compare to users'
tolerances or how they vary by use level.
Table 6 -6. Bank angler reported impacts.
at fi
Mean
1.1
.0
2.6
(6 -10 15 -20 ft)
5%
2.6
0.2
04
3.0
2.7
25%
0.5
0.5
3.0
23%
1.1
Median
0
2.0
(15 -20 feet)
25%
1.0
0.0
2.0
3. (i
0%
0
3
0 °70'.
0
Typical Range
0 to 1
2 to 3
0 to 50%
0 to 3
0 to 0
0 to 4
2 to 3
0 to 50%
0 to 2
0 to 0
0 to 0
01
0 to
3
2 to 4
0 to 25%
0 to 2
0
Page 5
Upper River
of discourteous incidents
of courteous incident
Boat interference impact
Fishing competition impact
Put in impact
Take out impact
Middle River
of discourtus.incid
of courteous incidents
Oat interference impact
Fishing competition impact
Put in impact
Take out impact
Lower River
of discourteous incidents
of courteous incidents
Fishing co
Put in impact
Take out imp
enai
Table 6 -7. Drift angler reported impacts.
Boat interference Impact
+born i mpact
ict
Mean
0.6
32
1.3
23%
4.8
2.1
13%
2,4
2.8
0.6
1.5
23%
2.4
45
Median
2
1
25%
0
1
Typical Range
0 to 1
oto4 s.
1
0 to 10
0
0 to 3.75
1 tot
0 to 25%
to 5
0 to 5
0
0 to 3
1 to 2
0 fit? 0%
0to5
0 to 5
DR. FT .e7- t Ju o 2010 Page 4
Table 6 -8. Powerboat angler reported impacts.
dle Lower River first run kings
of d incidents
of courteous incidents
Close calls
Boat interference
Fish competition impact
P€�t irt wa iting ti nae
Take -out waiting time
Middle Lower River (July kings)
of discourteous incidents
of courteous incidents
Close calls
Boat interference
Fish competition impact
Put -in waiting time
Take -out waiting time
Middle River (after kings)
of discourteous incidents
of courteous incidents
Close calls
Bob interferes
Fish competition impact
Put -in waiting time
Take -out waiting time
Lower River (after longs)
of discourteous incidents
#ofcou
Close calls
oat;interfi
Fish competition impact
Par along time
Take -out waiting time
DRAFT Report June 201(:i
Mean
Median
ideas
tlnw
0.2
0.01
13%
1.8
0.9
2:4
0.2
20%
5.2
4.3
0.2
0.04
5%
0.5
0.2
0.05
0
0 tc
0
1
25%
0
2
0
to
0%
0 t
0
0
Typical Range
0 to 1
0
0 to 25%
0105
0 to 5
0 to 0
0
0 to 50%
0 to 5
0 to 1
0
0 t o 25%
0
0
0 to 1
0 to 25%
0 to 3
Page 55
Tolerances for impacts
For each impact question, users were asked to identify a tolerance (the amount of impact "you would
tolerate before your trip becomes unpleasant on the same scale; they could also check it doesn't matter
to me" or "it doesn't matter to me as long as l'm catching fish." Data are useful in several ways:
First, the percent who give a number (do not check "it doesn't matter measures "norm prevalence" (the
percent who have a norm) and indicate an impact's importance (Shelby 1981; Whittaker and Shelby
1988; Roggenbuck et a1., 1991; Shelby et al., 1996; Vaske et al., 1999). Second, median responses help
identify the amount of impact tolerable to 50% of those with an opinion, which stakeholders and agencies
may consider when developing standards (a key element in most visitor impact management or capacity
frameworks). Frequency distributions identify whether the evaluations represent "no tolerance," "single
tolerance," or "multiple tolerance" norms, which help assess the level of agreement about potential
standards (Whittaker and Shelby, 1988). Third, comparisons of reported impacts and tolerances identify
possible problem areas.
Figure 6 -1 shows the percent reporting "this impact doesn't matter" or "it doesn't matter as long as I'm
catching fish." Findings include:
Large proportions (100 minus the sum of these percentages; 60 to 90 care about impacts and were
able to specify tolerances. Most anglers don't come to the Kenai to "just to catch fish," and other
components of the experience matter. When fishing is poor, impacts become relevant even for
harvest oriented users.
Some impacts appear "less important" than others, such as entanglements and boat interference for
bank anglers, and launch waiting time for drift anglers.
"It doesn't matter" percentages are similar to those found in the 1992 Kenai study (combined
percentages ranged from 8 to 35 depending upon the impact) and several other studies (Vaske et
al., 1999).
The "doesn't matter" percentages are about evenly split, so "it doesn't matter to me as long as I'm
catching fish" is never the full explanation.
Cat
ages
Posnalloat
'711
rinitIME
Dcesn't rraiter to ITe
ED Doesrft rater aislong l`mcatdtirg
/a}" /a 0/o
x th1s
21%
31%
W/0
Figure 6 -1. Percent reporting impacts "do not matter" to them,
10/0
DRAFT Report June 20'10 Page 56
eatior
Figures 6 -2, 6 -3, and 6 -4 provide examples of frequency distributions for tolerances to illustrate "types of
norms." Table 6 -9 summarizes generalized norms (medians) for all impacts, as well as providing
additional notes about differences between segments or target species.
In Figure 6 -2, angler proximity tolerances for bank anglers that pursue different species show:
An example of two different "single tolerance norms" with relative agreement about acceptable
spacing between anglers.
The spacing differs for the two types of fishing. King anglers require more space (most prefer one or
two car lengths) than silver or red anglers (most require only one rod length).
A small proportion (12 to 15 of red and silver anglers will tolerate fishing "shoulder -to- shoulder,"
compared to 8% for king anglers.
Some king anglers require "casting distance" or being "out of sight," but very few red or silver
anglers have the same requirement.
Data from 1992 suggest red angler tolerances have changed over time. Although the percentage who
tolerate shoulder -to- shoulder spacing is similar (8% in 1992 vs. 12% in 2009), 60% of anglers in
1992 required a car length or greater, compared to 34% now. This is consistent with a "product
shift," where anglers have learned to accept higher density conditions (possibly displacing more
sensitive users).
Results suggest the number of anglers that can "fit" along a segment of shore at a park unit and have a
high quality experience. Managers could calculate this number and use it when designing day use
parking or other facilities.
DRAFT Report
Nrcert reporting tolerance
Tvio cats (Ming Out of sigtf
Average cistance beMeen avers
Figure 6 -2. Angler proximity tolerances among bank anglers who fish for different species.
Straktr Cne rod Cne car
ne 2010 Page 57
t repoth j boierare
50 75 100
Rarcerit ofbrreitisdfl'iaitfnrirj unamded place to fish
Figure 6 3. Fishing competition tolerances among drift and powerboat anglers.
In Figure 6 -3, fishing competition tolerances show:
More examples of "single tolerance nouns," with general agreement about acceptable impacts. There
are some differences among the groups. Drift anglers show more agreement about a single tolerance
level (25% of the time) and powerboat anglers targeting kings show the least consensus (with
substantial percentages choosing 0, 25 and 50% of the time).
Few anglers accept having difficulty finding uncrowded fishing more than 75% of the time. The
majority report a tolerance of 25% or less.
Data suggest a standard about 25 which boat density causes this to exceed the standard varies by
segment (see use impact relationships below).
Data from 1992 suggest fishing competition tolerances have not changed much.
In Figure 6 -4, launch waiting time tolerances show:
Examples of "multiple tolerance norms" with less agreement about a single acceptable level. It is
more difficult to set standards for these impacts because different groups have different ideas about
what is acceptable. However, a majority will not tolerate waiting longer than 15 minutes, and very
few tolerate over 30 minutes.
Some drift anglers appear willing to tolerate longer waits at take -outs than put -ins.
Waiting time tolerances have changed slightly since 1992. For example, in 1992 only 8% of drift
anglers would tolerate waits over 20 minutes compared to 29% in 2009. This fits with the '`product
shift" concept, where users have "downgraded" their expectations and tolerances to fit with higher
use conditions.
DRAFT Report d Juno 2010 Page 58
3S Pemert R reporting tolera e
Table 6 -9 provides median tolerances for several impacts. The median says, "50% will tolerate this
amount or less" (and is a better measure of central tendency than an average, which can be influenced by
outliers). Results suggest potential standards, but differences by segment or species may be important
considerations.
Table 6 -9. Median tolerances for impacts.
Bank angles
Fishing competition
rt lty
one
Angie prrr
Line entanglements
Boat interfe
Drift anglers
Fishing competition
Boat interference
Lau t wattg tt:
Powerboat anglers
Fishing competition
Boat interference
Launch waiting dine
lhder 5 10 15 30
latch wiling time (rrir es)
RAFT Report June 2010
Figure 6 -4. Launch waiting tolerances among drift and powerboat anglers.
Median
25% of the time
A
0 to 1
rd
Comments
Small differences by species.
Differences by species
1 for red anglers; 0 for other species.
Over 30
No toles
x f the time
2 per day
Sm all d ces by ,seg
No segment differences.
25% of the time Small €fferences y species.'
25% of the time Small differences by species.
Page 59
"Impact problems"
Table 6 -10 shows the percent of respondents reporting impacts greater, equal, and less than their
tolerances. The supplement provides additional detail. Findings include:
O Small percentages (generally less than 15 reported impacts greater than their tolerances, and
average impact levels were never greater than average tolerances (another potential definition of an
"impact: problem In general, 2009 impact levels were acceptable to most users.
Reported impacts were often equal to tolerances (22 to 65 indicating little "margin" for increased
impact.
Combining the "impact tolerance" and "impact tolerance" categories, a majority reported impacts
greater than or equal to their tolerances for 7 of the 12 impacts. For these, most users accept what
they experienced in 2009, but don't want impacts to worsen.
O Higher percentages of bank anglers report impacts greater than or equal to their tolerances.
1992 results generally showed similar total percentages greater than or equal to tolerances. However,
bank angler findings provided some exceptions. For example, more 1992 Upper River bank anglers
reported impacts greater than (33 or equal to tolerances (55 than 2009 (with 10% and 45
respectively).
Table 6 -10. Percent reporting impacts greater than, equal to or less than tolerances.
Bank anglers
Angler proximity
Fishing competition
Entanglements
Boat interference
Drift anglers
Fisbil Gompetttlon
Boat interference
Put to time
Take -out time
Powerbo anglers
Boat interference
Fishing conipetttlon
Put in time
Take out tune+
Use impact relationships
DRAFT Report ddur e 2010
Impact tolerance
(impact problem)
14
18
5
27
3#
7
7
11
a
Impact tolerance impact standard
(potential problem)
49
42
42
36
22
40
50
(no problem)
37
47
40
47
57
65
71
57
39
4".
4.
Analyses explored relationships between use measures and several reported impacts (including perceived
crowding). Following Cohen (1988) and Vaske (2008), correlations in applied social sciences are
considered "small effect" if they are about 0.1, a "moderate effect" about 0.3, and a "strong effect" above
D.S. A list of impacts and the most highly correlated use measures are given in Tables 6 -1 1 to 6 -14.
Findings are discussed separately; the supplement provides correlations for other use measures.
Table 6.11. Correlations between use levels and reported crowding impacts for bank anglers.
Upper Riverbank anglers
Ferry passenger counts
Rl eo 0fleence. o tree c sums
RR day parking users
tm .s Landing tr counts
Middle River bank anglers
13 ing's Vehicle unis
Lower River bank anglers
Pillars vehicle counts
Centennial vehicle counts
Overall
crowding
55
52
24
.47
41
Denotes no statistically significant relationship (p >.05).
Angler
proximity
-.32
-.31
11
-.22
Fishing Line Boat
competition entanglements interference
26
23
14
33
37
.17
30
12
40
.23
Table 6 -11 shows use impact correlations for bank anglers. Findings include:
Several impacts are related to use measures at moderate to strong levels, showing that higher use
levels produce higher reported impacts or perceived crowding among bank anglers. This is true for
many but not all social impacts in recreation settings, so verification is important.
In general, the strongest relationships are between use and perceived crowding (correlations between
.24 and .55).
Bank angler use level measures are "imperfect" because they count people or vehicles at specific
access points, which does not always account for variation in where they go. Vehicle counts at major
access points are helpful for describing relative use levels.
The weakest use- impact relationship is for boat interference, which is probably mediated by boater
behavior (and therefore less correlated with boat numbers).
Discourteous behavior was not related to use measures on any segment (not shown).
DRAFT Report June 2010 Page 01
Table 6 -12. Correlations between use levels and reported crowding i impacts for drift anglers.
Upper liver
Ferry passenger counts
Sportsman 8aucls
Sanctuary counts
RR day parting rs
Jinn's Landing trailer counts
Middle Raver dot. anglers
Bing's trailer counts
Overall
crowding
.21
7
.34
36
27
12
Boat Fishing Courteous
interference competition behavior
20
.25
27
.23
.30
Louver liver daft anglers
Pillars boat trailers
Total boats
Total guided boats fishing
Denotes no statistically significant relationship (p >.05).
.54
.37
16
.16
.21
13
.15
.54
Table 6 -12 shows use- impact correlations for drift anglers. Findings include:
Perceived crowding shows moderate to strong correlations with use. Other impacts are less strongly
related.
Weaker relationships may be due to more coarse use measures on certain segments or specific
attributes of drift trips (e.g., Lower River drift trips were usually on lower use "drift -only Mondays
Reports of discourteous behavior were not related to use (not shown), but courteous behavior was
positively related (more use more courteous behavior). The relationship was particularly strong for
the Middle River. Higher use may encourage people to "be nicer" to offset "friction" or put more
people in close contact, affording more chances for courteous interactions. Notably, courteous
behavior incidents outnumber discourteous behavior by a substantial margin (a finding that persists
across segments and types of anglers).
Use- perceived crowding relationships are stronger for measures of boating use (e.g., launches) as
opposed to measures of bank use (e.g.. Ferry passenger counts). Boaters feel crowded from other
boaters rather than bank users. Interestingly, trailer counts at Pillars showed a higher correlation than
actual boat counts for the Lower River. The Pillars trailer count might effectively reflect the most
crowded fishing areas (which are often downstream of that launch).
Put -in waiting time was not significantly correlated with use levels (not shown), but take -out time
was correlated with the ADF &G boat counts on the Lower River at r=0.41 (p<.001).
DRAFT Report a Jun, 2010 Page 62
Table 6 -13. Correlations between use levels and reported crowding impacts for powerboat anglers.
For anglers targ klrtgs
Pillars trailer counts
Centennial trailer counts
ADF &G boat counts
For anglers not targeting ki
Lower River
rs boats Ozanne
Centennial trailer counts
Total boats; siting
Total boats
Middle River
Centennial trailer counts
Pillars trailer counts
&rigs trailer counts
DRAFT Repo u 2010
s
Overall Boat Fishing
crowding interference competition
56
.55
54
pills
.67
68
25
Denotes no statistically significant relationship (p >.05).
23
.43
56
50
42
.37
Putin Take -out Discourteous
time
32
22
.59
.72
63
time behavior
20
60
.68
24
69
45
.66
Table 6 -14 shows use impact correlations for powerboat anglers targeting kings and those targeting other
species. Findings include:
Perceived crowding shows moderate to strong correlations with use on all three segments, while other
impacts are less strongly related.
"Close calls" between boats were related only to use levels measured by Pillars trailers (r= .24). The
number of close calls reported was very low, but the few that were reported tended to occur during
higher use levels (1% reported any before July; 11% reported any in July).
As with drift anglers, courteous behavior incidents were related to use levels (not shown) as measured
by Pillars trailer counts (.22) and Centennial trailer counts (.35), but not ADF &G boat counts.
Powerboat launch congestion on the Lower River appears to be higher on days with at least medium
use (over 200 boats counted) vs. lower use (under 200); average put -in times increase from 2.7 to 6.3
minutes, and average take -out times increase from 2.7 to 4.8 minutes. These waiting times are still
low compared to median tolerances about 15 minutes. There was little launch congestion on the
Lower River in 2009 compared to some previous years (see Chapter 2).
In general, different use measures were highly correlated. The correlations between per day Pillars
trailer counts and peak ADF &G boat counts were 0.68. Pillars trailer counts are a reasonable
indicators of use levels (R =.44) using the following formula (most accurate when boat counts are
between about 100 and 200):
Counts on the river 43 2.03 x (the count of Pillars trailers)
Figure 6- 5 shows how use affects angler proximity and number of line entanglements per day for bank
anglers on the Upper River. These curves show how conditions change as use increases, and allow
stakeholders and managers to estimate the use level at which average impacts exceed tolerances. For
angler proximity, over 1,000 Ferry anglers per day distance between anglers has decreased to less than
one rod- length (the median tolerance for red anglers). For entanglements, use levels as low as 400
produce more entanglements than the median tolerance (1 per day), and entanglements increase
dramatically (to 6 7 per day) over 1,000. In 2009, these higher use levels occurred during the peak of
the first red run but not during the second.
Figure 6-5. Use vs, impact relationships for angler proximity
and line entanglements for Upper River bank anglers.
Figure 6 -6 (next page) shows how use affects perceived crowding among Upper River bank anglers.
Using this example to apply the "rule of thumb" capacity categories, use levels of about 800 to 1,000
Ferry passengers per day produce crowding levels in the "over capacity" range, and use levels over 1,000
are "greatly over capacity." This is consistent with reported angler proximities (which begin to exceed
tolerances at those use levels).
RAFT Report June 2010 Page 64
Keria
reporting crowding
1 CO%
Greatly over capacity
Over capacity
soh High normal
41A Low normal
m
No crowcUng
DRAFT Report a June 2010
d o
udv
bpp
a
q p° ppp
p O
Number of Ferry passenrs per day
Percent feeling crowding
ulty findi s
.z to fish
C
Figure 6 -6. Use vs. percent reporting crowding for Upper River bank anglers.
Figure 6 -7 shows how use affects perceived crowding and fishing competition among Upper River drift
anglers. Applying the "rule of thumb" capacity categories, use levels over 40 Sportsman launches per day
produce crowding levels in the "over capacity" range. In 2009, use did exceed 60 launches enough to
create "greatly over capacity" levels. The percents of time anglers had difficulty finding an uncrowded
place to fish follow perceived crowding levels. Median tolerance for this impact was about 25 percent of
the time, which occurred at about 40 boats per day the same use level that is "over capacity" by the
perceived crowding "rule of thumb."
d o two o 4
Number of launches per day (Sportsman's)
30
20
111
0
Figure 6 -7. Use vs. crowding and fishing competition for Upper River drift anglers.
Figure 6 -8 shows how use affects perceived crowding among Lower River king powerboat anglers.
Applying the "rule of thumb" capacity categories, at boat counts below 150 crowding is low. At about
150, crowding levels reach "over capacity," remaining there through the highest use levels in 2009 {about
350 boats). Counts on high use days in other years have reached 450 to 500 boats, and aright produce
higher crowding ratings (this study can't confirm that). Figure 6 -9 shows how use affects fishing
competition and boat interference Median competition tolerances are exceeded above 210 to 240 boats,
while boat interference impacts were close to tolerances throughout the 2009 season.
.h° e ti°� tip° e e o e
t wo y n �o o ry o �o �o ,n ��n �o
ACM boat catwzt on Loaher Msio
Figure 6 -8. Use vs. percent feeling crowded for powerboat anglers on the Lower River.
Madan tolerance (both indcators)
bruit cMfgAtylirdng
Percent of tine beats
interfered ability to fish
0 ti 0 t wo No tio M9 v o t w o mo o
n ti ti V
AEF&G boat catrtt an LOACr yer
Figure 6 -9. Use vs. percent feeling crowded for powerboat anglers on the Lower River.
DRAFT Report -Nona 2010 Page 66
Crowding and Satisfaction
Taken together, use impact and tolerance information can help managers and stakeholders assess which
use levels produce unacceptable conditions, a first step to managing for higher quality. Although there is
variability in the relationships between use and impacts, and some diversity in tolerances for impacts,
planning efforts offer opportunities to consider the choices. These can be integrated with management
actions that might address those impacts (which may include reducing or redistributing use).
Other relationships among on -site survey variables
Visitor satisfaction has frequently been measured in recreation settings (Heberlein Vaske 1977; Kuss,
et al., 1990). However, satisfaction is not a particularly useful measure for assessing recreation
experience quality. In addition, satisfaction levels are typically quite high, although consumptive users
such as hunters and anglers consistently show lower satisfaction compared to non consumptive users such
as hikers and rafters Vaske, et al., 1982; Vaske et al., 2009). For many well documented reasons, it is
usually weakly or unrelated to use, crowding, or impact measures; it is too general to evaluate conditions
managers might influence (Shelby Heber lein, 1986).
Having noted these limitations, general satisfaction ratings are often requested by managing agencies, and
they are included in this study for completeness. On a five point scale from "very unsatisfied" to "very
satisfied," 78% of bank anglers, 91% of drift anglers, 81% of powerboat anglers, and 91% of non anglers
reported they were satisfied or very satisfied with their trips, and averages for most group /segment
combinations were about 4.0 to 4.2. Consistent with previous research, non anglers averaged higher
satisfaction (4.6), although they were joined by driftboat anglers on the Upper River at 4.7 and powerboat
anglers on the Middle River at 4.6. Both groups have higher catch rates associated with trout/Dolly
fisheries.
The relationship between satisfaction and crowding was statistically significant and in the predicted
direction (more crowding less satisfaction) for a few group /segment situations, but was always weak as
predicted by the literature. For bank anglers, the satisfaction- crowding correlation ranged from -.07 to
.1 5; for drift anglers it was significant only on the Middle River -.13); for powerboat anglers it was
significant only for Lower River anglers not targeting kings -.27). Note that the number of fish caught
was also weakly related to satisfaction (.13 to .14 for different groups); crowding and the number of fish
hooked have roughly the same effect on satisfaction ratings.
What impacts influence crowding?
Table 6 -4 provides correlations between perceived crowding and reported impacts; results indicate which
impacts affect experiences most. Findings include:
m Over three quarters (55 of 72) of the group/segment situations showed statistically significant
relationships (p <.05) and all significant ones were in the predicted direction (more impact greater
crowding). Some but not all impacts measured clearly influence crowding ratings, as predicted in the
literature (Vaske et al., 2002).
0 Significant correlations ranged from small (about 0.1) to strong (0.5), with the latter deserving greater
management attention. Strong correlations include fishing competition among bank anglers on the
Lower and Middle River, fishing competition among drift anglers on the Lower and Upper River,
and boat interference, fishing competition, and launch waiting times among powerboat anglers on the
Lower River (outside the king season).
DRAFT Report June 2010
Angier proximity
Fishing competition
Discourteous behavior
Courteous behavior
Boat interference impact
Entanglements
Drift anglers
Boat intent rer mpact
Discourteous behavior
Fishing competition
Courteous behavior
Pit ir1 time
Take out time
Powerboat anglers
interference ren i rnpe
Discourteous behavior
Fishing competition
Courteous behavior
Lit ill time
Take out time
DRAFT Report uo 2 10
Table 6.14. Correlations between perceived crowding and reported impacts,
All anglers
-.33
.47
.24
18
14
.32
.13
.53
.18
24
All anglers
42
Lower River
Middle River
-.29
34
3'
36
-.33
54
3
.17
40
.31
0
.22
.30
.67
22
.65
59
Upper River
-.32
23
40
13
54
.18
.22
19
Kings as Lower Middle
primary not kings not kings
.4
.44
Additional regression analysis shows influences on crowding for all impacts taken together (using
stepwise removal of non significant impacts). Results are given in Table 6 -15. Findings are similar to
the bivariate correlations in Table 6 -16, but account for overlapping variance and provide an "effect size"
(R
Models for different groups explain about one third of the variance in perceived crowding, a
reasonably strong effect for social science data. Additional variance may be related to anglers'
tolerances, expectations, or preferences.
When considered together, impacts have small to medium effects on crowding, so there is not just one
kind of impact that makes people feel crowded.
FE E
Table 6-15. Relationships between crowding and reported impacts.
Group
Bank anglers
KepaL,Recyealt
.31
JrnplicaiLys
NO significant impacts
Fishing competition (.31)
Angler proximity (-.20)
Entanglements (.16)
f it°1 .c')''./ 9 ,22) Discourte6's
behav
interiereh .39- ior.
Discourteous behavior (.13)
s h
tinttiinef- 12
0 b,..u 12)
Put-in time
Powerboat anglers
.32 Take-out tirn
Boat interference (.1
.e28()20) (.18)
targeting kings
Di
Courteous (-.13)
courteous behavior (.18)
powerboat anglers Boat interference 36
Pof and take out time
torveting other 36 FtsbiTigcompetition (35) Discourteous or'COUTteaUS behaviors
species
Courteous behavior
Boat interference
Fishing competition
DRAFT RepiA jurie 2010 Page GS
This chapter presents in /ormation from the follow up survey for users, landowners, and guides about
which issues are more important. Respondents were asked to rate 24 issues on a 5-point importance
scale from "not at all important" to "extremely important." The list of issues was developed form focus
groups and reviewed by agencies; respondents could also suggest other issues (see supplemental report
for verbatim responses).
For all users
Figures 7 -1 ranks issues for all users by average importance ratings (and shows percent very and
extremely important). Results illustrate major findings, but simplify differences between user groups
(discussed in greater detail below).
DRA.
i =a 1F0 66 16Y Y!4
ga
ri-
'ls,atgc F,e 6iaQ,w. ,.1]A14'ur,.IC I rimisassimisa
ri.r.± 7, 6.:e 1 C RTEESERISE
f
7111, -'r'Tr'YirroTnlk':''.7=2BEEENSEEE
7735.7r111717 63.x, r:;ESSEINEI
f.0 l.f:t,0a E MPItir NEEPEEIREI
`sagr aai"T
FL17t _may= yy€ flag=
,r1k101VPi[ id l 31
AE
L
7. Issue Importance
Percent "very" and "extremely" important
0% 25% 50% 75% 100%
d reds
s.
Iks
gs
Ste r River H i
Average
importance
rating
(bottom scale)
Percent "ve or
"extremely i ortanr
(bars and to scale)
Not at all Slightly Moderately Very Extremely
Average importance rating
Figure 7 -1. Average importance ratings and percent
"very" or "extremely important" for management issues among all users.
Findings include:
Many issues are important to majorities of users. For example, even lower -rated issues (e.g., visual
impacts of docks and boardwalks, with a mean of 2.9) had one third of users reporting the issue was
very or extremely important. Over 70% rate issues such as boating safety very or extremely
important.
Issues related to physical or biological conditions tend to be among the most important. Six of the
top ten issues were litter and human waste, bank trampling, recreation impacts on wildlife, powerboat
port June 2010 Page 70
s
effects on erosion, hydrocarbon pollution, and water clarity/ turbidity. The 1992 study had similar
findings, emphasizing that a healthy ecosystem is a starting point for high quality recreation
experiences. Habitat protection and restoration efforts over the past two decades have improved
habitat in several previously- impacted areas. The continued high importance ratings for these bio-
physical impact issues suggest the public is still concerned and may support even greater management
attention.
Two user behavior issues, discourteous incidents and boating safety, were also near the top of the list,
confirming that Kenai users care about social aspects of their experiences on the river.
Two facility infrastructure issues, the amount of river access for bank anglers and the amount of
facilities to handle the volume of use, were also ranked in the "top ten." Despite an extensive array of
local, state, and federal facilities along the river, many users appear interested in improvements or
increased bank access.
Except for safety and discourteous behavior, conflicts between guided and unguided users, motorized
and non- motorized users, and landowners and anglers were not rated as highly as several biophysical
impacts, but were generally at the top of the "experiential" issues. The lowest importance issues were
visual impacts from development and scenic rafting use on the Upper River.
The numbers of boats or users on specific segments were generally ranked lower. 1- However, results
are confounded because not all respondents use or care about every segment, for the respondents who
actually use a segment, ratings are invariably higher.
Overall, results for all users show the relative importance of overuse issues, suggesting greater
concern about bank angling use in red salmon season, powerboats on the Lower River in July, and
boating use on the Upper River during red runs. Results are broadly consistent with
segments /seasons that have higher use and crowding.
Differences between user groups
Table 7 -1 provides similar information for all users, landowners, and the three major angler groups.
Results show some differences, including:
Landowners were similar to powerboat anglers in their issue ratings, not surprising given that about
three quarters of landowners use powerboats on the Lower or Middle River. Landowners also ranked
bank angler numbers during red seasons, trespass conflicts, guided /unguided conflicts, and boat
numbers on the Lower River in July higher than did users.
Among the three angler groups, bank anglers were predictably more concerned about the amount of
bank angler access and the number of bank anglers in red season. They were less concerned than
powerboat anglers about boating safety, guidedlunguided use conflicts, and the number of powerboats
on the Lower River.
Drift anglers ranked many issues slightly higher than other groups, with notably higher ratings for the
number of boats on the Upper River (during and after red season) and motor /non -motor conflicts.
Powerboat anglers tended to rank many issues slightly lower than other groups. They were less
concerned with hydrocarbon pollution and wake erosion, two issues which might restrict equipment
or behavior. However, they showed higher concern for the boating use levels on the Lower River in
July and guided /unguided use issues.
OR i °T el •June 2010 P;:ge 71
Table 7 -1. Average importance ratings for management issues: all users, landowners, and major user groups.
4 39
4 .7 4.6 4,
4.3 4.2
4,0 4,2 3.
3.8 4.0
n -p
Litter and human a
Discourteous behavior
Bank trampling
Boating safety
Recreation impacts on wildlife
Powerboat effects on erosion
Bank angler access
Hydrocarbon pollution
Water clarity turbidity
Facilities to handle use
Bank anglers in red seasons
Boar human interactions
Guidedlunguidetl conflict
Boats Lower River in July
Motcrizedlnon- motorized confftct
DRAFT Repot 6 June 2010
Boats Middle River after 2,d reds
Boats Lower River other mos.
All Land
users owners
4.6 4,5
4.2 4.2
4,0 4.2
4.0 4.1
3.9
3.8
3.8
Boats Upper River during reds 3.2 3.0 3.1 3.5 2.8 13.6 .001 M three different
Landowner angler conflict 3 2' 3 3 3
Boats Middle River 2,d reds 3.1 3.4 3.1 3.1 3.0
Bets Upper River after reds 3.0 2,9 2.7 2.7 22,8
3.0 3.1 2.9 3.1 3.0
2 3.2 2 8 3 0 3
Visual docks and boardwalks 2.9 2.7 3.0 2.7 2.8
Visual homes and build n s 2,9 2.7 9 2.8 2,7
2.4 2.6 2,3
Scenic rafting Upper River 2.5 2.4
3.9 3 6 4.7
4.1 4.0 4.0 3.5 13.2 .001
90.1
6.5 .002
3.9
.7 3.7 3'.7 3.8
3.7 3.6 3.7 3.5
38
3.5 3.2 3.6 3.6
'Based on Schen tests at p<.05 among the three ma user groups.
Bank Drift Power F p
.5 4:9 3.3 .35
3.4 4.2 3.2 3.4
.2 3.1 3 3. 1 7.9 .001 iri
4.1
3.5
ono
4.2 6.8 .001 Bank power
2;4
3.8
3,3 12,2
3.2 8.3 .001
Different
groups
Power from others
Power from others
4.8 .009 Drift -power
Powerf rr others
Power from others
3.7 5.9 .003 Bank power
rift from c
3.6 ,029 Drift power
Pap 72
For guides
Table 7 -2 provides similar information for guides, including differences between drift and powerboat
guides, which were also compared to drift and powerboat users (not shown here; see supplement).
Table 7-2. Average importance ratings for management issues among guides.
All guides Drift guides Powerboat guides t p
er and hmanaste 4.4 4.0 4.2 4.0 .001
Discourteous behavior 4.1 4.4 4.0 2.2 .02
4,3 4.4 4.2
4.6 4.8 4.5 2.3 .018
Recreation impacts on kgtste 3;6 4.1 34 3.9 .001
Powerboat effects on erosion 3.4 4,2 3 5.2 .001
Bank angler access 3.3 2.9 3 4 2.2 .032
Hydrocarbon pollution 3.6 4.2 3.4 3.9
.001
r ter :cla 'ty i to t 4 4,0 3 2 3.6 .001
Facilities to handle use 4.2 4.1 4.2
Bank anglers rs to red seasons 3.2 3.6i 3.0 2.7 .009
3.2 3.9 2.9 4.6 .001
2.1 .033
3.3 3.7 3.2 2.5 .013
.7 28 4.0 .001
2.8 3.7 2.3 6.3 .001
3.2 .4
2.7 3.4 2.5 4.5 .001
2,8 3.t 2 4 6.7 .001
2.8 3.4 2.5 4.2 ,001
2. 3,1 2.4 3 6 .001
Bank trampling
Boating safety
Bear human interactions
G z dedl€ r gotded :o i ct
Boats Lower River in July
t dotorized!non motor ion?.
Boats Upper River during reds
:.Landowner. contlt
Boats Middle River 2" reds
Boats Upper River after :reds
Boats Middle River after 2 reds
Boats Lower •River other
Visual docks and boardwalks
usual homes at adding
Scenic rafting Upper River
°RAF Report June 2010
Page 73
Nec FO.
Findings include:
Drift guides rated 17 of the 24 issues higher than powerboat guides. The only issue powerboat guides
ranked higher was bank angler access.
Even with these differences, the rank order for the two guide groups was similar (and to their user
counterparts). The few notable differences include:
o Boating safety was rated higher for both guide groups compared to users. This makes sense
given liability concerns.
o Facilities to handle use were rated higher for guides than users; this fits with guide interest in
efficient trips (e.g., avoiding launch congestion).
o Water clarity was rated considerably lower by powerboat guides. This issue has received
considerable attention in 2009 -10 in response to KWF and DEC turbidity studies, and might
affect powerboat use.
o Powerboat guides rated Upper River use issues much lower than users; few powerboat guides use
this segment.
o Both types of guides rated visual impact issues slightly higher than users. This may reflect
interest in marketing the Kenai's undeveloped setting.
if one arrays importance scores for any given issue, drift guides are generally highest, followed by
drift users, powerboat users, and powerboat guides. A survey of Kodiak island trail users found a
similar pattern regarding motorized /non- motorized issues; motor and non -motor enthusiasts
stakeholders (some of whom were guides) held stronger views than "average users" in their
counterpart groups (Whittaker 2004).
DR FT" Repo= u dune 2010 Page 74
8. Responding to Crowding
This chapter provides information, from the follow up survey about how people respond to crowded
situations_ The questions asked if respondents ever feel crowded an the river, then provided a check list
of potential responses for those who had. The question was asked in the 1992 study.
General crowding measure
Figure 8 -1 shows the percent that "sometimes feel crowded" vs, those who "never feel crowded" or
"enjoy the crowds and social atmosphere." Findings include:
Almost three quarters of 2009 users and guides feel crowded some of the time.
However, percent feeling crowded is lower than in 1992. One possible explanation is that 2009 had
lower use levels on the Lower River during kings and on the entire river during the second run of
reds. Another explanation is that current users are more tolerant of higher use and impacts that are
part of the "new experience" (a product shift).
The percentage of uses responding "1 enjoy crowds" has tripled since 1992 (from 4% to 13
additional support for the product shift explanation.
Differences between groups were generally small. However, fewer non anglers and more landowners
felt crowded, and drift guides were more likely to feel crowded than powerboat guides.
Al yes 1492
AI
AI
AI
Ba
k anglers and smal
angler$
Plat inglers
Non anglers
LL
Drift guideE
Pemer guides
%enjoy cniAds t don't feel crowded
100% 80% 60% 40% 20% 0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%
%feel ormded sonrotim s
Figure 8 -1. Percent of different groups that enjoy crowds, don't feel crowded, and feel crowded sometimes.
DRAFT Re oil a June 2010 P age 75
Responses to crowding
For those who felt crowded, Figure 8 -2 shows user responses to crowding in 1992 and 2009. Findings
include:
The pattern of "coping" responses is similar in both years, indicating some stability in how people
react. The most popular ways to deal with crowding are to 1) avoid other users in the sane area, 2)
plan to take trips mid -week, 3) plan a trip at a different time of day, or 4) plan a trip for a different
segment. These responses all redistribute use to lower use times and places, but they also reduce the
diversity of experiences in the system (e.g., weekdays start to look more like weekends),
b Higher proportions of 1992 users reported these top responses. Fewer 2009 users report proactively
coping with crowding, consistent with the "product shift" hypothesis. Some report becoming more
tolerant of the higher use /higher impact situation, while others may have become displaced.
The proportion who become dissatisfied is similar, but fewer 2009 users report "resigning themselves
to a new more crowded experience" (32% to 23 This runs counter to the "product shift"
hypothesis, unless current users don't recognize they have adapted to the higher use /impact situation.
d Nearly one- quarter of current users report taking trips less frequently, a response not offered in 1992.
This is an estimate of "partially displaced" users. The study cannot estimate "fully displaced" users
because they would not go to the river at all (and can't become part of the sample).
Taking trips in the off season, using another river, or engaging in another type of recreation are less
common responses to crowding.
60%
4�/0 20%
1992
010
Wlb
40%
60%
Figure 8 -2. Among those who felt crowded, percent checking coping responses (all users).
DRAFT Report June 2010 Page 7
r,
Table 8 -1 provides "responses to crowding" for different user groups. Findings include:
Powerboat anglers are less likely to avoid others in the same area, supporting the idea (in Chapter 5)
that some powerboat anglers may even seek out others (because boat concentrations indicate fishing
success).
Powerboat anglers are much more likely to take trips at a different time of day, a common unguided
user strategy on the Lower River during July king season. Guide hours constrain guided users,
although they can go later in the day, which tends to have lower use.
Powerboat anglers are slightly more likely to become resigned to a higher density experience.
Drift anglers are slightly more likely to go to another river than other anglers (with the drift-only
Kasilof listed most often).
Non anglers generally engage in fewer coping responses, and lower percentages report feeling
crowded; these users appear less sensitive to high use levels.
Landowners are generally similar to powerboat anglers, but they are less likely to go to another
segment (probably because they access the river from their residence).
Table 8 -1. Among those who felt crowded, percent checking different coping responses (different groups).
Bank
anglers
Drift Powerboat Non
anglers anglers anglers
33
29
23
23
13
10
50
33
24
31
27
22
21
17
17
40
31
40
26
2'
27
3{
20
12
22
20
16
22
55
23
20
13
23
11
7
All users
ea
45
Try to avoid other
Plan: same segment, middle of week
Pian: same segrn
Plan: other segments
e of day'
Go less ftuently,
Resign to crowded experience
Become
Plan: other segments day of week
32
28
24
23
214'.
Plan:
Go to another river
Do other types of recreation
Plan: other segments off season
D R Jura. 2010
on
16
12
5
a
Land-
owners
35
36
15
43
17
25
15
18
5
6
4
Figure 8 -3 provides "responses to crowding" for drift and powerboat guides. Findings include:
Guides are about twice as likely as users to "resign themselves" to crowded experiences as users
(52% vs. 23 Guides who want to work regularly must take trips even when it's crowded,
consistent with a product shift.
Drift guides reported more coping responses, with large percentages reporting they try to avoid others
on the same segment (77 and become resigned to the new experience (66 They were also
more likely to report dissatisfaction due to crowding (28% vs. 8 In general, drift guides appear
more sensitive to crowding and more likely to actively cope with it.
Powerboat guides are less likely to avoid others or go to other segments. Their trips are more focused
on fishing success for kings and silvers, they target specif times and places, and they are less willing
to fish other times and places just to avoid crowding.
No guides reported willingness to go to another river in response to crowding (not shown).
e 77
ec re
Guides in 2009 are less likely to utilize several coping responses compared to 1992. For example,
60% of all guides in 1992 reported avoiding others in the same area compared to 48% in 2009. This
is consistent with a product shift.
Rmign to
TY to
Pan:
Pan: saw segn
3
P an: s'arro set
Bcoery Issatis ied
P an: �s� s&
Ran:
100% 80% 6O 40% 20% 0%
Drift guides
20% 40 60% 80%
Povuerboat guides
100%
Figure 8 -3. Percent of guides checking different responses to crowding (among those who felt crowded).
DRAFT Report June 2010 Page 73
DRAFT w Junk 20
cation is i'Ons
9> Changing Conditions, Past Use, and Displacement
This chapter provides information from the follow -up survev about how the river may have changed in
recent years. The survey asked respondents to rate the overall quality of trips and management, whether
they have reduced or slopped use of certain segments and seasons, and why.
Overall trip quality and management
Figure 9-1 shows reported changes in the quality of trips and agency management over the years (percent
"stayed the same" are not shown). Findings include:
For trip quality, greater percentages of most groups report decline rather than improvement (often
more than twice as many). For landowners, who generally have used the river for more years, the
ratio of decline to improvement is 3 to 1. Results suggest that the Kenai's "trip quality reputation" is
trending downward.
Bank anglers are the only group with more respondents reporting improvement than decline. One
explanation is that many bank anglers have seen lower use levels during recent red salmon seasons as
the personal use fishery has provided an alternative. A second is that the fishing platform system has
provided many better places to fish (even though other bank angling areas have been closed).
Non- anglers were evenly divided, with most reporting quality had "stayed the same" (100 the sum
of improvement decline).
For quality of agency management, most groups reported more improvement than decline. Even
though trip quality may be trending downward, many respondents credit agency management for
trying to address problems. Non anglers and bank anglers were most likely to feel this way;
expanded facilities (especially boardwalks for bank anglers) and facility improvements are two of
several possible explanations.
ntiallyor slightly tadined
Silty orsxtstanlially inpnrod
Figure 94. Percent reporting improvement or decline in trip and management quality.
0 7
The two groups that showed more management decline than improvement were powerboat guides and
landowners, who generally have longer experience on the river. These groups are also more likely to
use powerboats on the Lower River for kings, probably the situation with the greatest management
challenges (with several crowding and fishery issues).
As with trip quality, the "quality of management" question was intentionally general; responses could
refer to a wide variety of local, state, or federal programs or facilities. Agencies received credit for
their efforts despite the challenges of a complex river, but complacency is not warranted because 15
to 40% of different groups still report a decline in management.
Past use and displacement
Respondents were asked if they have reduced or stopped visiting at some times (Figure 9 -2). The
question was also asked in 1992 (but without the "reduced" option)_ Findings include:
About one -third of all users have reduced or stopped using segments of the river. Taken together
with trip quality findings, substantial numbers of users perceive a downward trend and have adjusted
their behavior by "within site" displacement.
A majority of landowners report displacement, with about half reducing their use and half no longer
using some segments. Landowners generally have a longer history by which to evaluate trends. They
are also older and more likely to be retired, so they may be more willing to change their use when
conditions are less than optimal.
Guides were slightly less likely to report displacement, which makes sense given their dependency on
trips for income.
0%
10/0
30% 40% 50% 6/o 70%
%that have rl3kx d or stcpped using Ell
Figure 9 -2. Percent of groups who have reduced or stopped visiting segments of the river.
DRAFT R port June 2010 Page 80
Too many people
Too
Too many guide boats
Too much discourteous behavior
Decline in fishing success
My partners consider it too crowded
Too many unguided boats
Prefer fishing in other locations
Now I fish from a boat
/mac
I no longer use a boat
:u
Respondents who reported reducing or stopping use were asked to check the segments and reasons. The
percentages for each segment are given in Table 9 -1, with percentages greater than 20% in bold. Findings
include:
The most important reasons for displacement are crowding- related (e.g., too many people, boats,
guide boats, powerboats, or discourteous behavior), although perceived decline in fishing success is
also an issue on some segments for some groups.
In general, the segments with more displacement are the Lower and Upper River. On the lower river
the number of people and boats are more often mentioned; on the Upper River the number of people
is more frequently mentioned.
Landowners are much more likely to report many reasons, and most of their displacement has been
from the Lower River. Note: Few landowners were from the Upper River.
Guides were more likely to report displacement from the Lower River, but they cite many of the same
crowding related reasons as users; 28% even cite "too many guide boats."
Guides were more likely to cite "decline in fishing success" as a reason for displacement (especially
on the Lower River where it tied with "too many boats" for the top reason).
Additional analysis of users reporting displacement suggests that slightly more were drift and
powerboat anglers and slightly less were bank anglers.
Table 94. Percent reporting different reasons for reducing/stopping use on different segments.
Users n =283 Guides n =46
45 33 45 37 24
45 25 22 28 1 4
31 20 21 39
24 17 16 44
18 12 16
15 11 1 28
9 6 7 20
9
6 7 5
2 <1 1
13
28
15
13
5
2
7
4
5
Landowners n =121
62
70
55
23
18
20
8
25
27
17
12
5
5
3
6
7
6
4
7
4
Percentages higher than 20% in bold.
,F.T Report Flu a 20' 0
Page 81
Respondents were also asked to check the months in which they stopped or reduced their use. The
percentages for each segment are given in Table 9 -2, with percentages greater than 20% in bold. Findings
include:
The Lower River in July is the segment month combination with the highest amount of
displacement, although substantial numbers also identified June on the Lower River too.
Displacement is substantial on the Middle River in July for many users and landowners, but guides
were more likely to be displaced from the Middle River in August or September.
For users, there has been some displacement from the Upper River in June, July, and August.
Relatively few guides or landowners report displacement from the Upper River.
Table 9 -2. Percent reporting different months when they reducedlstopped use on different segments.
Guides n =46
Lower Middle Upper
4
59
9
17
22
11
9
June
July
August
September
Users n =283
Lower Middle Upper
24
53
7
33
10
33
21
10
Landowners n =121
Lower Middle Upper
28
11
3
78
20
11
12
DRAFT Repot a June 2010 Pad
9
I i c` i L ingti a iwoI
10. General Management Strategies
This chapter provides information from the follow -up survey about general rnanagerent strategies that
might be used to address use and visitor impacts on the Kenai. Respondents were asked about 11
potential strategies (listed below), on a 5-point scale from "strongly support" to "strongly oppose, with
"neutral" and "don't know" options.
Develop new facilities (such as launches, day use areas, and campgrounds) to handle the volume of use.
Expand or improve facilities to handle the volume of use.
Develop more access to less -used sections of river to help redistribute use,
Harden high use areas (with boardwalks, stairs, or gravel /paved trails) to reduce impacts from use.
Boater safety education programs.
"Etiquette" education to address social impacts.
Regulations to improve boating safety (such as no wake zones, speed limits in'"thru lanes
"Leave no trace" education to address biophysical impacts (such as human waste, fire rings, vegetation loss).
Regulations to address biophysical impacts (such as human waste, fire rings, vegetation loss).
Limit use through permit reservation systems.
Zoning regulations to separate conflicting users (boat vs. bank anglers, motorized vs. non- motorized).
User opinions toward general management strategies
Figure 10 -1 shows results for all users, ordered by average scores. Findings include:
There is majority support for all but two general strategies, suggesting broad interest in a diverse set
of management approaches.
The strongest support was for education approaches and strategies that address biophysical impact
issues. It is common to find greater support for "soft" education compared to "hard" regulation
approaches to environmental problems, particularly in recreation settings. The greater interest in
Lame no trace education
Iii use arees
EletEtfe education social irpac s
B:pmc +inpnave facilities to hande
Eteting
11 gate laroenfaaerrtti and retrcils
Mater safety education programs
nrfaalities
Il re access to lGS'SUSA areas
Zoning tosafec licti
lirrt use via ::F
t00Yo l 6[1' /o 40% 20P/o
yend slightly cmose
LP /a 20P /0 4CP/. 80P /o
Figure 10 -1. Percent support or oppose general management strategies for all users.
W/a
Rebut ®June 2010 Page 83
10d /0
%slightly oral shorty support
Differences between user groups
Landowner opinions toward general strategies
e
addressing biophysical impacts fits with issue priorities presented in Chapter 7.
e Slightly smaller proportions of users had opinions about education/regulation strategies for addressing
boating safety, which makes sense because many bank anglers may not care about this issue.
Among the "majority support" strategies, the only two with substantial (18 to 20 opposition were
new facilities or new access to less used areas. These respondents may be concerned that such
development will attract greater use and exacerbate existing problems.
Users were divided over use of zoning regulations to separate conflicting uses, and a majority
opposed limiting use through permits or reservation systems.
The three angling groups were compared by average scores. Important differences are described below;
specific results are provided in the supplement:
Powerboat anglers showed less support for boating safety and zoning regulations, either of which
could change how powerboat anglers currently use the river. For safety regulations, 50% support and
18% oppose the strategy, and for zoning regulations, 51% oppose and 21% support.
Powerboat anglers were less supportive of "minimum impact" education to address biophysical
impacts, but still showed majority support.
Drift anglers were less supportive for developing new facilities, developing access to less -used areas,
hardening high use areas, and expanding/improving facilities to handle the volume of use (although
there was still majority support). Concern probably focuses on their potential to attract more use or
provide bank angler access to areas that are currently accessible primarily by boats.
Drift anglers were slightly more supportive of use limits, but still showed more opposition than
support.
Landowners were similar to users for most strategies, showing majority support for most strategies and
majority opposition toward use limits. However, there were some differences worth noting (see
supplement):
Landowners showed more opposition (44 for zoning regulations than drift anglers (31 This fits
with the high proportion of landowners who use powerboats, although landowners showed less
opposition than powerboat users (79% opposed).
Landowners were similar to drift anglers (and different from other groups) in showing less support for
new facilities and developing access to less -used places on the river. This is consistent with the "last
settler" hypothesis (Neilson, Shelby Haas, 1977), where current users oppose additional
development that may attract more use "close the door after I get settled
[)RA Repo JUJU?, 2010 Page 84
c
Guide opinions toward general management strategies
Guide opinions were often similar to users in showing majority support for a broad array of strategies;
drift and powerboat guides were also similar to their counterpart user groups (drift and powerboat
anglers) when there were differences between those groups. In a few cases guides showed notably
stronger support (or opposition) than users, as shown in Figure 10 -2. The supplement provides further
details about guide opinions. Findings include:
Drift and powerboat guides were much more supportive of boater education programs than users.
Guides currently have to complete a week long guide course to work on the river, white there are no
boater education requirements for users (although State Parks offers free one -day boater education
courses).
Drift guides were more supportive of boater safety regulations than drift anglers, who in turn were
more supportive than powerboat anglers (although all showed majority support). Powerboat guides
were divided over the need for boater safety regulation.
Drift guides showed majority support for zoning (which might include additional drift only zones or
times), while drift anglers showed more support than opposition. In contrast, 79% of powerboat
guides were opposed to this idea, while only 51% of powerboat anglers reported the same.
a Drift guides were the only group to show majority support for limiting use through permits or
reservations. The only users on the river that already have use limits are Upper River guides (the
number of guides and "starts" per week is limited by the USFWS from the Russian River to Skilak).
Some of these limit- supporting guides may appreciate the ability of this approach to minimize
impacts, but some also want limits applied to all groups (not just themselves).
Bcatnr safety educati on FATE
C7ift gouts
Dill anglers
Poner tears
i o erg:icles
Regulations to improve boating sakty
Deft guides
Dtft anglers
RJ age s
Ebner Odes
Zoning rms. to s to maids
Dirt guides
Rift nets
Pmer anglers
Paner g
an
61%
40%
21%
Ih use through pomits
t7 t grad z`_ u 60%
G° ft avers :;g::::,:.; i 33%
RDAs' anglers a' 2s5
100% say 60°/u 4(P /o ar /o 0% 20% 40u /u 60%
66%
70%
Figure 10 -2. Percent support for selected general strategies among different groups.
°/o
8 /a 100%
%strongly and slightly orpose %stighdy sking y supporl
DRAFT Report June 2010 Page 35
11. Recreation Facility Development Maintenance Actions
This chapter provides information,from the follow -up survey about specific development and
maintenance actions that might be used to address use and visitor impacts. Respondents were asked
about 8 actions for the entire river, six for the Lower River, four far the Middle River, and three for the
Upper River. Responses were given on a 5 point scale from "strongly support" to "strongly oppose,"
with a "neutral" option. The specific actions are listed below:
For the entire river...
Increase patrols and litter pick -up at public easements
More restrooms in high use bank angler areas
More vegetation restoration in areas where there has been bank trampling
Develop fishing platforms in some areas closed to bank fishing (to re -open parts of them)
More fish cleaning stations in general
More fencing signs to direct users to bank areas that can withstand the use
More fishing platforms stairs to protect banks at public easements (informal access areas)
Manage fish carcasses to reduce bear attractants
Lower River
New launch in Cunningham Park (mile 6)
New launch near the Pastures (mile 7 to 8)
Expand parking and docks at Pillars (mule 12.5)
New launch at Ciechanski (mile 15)
Improve restrooms and access across tidal mud at Cunningham Park (mile 6)
New boat restrooms near Mud Is. Beaver Creek (mile 10)
Middle River
New launch on Funny River Road across from Morgan's (mile 31)
Expand docks at Bing's Landing
New boat restrooms near Kiiley River outlet
New boat restrooms near Skilak Lake outlet
Upper River
Organize the "spider web of trails" at popular bank fishing areas into a smaller number of formal trails
Improved road maintenance on Skilak Lake Road
Explore alternative ways to manage carcasses and other bear attractants in the Russian River area
DRAFT Rep:rrt .June 2010 'age 46
Development actions for the entire river
Figure 1 1 -1 shows support and opposition for development actions for the entire river. More detailed
information for specific groups is provided in the supplemental report. Findings include:
There is majority support and little opposition for nearly all of these actions. There is a clear
consensus among most Kenai users patrol and pick -up programs; managing bank use and providing
fishing platforms to prevent trampling; efforts to restore trampled areas; or providing more facilities
such as restrooms and fish cleaning stations.
Results are consistent with issue priorities (Chapter 7) regarding biophysical impacts and handling the
volume of use.
Differences between user groups were statistically significant for six of the eight actions, but never
substantively large. The largest differences were between bank and drift anglers on adding fishing
platforms, reopening closed areas, and fish cleaning stations. Bank anglers were more supportive;
drift angler support was less enthusiastic, perhaps because it might increase use in areas that drift
anglers currently use but bank anglers do not.
Landowners showed slightly more support for rest rooms and vegetation restoration, perhaps because
those actions might reduce trespass problems.
Guides showed less support for managing carcasses, fishing platforms, and fencing to direct bank
angling use, but more support for additional restrooms. Drift guides showed more support for patrols
(the only significant difference with powerboat guides).
100% 80% 60% 40% 20% O%
%strongiy or slightly case
Figure 11 -1. Percent support toward river -wide development actions for all users.
20°A 4G' /0 60% &Y%
100°/a
%sligttly ors support
DRAFT Report Ju 2010 P.4 1e 87
DRAFT
prr
tst Bs
Development actions on specific segments
Figure 11 -2 shows support for development actions for specific segments. More detailed information for
specific groups is in the supplemental report. Findings include:
e There is majority support and little opposition for all of these actions.
For the Lower River, there were few statistically significant differences between groups. Powerboat
anglers were slightly more supportive of Pillars expansion and a new launch at Cunningham, while
bank anglers were slightly less supportive of any launch improvement and more supportive of
Cunningham access and restroorns.
For the Middle River, there were no significant: differences between groups.
For the Upper River, there was slightly greater support for Skilak Lake Road improvements compared
to other actions, but no substantive differences between groups.
There was less support for exploring ways to manage salmon carcasses on the Upper River than for
fish cleaning stations in general (an action in the list for the entire river). This may indicate greater
support for more cleaning facilities than other carcass management actions.
A majority of guides supported all of these actions, but they sometimes showed statistically
significant differences from users. Guides were more supportive of three specific actions on the
Lower River: Cunningham access and restroom improvements, Pillars expansion, and a new launch
at Cunningham. They were less supportive of a new launch on Funny River Road or restrooms near
the outlet of Skilak Lake. Drift guides showed Tess support than powerboat guides for Bing's
Landing improvements.
%strcf ly cr slighly oppose
ter°
68
%slightly crstrangy support
Figure 11 -2. Percent support for development actions on specific segments for all users.
Park e•
Integrating development findings
With extensive support for development options, it may be challenging to decide which deserve priority.
Development actions can help reduce human impacts to biophysical resources; provide convenient easy
access to bank fishing locations; accommodate the sheer volume of use, and reduce congestion at other
facilities; or may help redistribute use to reduce on -river crowding. In sorting through development
options, agencies should probably consider the following:
Will development accommodate existing use or attract even higher use? On -site survey data (Chapter
6) showed higher crowding scores while fishing than at launches, parking lots, or other facilities.
Development may reduce congestion at facilities, but exacerbate on -river crowding.
With this in mind, development that narrowly targets specific impact problems in specific geographic
locations probably makes the most sense. For example, boat- accessible restrooms downstream of
Pillars (e.g., Beaver Creek/Mud Island, Pastures, or improvements at Cunningham) would primarily
reduce boat traffic (and associated wake caused turbidity) between downstream fishing water and the
public facilities at Pillars and decrease mid morning dock congestion at Pillars. Well situated
restrooms may also reduce "user- created" toilets in the alders. With Lower River peak use reaching
as high as 400 to 500 boats {multiplied by 3 to 5 people per boat), the existing toilets at Pillars and
Cunningham (difficult to access during low tides) are probably not handling the demand.
For powerboat use, new launches or improved parking at existing launches present difficult choices.
These may relieve congestion at existing launches, provide greater convenience, or reduce private
launch fees. But if this simply adds more boats without redistributing them, crowding and impacts
will worsen. A new launch in the lower part of the Lower River might reduce "back and forth" traffic
{and resulting crowding), depending on whether users choose launches based on fees, proximity to
their residence, or proximity to fishing grounds. Agencies should also note that the number of boats
launching from private docks is likely to increase regardless of public launch development (as more
lots develop docks).
For drift boat use, launch development presents a different set of issues. Unlike powerboats, drift
craft go in one direction, and launches need to be appropriately spaced to provide a diversity of trips.
If additional "drift -only fishing days" on the Lower or Middle River are contemplated (see Chapter
13), developing more drift access points will be critical to even distributions of use that avoid
"bottlenecks" at the few existing take -outs. There is a shortage of good driftboat access below Eagle
Rock, which is particularly problematic when opposing winds and tides are strong.
Development actions at launches for the Upper River (potentially at Sportsman's, Jim's or Upper
Skilak) were not specifically addressed in the survey (these are not State Park facilities). However,
some open -ended comments encouraged these improvements, and based on support for other launch
development, we speculate they would have attracted majority support too. The Upper River survey
technician, who spent considerable time at Jim's Landing, informally collected improvement
suggestions in another section of the supplemental report.
Development that "organizes" user- created trails or provides additional light penetrating boardwalks
to prevent tramping of riparian vegetation is more straight forward. Several agencies and non profits
have supported these actions since the early 1990s, and data indicate users continue to appreciate the
benefits and support them.
e rne 2010 Page, 89
Ken and
Aside from biological benefits aspects, there are some trade -offs from hardening trails or banks.
Additional development decreases primitiveness and visual quality of the natural setting. Most of the
Kenai is not "wilderness- like" and has extensive development, but parts of the river (particularly the
federal land son the Upper and Middle River) are relatively undeveloped. Additional information on
visual impacts of docks, platforms, and other development is provided in Chapter 16.
"Carcass management" and its effect on human -bear interactions is another complex topic that
requires both biological and social information. The large number of carcasses at popular fishing
areas (especially the Russian River confluence during red runs) is a recognized problem; two
questions asked about "managing fish carcasses to reduce bear attractants," and "more fish cleaning
tables" on the entire river, while another asked about "exploring alternative ways to manage
carcasses" on the Upper River. In all cases, support was strong among all groups.
Without responses to more detailed questions', it is challenging to interpret support as a mandate for
specific actions. Fish cleaning stations might be received differently by their size and frequency,
whether they have carcass "grinders" or other removal system, and whether they include buildings to
reduce odors and keep bears out. Other bear carcass management choices could range from
regulations that require fish to be carried out whole to changing bear behavior through substantial
aversive conditioning. Support is likely to vary for each.
Each carcass management strategy is also likely to have varying biological consequences and degrees
of effectiveness, with no single approach likely to work on its own. Ultimately, reducing carcass
concentrations that attract bears may require a mix of facility, education, and regulation actions. To
be effective, agencies will probably need to 1) settle on what they want users to do (which may vary
for different locations on the Russian and the Kenai); 2) develop a clear education program that
encourages this behavior (and be prepared to back it up with regulations); and 3) and develop
appropriate facilities that cue and enable the appropriate behavior(s). In an ideal world agencies
could experiment with different mixes of education and facilities to see which is most effective, but
they may not have the luxury of time and resources to conduct systematic assessments.
In the meantime, continued monitoring of human -bear interactions and carcass concentrations may
help identify problems and suggest ways to address them. In conjunction with planning for this
study, the Forest Service developed a more systematic human -bear interaction monitoring program in
2009, which is set to be continued in 2010. Excerpts from the Forest Service monitoring report are
provided in the supplemental report for comprehensiveness. The supplement also includes users'
open -ended comments on bear and carcass issues, which may help agencies gauge the range of
opinion on this contentious issue.
All development involves capital investments as well as staff, equipment, and budgets to maintain
them. All development may also have technical design challenges or biological and cultural resource
impacts.
There appears to be stronger public support for improving and maintaining existing facilities before
building new ones.
During planning for the present survey, agencies elected not to pursue questions about more specific development,
education, or regulation actions because this issue really needs a separate study.
DRAFT R durst 2010 Pap 90
12. Education and Regulation Actions
This chapter provides information from the fallow -up survey about specific education and regulation
actions that might be used to address use and visitor impacts. Respondents were asked about seven
actions for the entire river, three for the Lower River, three for the Middle River, and one for the Upper
River. Responses were on a 5-point scale from "strongly support" to "strongly oppose, with a
"neutral" option. The specific actions are listed below:
For the entire river
Clarify and strictly enforce "no anchoring in channel" regulations (particularly in silver season)
Create brochures and internet media showing how to boat and fish during high density periods
Offer a one day course about how to operate powerboats during high density periods
Require a "Kenai boating license" for powerboat operators (includes a written test)
Require ail boaters to wear PFDs (life jackets)
Close more areas to bank fishing where existing use is trampling vegetation
Restrictions on number of fish allowed to be cleaned when others are waiting
Lower river
No wake zones in high density areas such as Beaver Creek, Chicago, Big Eddy, or Pillars
Regulations to maintain an open "driving lane" (for boats on step) through some of these same areas
Stagger guided start times in July to reduce launch
Middle river
No wake zones in high density areas such as Swiftwater, Dot's Landing, or "3rd Hole' near Kiiley River
Regulations that maintain an open "driving lane" (for boats on step) through some of these same areas
Restrict drift boats from traveling upstream using kickers (to minimize large wakes)
Upper river
Develop fire education enforcement program in Russian River area
DRAFT R ort' June 2€ W Page 91
a r
Education regulation actions for the entire river
Figure 12-1 shows support for all users taken together. Information for specific groups is in Figure 12 -2
and the supplemental report. Findings include:
There is majority support but some opposition for most actions.
There was generally more support for education efforts to improve boating skills knowledge than for
regulations requiring a "Kenai River boating license" or wearing PFDs.
Users showed majority support for closing more areas to bank fishing to reduce trampling, although
bank anglers themselves were divided (42% support, 38% oppose). About 26 miles of Kenai
shoreline has already been restricted, and results suggest users (particularly boaters) may accept
further restrictions if needed.
W Landowners were similar more likely to support closing more bank angling areas to prevent
trampling. This result may reflect concern about bank anglers trespassing on private property.
o noanthiring in
rssw re: Bing in high use
Cne clay 00199e erg high
Kerd 14ig lice/
Paquire
Rmbict ,.i at ,:rig
1C0 OY/a 6(P /0 40% 20% o%
2P/0
62%
62%
'/n E /0 70CH0
%stronglytlr slightly c %slightly orsirongysi t
Figure 12 -1. Percent support for education /regulation actions for the entire river for all users.
DRAFT Report June 201& Page 92
Figure 12 -2 shows differences between user, guide, and landowner groups for three actions where
differences were substantive. Findings include:
Guides strongly support (83 a one day course on how to boat in high use situations, along with 55
to 62% of drift and bank anglers, but powerboat anglers and landowners were more divided. State
Parks currently offers a free one day course on boating in Alaska, but it is not specific to the Kenai or
high use periods, and attendance does not approach the number of boaters who fish the river.
Guides, drift anglers, and bank anglers show majority support for requiring boaters to obtain a Kenai
boater license that includes a written test, but this has more opposition than support among
powerboaters and landowners (the user groups most likely to be affected). The KRSMA River Use
Committee has discussed several existing internet -based courses (with tests) that might be used to
improve boater education, encouraging voluntary participation. Guides are required to take a week-
long course to guide the river; they probably think it's a good idea for non-guided users to obtain
some similar training.
Majorities of bank anglers, drift anglers, and drift guides support a requirement that boaters wear
PFDs while on the river, while powerboat anglers and powerboat guides are opposed. This result
reflects two distinct boating cultures. Many drift anglers regularly wear PFDs while powerboat
anglers on the Kenai rarely wear PFDs. The strength of powerboat guide opposition anticipates their
resistance to this potential regulation.
100 800/n 60% 40 /o 20"/0 0'/0
%strongly orslightly oppose
an
[eft angi
Rowboat
Ditt guides
Posiatat
41%
2[P /a LIC% ,��%t, 80)/0 1lm"/o
Figure 12.2. Percent support for three specific educationlregulation actions among different groups.
DRAFT Report June 2010 Page 91
Education regulation actions for different segments
Figure 12 -3 shows support on different segments. l for specific user groups is given below or
in the supplemental report. Findings include:
There is majority support for boating safety regulations such as no wake zones or driving lanes on the
Lower River; on the Middle River there is majority support for no wake zones, but less support for
driving lanes.
There were significant differences among groups for no wake zones and driving lanes. For example,
54% of Lower River powerboat anglers supported no wake zones compared to more than 75% for
bank and drift anglers. There were similar differences for no wake zones on the Middle River.
There are striking differences between drift and powerboat guides for no wake and driving lane
actions. For example, 85% of drift guides support no wake zones compared with only 28% of
powerboat guides.
There is overall majority support for staggered guided start times in July, but there are statistically
significant differences between unguided and guided users (60% vs. 48% support). Guides were also
opposed to staggered guide hours (63% of drift guides and 82% of powerboat guides). Perceptions
about the importance of "being first" at a hole (discussed in Chapter 5) probably drive this result.
There is majority support for fire education on the Upper River.
DRAFT Report June 2010
100% ED 60% 4(% 20% 00 /o 2T /o 40% 60% 80% /a
1D(P
yo�rslightly o§ %sli htly or sfrongi support
Figure 12 3. Percent support or oppose segment- specific educationlregulation actions.
r
94
Integrating education and regulation actions
Additional considerations when assessing education or regulation options include:
Education actions are a "cognitive fix" approach, where agencies use information to modify user
behavior that may be causing unacceptable biophysical or social impacts. Managers and the public
sometimes view education as panacea (Roggenbuck, 1992) that is less intrusive than regulations, but
both may be helpful in different situations.
Education actions in river settings focus on minimum impact practices (e.g., no trace camping, human
waste disposal); resource competition ethics (e.g., codes of behavior in "combat fishing" settings);
angling ethics (e.g., catch and release ofnon- anad species); and safety (e.g., powerboat "rules
of the road" education). Attempts to establish "informal norms" for these behaviors are evident in
agency literature, information boards, and the popular media. These efforts probably expose most
users to the appropriate information, but their influence on behavior is less clear. Persuasion research
indicates that using messages to change both attitudes and behavior over the long term can be
complex and challenging, and many user practices are learned from peers and relatives rather than
agency communications (Manfredo, 1992).
Regulatory actions focus on changing behavior, but don't rely on changing their attitudes first.
Regulations are "formal norms" enforced through "external sanctions," and they become necessary
when educational alternatives fall short. Educational and regulatory approaches are omen
complementary rather than "either -or" alternatives (Lucas, 1982). Many regulations reinforce initial
educational efforts and encourage users to "self- enforce," and regulations need to be widely known to
be effective. in many cases, regulations raising awareness about problem behaviors (and the impacts
they cause) is more important than actual enforcement (which may be challenging).
Applying these concepts to a longstanding issue on the Lower River may help illustrate. When
congestion increases, the slower- moving techniques (back trolling or back bouncing) prevent drifters
from using the same water (and vice versa). Anglers interested in ensuring that "traditional" drifts
remain available have requested educational efforts to identify boundaries for their activity. Without
judging the desirability of this goal, the open question is whether education can work or more formal
regulations are necessary. We believe education can be effective, but it probably requires substantial
effort.
First, consensus opinion leaders such as guides and well -known unguided users need to support the
concept and help identify the specific reach boundaries. Second, the zone(s) need to be identified on-
site and on maps, brochures, and launch kiosks to tell a consistent story about when and where the
"technique restriction" applies. This message needs to appear through other "channels" including
popular media, web forums, tackle shops, and agency materials. Third, the message needs to be
accompanied by a simple explanation of why separate zones are important and "fair." Because,
particular techniques tend to be lost in higher densities unless everyone "goes along," zones need to
be crafted with as sense of equity, considering relative proportions of anglers using different
techniques.
Finally, agencies and on -river opinion leaders need to support "norm development" through positive
and negative sanctions. Agency "enforcement" that teaches "violators" why they should respect
techniques of fellow anglers is likely to be as effective as "law enforcement" An "internalized" norm
RAFT Re i June 2010
°gag
with self enforcement is the ultimate goal, particularly because extensive ranger enforcement is too
costly.
The education model breaks down if a group of users doesn't go along with the behavior (e.g., they
want to back troll in the traditional drift area, regardless of the use level or how many others are
inconvenienced). In this case, the offending behavior is "willfully depreciative;" regulations followed
up with enforcement are probably necessary (Roggenbuck, 1992).
In our experience, few recreation users fit in the "willfully depreciative" category, and well developed
norms can be effective. For example, educational efforts on Oregon's North Umpqua River have
successfully implemented no boating zones and times (to prevent conflicts between scenic rafters and
wading anglers) during the peak steelhead season. Signs and brochures strongly recommend "no
boating" in these zones and times, no regulation was needed, and compliance is near total.
DRAFT Report' J n 2010 l e 96
10 3% &Pk
St Jons
13. "Drift -only" issues
This chapter provides information from the follow up survey about "drift- only" issues on the Lower and
Middle River. The survey briefly described the current situation:
Mondays in May, June, and July are "drift -only days" on the Lower and Middle River (from River Mile 4
to Skilak Lake). On these days, fishing from a motorized boat is not allowed (and guides are also not
allowed). Some people have suggested adding more "drift -only days" on these segments, but with drift
guiding allowed. Please tell us whether you support or oppose the following "drift- only" actions.
Follow -up questions asked about general support for additional drift -only days (and how many), and
preferred days and months.
General support opposition for "drift -only" days
Two separate questions asked respondents whether "in general, more `drift -only' days should be added"
to the Lower River and Middle River. A third question asked, "If drift only days are added, they should
be on different days on the two segments (so there will always be one segment available for
powerboats)." Responses were given on a 5 -point scale from "strongly support" to "strongly oppose" with
a "neutral" option (see Figure 13 -1).
.14
60% 40% 2(P /0 (P %o 2€P /o 40/o 60% 80% 103%
°/astronglyorslightly oppose %sfightly o strcrigy suppat
Figure 13-1. Percent support or oppose "drift -only" days on different segments for different groups.
2 Respondents uninterested in these segments or the issue could skip them; among users, 51% of landowners, 50%
of drift anglers, 44% of powerboat anglers, and 32% of bank anglers answered them. Among guides, 88% of drift
guides and 78% of powerboat guides answered them.
DRAFT Report June 2010 Page 9
Findings include:
In general, results show a typical user conflict pattern: most non motorized users support more drift
only days and most motorized users oppose them, with drift guides the most supportive and
powerboat guides the most opposed.
The pattern of responses across groups is similar for both segments. This suggests strongly held
attitudes rather than segment characteristics.
Landowners are generally divided. Many use powerboats as their primary craft, but they also live on
the river and might benefit from more days with less powerboat traffic (e.g., reduced bank erosion
and noise).
For the "alternating drift -only days by segments" option, polarization is reduced and some groups
shift opinions. Drift guides shift from majority support to divided, a majority of powerboat anglers
join drift and bank anglers in support, and powerboat guides reduce their opposition. This suggests
some "compromise" zoning options may gain greater acceptance, particularly if there are substitutes
for those displaced by a drift -only regulation.
Nonetheless, the intensity of some verbatim comments (see supplemental report) suggests that even
compromise options will be strongly opposed by some users on each "side" of this debate.
How many additional "drift only" days?
Among those who support more "drift only" days, respondents were asked to specify the number of days
that should be added. Findings follow the polarized general attitudes discussed above. Among the few
supportive powerboat anglers, 72% recommended adding just one day. Among drift anglers, 17% want
every day to be drift -only, 30% prefer three, four, or live more, and 53% recommend one or two. Among
other groups, 61% of hank anglers, 71% of landowners, 52% of driftboat guides and 72% of powerboat
guides prefer one or two additional days. If compromise alternatives are developed, these data suggest
focusing on one or two additional drift -only days.
Preferences for days of the week
Among those who support more "drift only" days, respondents were asked to specify days of the week.
Responses varied widely. Slightly higher percentages adrift anglers prefer Wednesdays, Fridays, or
Sundays, while the few of the supportive powerboat anglers leaned toward Thursdays. Drift boat guides
slightly favored Sundays (a day they currently cannot fish on the Lower and Middle River before
August). If compromise drift -only proposals are developed, survey data offer no clear guidance about
days of the week.
Preferences for months
Among those who support more "drift only" days, respondents were asked to specify months. More drift
users and guides prefer July and August, while powerboat anglers and guides prefer June and July.
Among all groups, there is less interest in September or May (when use levels are likely low enough that
it doesn't matter). If compromise drift only alternatives are developed, these data suggest focusing on
raid- summer (particularly July).
DRAFT tr u€te 2010 Page. 9
Prospective use of "drift only" days by guides
Guides were asked, "If additional `drift only' days are added, would you offer guided drift fishing or
sightseeing trips on those days (assume guides would be allowed to operate) Responses (Figure 13 -2)
show 94% of drift guides and 65% of powerboat guides said "yes."
These "intentions to participate" suggest the level of guided use on additional drift only days. If current
peak July powerboat guide use on the Lower River ranges from 150 to 200 boats, the number of guided
drift boats on drift only days might range as high as 100 to 130 boats. Add 30 to 40 drift guides that
already float the Middle River, and total guided use on `new' drift only days might be as high as 170
boats. Assuming unguided use equaled current Monday use, total boats on drift only days could approach
300 boats, more than double the highest drift only Monday in 2009.
Iff/o ao
Writatigbilym
06 2Vo 4Z0 6Yo Ql/0
°Apitkadditlyys
Figure 13 -2. Percent of drift and powerboat guides reporting they would use drift only days.
Guides who said they would not use additional drift only days were asked to specify their reasons.
Responses are given in Figure 13 -3 (percents sum to greater than 100% because respondents could check
any that apply). Findings include:
The t most important reasons are that clients or the guides themselves prefer to fish from a
powerboat.
Logistics of shuttles and insufficient launch sites to provide a diversity of trip options are also
important reasons. Verbatim comments highlighted the added challenges of drift trips (e.g., need for
parking at put -in and take -out, need for appropriately- spaced launches, need for launches to access
best fishing locations such as downstream of Eagle Rock, inability to come and go from a riverside
dock).
Half of the guides checked the physical demands of rowing. Some comments also noted that the
challenges of rowing (particularly for unguided users) might encourage more anchor use, which may
have habitat and social competition impacts.
Fewer guides said they did not have a drift vessel available, would have less flexibility to reach
fishing hot spots, or would be unable to match powerboat success rates. Almost none said they would
have to learn new fishing techniques or skills.
DRAFT Report. ti une 2010 Page 99
ecreati
cfienls
I jitcer4sOngfittnIa.
Lmist lea! 1:1141enges itcoinficated sturttieS)
Elift fishing seitt Match
Pomboat-Lesetifishing
1 doll home itiftboat/ ralablse foe guiding
1..4ssilexibrtiy to reatitYchor' fishing I
qpite
Ieariing new and places to fish
72%1
Edsting launch** do net offer enough tip optitns
84%
1 O0%
0% 20 40% 60% 80% 100%
Percent checking response
Figure 13-3. Percent of guides checking reasons for not using additional drift only days (if provided).
DRAFT Report June 2C110 1;.g
Developing "drift only" alternatives
s an
Deciding whether to add more drift-only periods on the Middle or Lower Kenai is among the most
consequential and controversial issues on the river. To non motorized advocates, expanded drift -only
would reduce crowding; produce non motorized recreation opportunities; and address hydrocarbon,
turbidity, and erosion impacts from powerboat use. To motorized advocates, non motorized regulations
would displace them from traditional powerboat use areas without reducing (and possibly exacerbating)
crowding, congestion, or related impacts. To agencies weighing these issues, type of use zoning could
also substantively affect facility needs, education and enforcement programs, and fishing success and
harvest.
Several of these issues are out of the scope of this study (e.g., biophysical effects and impacts on the
fishery). The survey focused on support and opposition for expanded non motorized zonesltimcs, not the
underlying reasons for those opinions. However, these types of conflicts are not uncommon in river
settings, so findings from other studies may help on the Kenai. In addition, many users and stakeholders
have offered considerations in this debate. We have distilled them below:
Conceptual and process issues
Conflicts between motorized and non motorized use are well documented in the recreation literature
(Lucas, 1964; Jacob Schreyer, 1980; Shelby, 1980; Adelman et al., 1982; Jackson Wong, 1982;
Kuss et al., 1990; Grade, 2004). Research shows antipathy from non motorized users toward
motorized use in many situations, particularly more primitive settings. This is often one -sided or
"asymmetric," with motorized users unconcerned about encounters with non- motorized use.
Conflicts may have a value -based component that is independent of actual encounters with motorized
users (i.e., social values conflict; see Vaske et al., 1995).
Research on conflicts between motorized and non motorized use has looked at backgrounds and
attitudes of users, economic impacts, safety, enforcement problems, and ecological effects on
wildlife, plants, and water quality (Kuss et al., 1990). While these issues are interesting and
important, they sometimes obscure the more central issue, which is the nature of contrasting
experiences (Shelby, 1980).
Most conflicts are addressed by separating uses in space or in time. The success of zoning solutions
depends on whether they are perceived to be equitable. Few solutions will satisfy everyone, and
some advocates will criticize any zoning compromise.
User conflicts are typically conceived as a "zero sum game" (if one group wins, the other loses), so
these issues can become politicized and possibly litigated. As with other contentious issues, focusing
on interests rather than positions may help develop compromise solutions (Fisher et al., 1992;
Spangler, 2003)
Biophysical resource impacts are often used to justify motorized use restrictions. On the Kenai,
potential biophysical issues include hydrocarbon pollution, turbidity, wildlife disturbance, and boat
wake erosion, some of which have been addressed by existing motorized use regulations (e.g., Swan
habitat non motorized zone on the Middle River in early summer; 50 horsepower motor limits; four
stroke engine regulations; Upper River non motorized segment). Social experience issues may have
DRAFT Rcport k J is 2 0 Page 101
been the underlying consideration with some of these regulations, and all clearly have impacts on
experiences regardless of their basis.
In many conflicts, the "sensitive" group develops long lists of safety, environmental, and experiential
impacts from the "offending" group's use, hoping one or more may resonate among decision makers.
Faced with these assertions, the second group may develop similar lists about the first, and the
conflict becomes less asymmetric (Graefe, 2004). Assertions on both sides may be difficult to
validate, and sometimes "scapegoat issues" obscure underlying philosophical or value -based
differences about which type of use is appropriate. We encourage all stakeholders to prioritize and be
transparent about the impacts that matter most to them. This provides agencies with the best chance
of working out acceptable compromises that provide each group some opportunities.
Non- motorized river users from a study on Alaska's Delta River (Whittaker and Shelby, 2006)
considered all 11 impacts from motorized use important, while motorized users were concerned about
four. Non- motorized users rated noise, the notion that motors are inappropriate in some places, and
ensuring the availability of non motorized experiences as their most important reasons. Of these,
only noise was considered important for a majority of motorized users (discourteous behavior,
boating safety, and biophysical impacts round out their list). This highlights a fundamental difference
between the two groups non motorized users may purposely seek out places or times with no
motorized use, but that is not important for most motorized boaters.
There is jurisdictional complexity with motorized /non- motorized issues on the Kenai because
decisions could be driven by recreation experience, fisheries management, or biophysical impact
considerations. In addition, decisions would probably affect facilities or lands managed by different
entities. For example, existing drift-boat Mondays on the Lower and Middle River in July are a
Board of Fish regulation, while non motorized use zones on the Sk.ilak end of the Middle River to
protect swans in early summer are regulated by the US Fish and Wildlife Service. Non- motorized
State Parks regulations on the Upper River appear to have been developed for social experience
purposes. Coordinated decision making among all the major agencies could consider the full range of
issues, consequences, and agency mandates, but this may be challenging. The KRSMA board offers
an institutional opportunity to improve coordination and comprehensive planning, but different
agencies and boards have their own decision- making processes and it is unclear which ones will
address these issues.
Specific considerations for drift only alternatives on the Kenai
Existing drift -only Monday regulations apply to the Lower and. Middle River for June and July, so
advocates for additional non motorized opportunities tend think in terms of extending those
regulations to other days. However, more targeted sub segments or time periods might improve
acceptance, particularly if the restriction doesn't apply to both segments at the same time.
Alternatives should clarify target seasons and segments. On the Lower River, drift -only advocates
appear focused on July because this is the season when powerboat use has largely displaced drift use
(less than 2% of boats on the Lower River from Tuesdays to Sundays are non motorized). However,
there may also be interest in Lower River drift only opportunities during silver season. Most Lower
River use on drift -only Mondays occurs from Centennial Park to Eagle Rock (or stationary drift boats
at Beaver Creek). Regulations could target the area upstream of Eagle Rock or Pillars, leaving
downstream segments motorized.
DRAFT Report P June 2010 ga 2
In contrast, Middle River use during kings is low and may not be important to drift anglers (who have
not been displaced by heavy motorized use). Agencies might explore drift -only days during the
trout/dolly /silver season in August and early September, and perhaps only for the Skilak to Kenai
Keys segment (the focus of most non motorized fishing).
Alternatives that restrict motorized use for a portion of the day (e.g., the middle of the day) may be
more acceptable. For example, a drift -only regulation from Skilak to Kenai Keys from 10 am to 4 pm
could allow powerboats to access the segment to bank fish or drift with their motor off, but still
provide a non motorized opportunity during prime fishing hours.
Alternatives that restrict "upstream use" or require "no wake speeds" (rather than a total motor
restriction) may offer an alternative to drift -only regulations, providing a "less motorized" rather than
non motorized experience. A variation on the "mid -day non motorized" example (above) could
allow powerboats to use their engines for steering/holding in the current or cruising downstream as
long as they didn't throw a wake. This creates a "downstream travel only" use pattern, which could
reduce congestion and the impacts of powerboats that "run laps" without excluding all powerboat use.
Another variation on a "less motorized" alternative could restrict powerboat use to one upstream trip
per day in a segment; there is a similar regulation from Kenai Lake to Princess Lodge on the Upper
River. It allows lake users to drift the first part of the river and motor back once in a day, but does not
allow "running laps." There are enforcement challenges, but it also creates a "mostly downstream"
use pattern that would probably reduce congestion.
Alternatives that contemplate landowner exemptions for access (especially to properties that have no
road access) are likely to increase landowner support without adding much motorized use. There may
be legal challenges to such exemptions.
Improving access to popular fishing areas downstream of Eagle Rock is critical for additional drift-
only days to "work," particularly if drift only use levels reach 200 to 300 boats (as estimated earlier).
This segment has roughly seven miles of good fishing water that is easily accessible to powerboats,
but difficult to use in driftboats. Although drift anglers with property on Beaver Creek can access the
confluence area and return, others must use upstream put -ins (e.g., Pillars, Eagle Rock) and fight tides
and winds to reach take -outs below the Warren Ames Bridge. There are two possible approaches to
improving access:
1. Allow kicker or trolling motors for downstream travel on drift only days. Existing restrictions do
not allow boats to carry an engine while fishing on drift -only Mondays, and some anglers park a
vehicle with their outboard at Cunningham Park then swap it for their fishing gear in order to
motor downstream legally. If additional drift only days are contemplated, they are likely to
garner more support if kickers can be used 1) downstream from a certain point, 2) after fishing, or
3) for downstream travel only. While enforcement of more complicated regulations may be
challenging, using kickers would help more evenly distribute use and reduce congestion.
2. Develop additional launch sites and associated parking, particularly on the lower seven miles
between Eagle Rock and Warren Ames Bridge, to increase trip options and help distribute use.
There is strong support for additional launches (see Chapter 11), but construction and
environmental issues are substantial (e.g., steep bluff banks, wetlands, tidal zone mud, and
cultural sites). Several Lower 48 rivers (as well as a few in AK) have friction -based ramps on
steep banks that can be used by light craft such as driftboats and rafts, but these are not
DRAFT Report June 2i1 r Page 103
DRAFT Report -0,
a1 on
particularly efficient compared to drive -in ramps. Finding room for parking could be similarly
challenging, because it needs to handle traffic at both put -ins and take -outs (powerboats need
parking at only one ramp).
Even with more launches or parking, drift -only days that include guided use will probably have much
higher use than existing drift -only Mondays. The potential for crowding and congestion will
increase, and the lesser mobility of drift craft (compared to powerboats) makes it difficult for users to
avoid each other. Compatibility of different king fishing techniques will remain an issue; some
anglers will hold against the current or drift slowly downstream, but others will not. A few anglers
may also use anchors, which may exacerbate "territorial" competition that sometimes occurs during
silver season (where anchoring is common).
Adding drift-only segments or periods has the potential to increase crowding and congestion during
powerboat use periods. Demand for powerboat -based angling is unlikely to decrease, but with fewer
days available, densities will probably be higher. To the extent that powerboaters shift to drift use on
drift -only days, this effect will be smaller.
Any drift -only alternative will displace both guided and unguided powerboat use, but the effects on
guided use will probably be greater (especially in king season, where there are existing restrictions on
days and hours). To the extent that drift only alternatives minimize guide market and pricing effects,
guides may be more willing to accept them.
2010' Paje 104
1
14. Capacities and Use Limit Actions
This chapter provides information from the follow -up survey about use limit actions and estimates of
capacities. Questions asked respondents about philosophy toward use limits, user registration programs,
parking time limits, and different types of limits on specific segments (using the 5-point .support oppose
scale with "neutral" and "don't know" options). Other questions asked respondents to estimate boat
capacities for the Lower and Upper River.
Background
Capacities (and the use limit actions that implement them) are another approach for addressing overuse.
The capacity concept recognizes there is a limit to the amount of use that an area can accommodate
without impairing natural resource or experiential values. Five decades of research suggests the links
between use and impacts can be complex, but several visitor impact planning frameworks (e.g., C -CAP,
LAC, VIM., and VERP) can be used to develop capacities (Frissel et al., 1985; Shelby and .I leberlein,
1986; Graefe et al., 1990, Manning, 2008; Whittaker et al., 2010). Use limits are a powerful management
strategy for dealing with sorne impacts, especially in geographically- concentrated areas such as river
corridors.
Differences in the research literature, planning frameworks, "in- the field" approaches, and court rulings
have sometimes led to confusion or debate about the capacity concept. In a recent "state of knowledge"
monograph (Whittaker et al., 2010), capacity is defined as the amount and type of use that is compatible
with the "management prescription" for an area, which includes:
O Management goals and objectives for all important uses and values, including desired recreation
opportunities to be provided.
"Desired conditions" and the "mix" of resource uses and values to be managed for.
Standards that quantitatively define appropriate levels for goals, objectives, desired conditions, and/or
indicators.
o Planned management program and actions to meet goals and objectives, provide desired Conditions,
and avoid violating standards.
Budget and personnel resources that will be used to implement management actions.
A capacity is a number specified by units of use, time, and location components (e.g. float trips per day
on a particular reach, people at one time fishing in an area). Although it is common to speak of a single
capacity for a river, many areas will have multiple capacities for different types of uses, facilities,
segments, seasons, or other managerially- relevant parameters. Use limit actions, the specific management
actions that keep use from exceeding capacities, can be direct (e.g., permit systems) or indirect (e.g.,
managing parking lot sizes).
In general, managing use levels is more likely to be effective addressing social impacts such as encounter
levels or competition for sites and facilities. In contrast, many biophysical impacts appear less directly
related to use levels because initial or low levels of use may create proportionately larger impacts
(Hammitt Cole 1987; Kuss et al., 1990). For example, the first few groups to pioneer a campsite have
the greatest impacts on vegetation loss; subsequent groups then camp in the same areas and typically
cause less additional impact (Cole, 1987).
DRAFT report F June 201.0 Page E0
Kenai
Philosophy toward use limits
In river settings like the Kenai, use limits are a potentially effective tool because several social impacts
are related to use (Chapter 6). The trade -off is a reduction in access and a heavier managerial footprint.
To assess opinion toward these trade -offs, respondents were asked a "philosophy toward use limits"
question used in several previous river studies (including the 1992 Kenai study). Results for different
groups are shown in Figure 14 -1; comparisons between 2009 and 1992 are shown in Figure 14 -2. More
details are provided in the supplemental report.
Would you accept having to compete for a limited number of permits to use parts of the river if it meant
there would be fewer other people on the river when you use it?
1. Yes some limits on use are needed
2. Maybe it depends upon how the permit system works and how many permits would be available
3. Not at this time maybe later if crowding gets worse
4. No --1'11 always want unlimited access to the river
%"no, revel' or is t r'od'
Figure 14 -1. Responses about a permit system that reduces use.
®O% 4O% 20% 0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%
DRAFT Report June 2010 Page 11,6
100%
o WA VA 2/o 0%
40Y0 00% 8O% 10(PIa
Figure 14 -2. Comparing 1992 and 2009 responses toward a permit system that reduces use.
Findings include:
Most user groups and powerboat guides oppose use limits. Nearly half of bank anglers, powerboat
anglers, and powerboat guides always want unlimited access, while about a quarter oppose limits
now, but might accept them later if crowding gets worse, Drift anglers were more divided, with 48%
supporting limits now or in the future. However, less than 17% in any of these groups believe limits
are needed now.
Drift and scenic rafting guides are the only groups with majority support for use limits. They are also
the only groups on the river that are currently limited (on the Upper River).
Comparisons between 1992 and 2009 (Figure 14 -2) suggest that "philosophies toward use limits"
have been relatively stable over time, although drift anglers have slightly increased and powerboat
anglers have slightly decreased their support.
Results are similar to other rivers in Alaska, although multi -day non- motorized users were more
inclined to support limits. On the Gulkana River in 1999, 56% of Upper River drift anglers supported
or might support use limits, compared to 27% of powerboat anglers. On the Delta River in 2004,
67% of floaters supported limits, compared to 32% of motorized users.
9 Taken together, findings suggest little support among Kenai users for limits. Any future support is
probably contingent on worsening impacts and developing a fair system for distributing access.
Powerboat and bank anglers are generally less likely to support use limits. There is little tradition for
directly managing numbers of powerboats or bank anglers through permit systems.
Drift anglers and drift guides are the most likely to accept a use limit system. In contrast to bank and
powerboat anglers, drift anglers may have some familiarity with permit systems on drift- oriented
rivers. There are about two dozen rivers in North America with limited permit systems and over 100
others have capacities identified but not yet reached or enforced (Whittaker and Shelby, 2008). Few
are primarily day use rivers like the Kenai, but a couple (e.g, Oregon's Deschutes and Coioraod's
Arkansas River) have similar high use levels.
Report a June 2 i 10 Page 10"1
k cre
Many bank and boat anglers on the Kenai may not recognize that use levels at specific facilities (e.g.,
launches, state park units, anglers using the Ferry and Russian River day use parking lots) are
managed consistent with their facility capacities, and may indirectly influence segment -wide
capacities.
Should limits reduce, freeze, or increase use?
A follow -up question asked whether use limits should reduce, freeze, or increase use (see below).
Responses among those who support use limits are given in Figure 14 -3.
If a permit system were tried on one or more Kenai River segments, should it... (Circle one number)
1. Reduce use compared to current levels
2. Freeze use near current levels
3. Allow use to increase slightly (about 10 to 20% compared to current use levels)
4. Aiiow use to increase substantially (about 50% or more compared to current use levels)
5. I oppose permit systems, even if use and impacts increase
Nemaigers
Lanus
lift gLicias
try
Scenic guides
100% &r/o
Figure 14 -3. Percent who want use limits to reduce, freeze,
or increase use among those who support a permit system,
60% 40% 21E o% 4o% 6C' /0 8 P/0 100%
%'Inen3aso substantially' or, a/a. or "reducer
Although most groups do not support a permit system (see Figure 14 -1), those who favor limits prefer to
freeze or reduce use levels {with over 80% in these two categories); for landowners, drift guides, and
scenic guides, percentages in these categories is over 90
T Repot Jon 2010 Page 103
na s.' #u
Opinion toward a daily boat registration program
Respondents were asked about a "daily boat registration" program, as described below. A similar system
has operated on Oregon's Deschutes River for the past five years; it has substantially redistributed use
away from high use days (Mont, 2009). Responses for boating groups are given in Table 14 -1.
Some rivers require boaters to register every time they go boating. 'Mandatory registration" could be
developed for some segments of the Kenai, with the following characteristics:
boaters could register by phone or via the internet
boaters would identify which segment they intended to use
the number of boats that can register would not be limited
a webpage would keep a "running tally" of registered boats for every segment and day
Do you think a mandatory registration program should be developed for the Kenai? (Check all that apply)
Table 14 -1. Percent responding to statements about a boater registration program.
No, because I'm concerned the program could lead to a
use limit system (which I oppose),
No, this will cost too much to administer.
Maybe, but it depends on how easy it is to register.
Yes, because this program could lead to a use limit
system (which I support).
DRAB f RCepc June
Drift
anglers
26
1 7
15
12
Powerboat Drift Powerboat
anglers guides guides
39
28
14
5
26
13
13
21
44
26
7
7
Findings include:
Most respondents in all groups oppose the program; among boaters, only 20% of drift anglers and 9%
of powerboat anglers thought this should be implemented.
The only group that showed much support was drift guides (and support was qualified).
The most common objections to registration programs are the mandatory requirement, concern that it
could lead to use limits, and perceived difficulty to enforce and administer.
Very few respondents said they would use information about the number of other trips to decide
where and when they use the river, which is the chief benefit of the program.
This system is unlikely to gain support from stakeholders or the public, and benefits might be
marginal on the Kenai is it did not help redistribute use.
Opinion toward parking time limits
Respondents were asked about parking time limits at day use areas, which offer an indirect way of
handling demand higher than capacity (by limiting trip lengths, thus cycling more people through the
area). This is an issue during peak red salmon season. Question wording is given below; results for
different groups are given in Table 14 -2.
Parking length limits at day use areas on the Lower and Middle River range from 4 to 12 hours
(and some only apply during the late red salmon run). Do you support time limits to increase
"turnover" during high use periods? (Circle one number)
1. No, day use parking should not have limits
2. Yes, day use parking should have some limits.
3. Yes, and different lots should have different limits (depends on the site and its popularity).
4. This issue doesn't matter to me.
If you think there should be some parking length limits, what is the most appropriate limit?
hours per visit
Table 14 -2, Percent of responses related to day use parking length limits.
Yes, day use parking should have some limits.
This issue doesn't matter to me.
Percent 8 hours or less
Findings include:
All users show more opposition (43 than support {37 with 21% reporting "this issue doesn't
matter" to them. There were small differences between user groups.
Powerboat guides showed the strongest opposition, with 50% opposed, 22% support, and 28%
"doesn't matter." Drift guides were more positive, with 23% opposed, 41% support, and 26%
"doesn't matter."
For those who identified a preferred limit, the average among users and guides was about 12 hours,
and less than half thought limits should be 8 hours or less. The average among landowners was 10
hours.
Survey data indicates average trip lengths are well under 8 hours, so limits between 10 and 12 hours
are unlikely to induce substantial changeover (and they would probably reduce the quality of the few
trips that are longer).
DRAFT f o sort dune 2010 Page
e
Al[ users
Landowners Drift guides Powerboat
guides
21 18 18 16
2 31 36 28
42 62 29 38
ecreato
Specific use limit actions Lower River
Bank anglers
D ift anglers
Powerboat an
Landowners
D lift guides
Poore
A.I anglers
Landowners
D ift guides 7
Poore
100% 80%
Bank anglers
b ift anglers
Powerboat angle# of guide
Landowners per day in Jul
U iguided anglers
G,rided anglers
D ift guides 6
Poore
60% 40%
20%
12%
8%
P%
0% 20%
and
Figure 14 -4 shows support for specific use limit actions on the Lower River (from focus groups and
discussions with agencies and stakeholders). Details for groups are provided in the supplemental report.
INAS
72%
70%
..l 76%
75%
0%
Bank anglers 1 68%
D ift anglers 1 60%
Powerboat angle t of guides 2 68%
Landowners in general 1 1 79%
U iguided anglers 1 72%
G.nded anglers 2_ ti� ,:;ti 48%
D ift guides 6 36%
Powerboat guides6 29%
18%
22%
30
36%
36%
30%
32%
56%
53%
Lint nurnbe
all boats in J
of
ly
Limit boats in July
by odd/even
registration
40% 60% 80% 100%
strongly or slightly oppose slightly or strongy support
Figure 14.4. Percent support for use limit actions on the Lower River for different groups.
Findings include:
Most user groups and landowners support limiting guide boats per day or the number of guides in
general, with less than 20% opposed. The exception was guided anglers, where about half support
limits and 28% are opposed. These are nearly identical to 1992 findings, suggesting that attitudes
toward guide Iimits are stable.
In contrast, most guides oppose these types of limits (with powerboat guides more strongly opposed).
About one third of drift guides support limits on guides.
Most groups oppose per day limits on all powerboat use (guided and unguided), with powerboat
anglers, guides, and landowners more strongly opposed.
Bank anglers generally support limits on guides, were divided on limiting all boats, and opposed
limiting boats on alternating days by odd /even registration nurnbers. Compared to other groups, bank
anglers were slightly more likely to choose "neutral" responses, because these actions generally have
fewer effects on their use.
Taken together, results suggest that most groups respond to use limit actions consistent with their
self- interest. For example, most unguided users support limits that would reduce guide use without
restricting their own access, and most guides oppose actions that would limit themselves. For actions
that might limit all users, no group showed majority support. Chapter 15 provides additional insight
into attitudes related to guided and unguided use issues.
DRAFT Report June 2a10 P ge tl r
Specific use limit actions Middle River
Figure 14 -5 shows percentages supporting specific Middle River use limit actions (developed from focus
groups and discussions with agencies and stakeholders). User group details are provided in the
supplemental report.
Al users 3
Landownef quire camp
D lft guide nervations
P awerboat guidet
Al users
ndowneaY
D ift guidElmpsite limit
P werboat guides 4
B nk anglers
D ift anglers
P werboakartglEgtf guide
L3ndowne is er day
U ijuided anglers
Gilded anglers
Drift guides 6
P awe
lllllllllllll■
20%
31%
43%
B ank anglers
iD lft anglers
P awerbnattof guides
LAndowne
U iguided alfhigigeral
Gtuded anglers
D •ift guides
P awerboat7
Bank anglers
D ift anglers
P- werboat angi
1 9 ndowners
Unguided anglers5
Glided anglers
D •ift guides
P,awe
2
100% 80% 60% 40% 20%
l 63%
57
j 70%
64%
41%
J 64%
60%
1 74%
65%
28%
29%
4%
19%
22%
27%
29%
33%
40%
48%
34%
41%
38%
49%
53%
74%
Limit numb
all boats pe
r of
day
0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%
strongly or slightly oppose slightly or strongy support
Figure 14 -5. Percent support for use limit actions on the Middle River for different groups.
Findings include:
a Users and landowners are divided over reservations, but there is more support for a three day limit.
Powerboat guides were more likely to oppose both measures, and drift guides were more likely to
support them.
a As with the Lower River, most user groups and landowners support limiting guide boats per day or
the number of guides in general, while most guides oppose these limits (with powerboat guides more
strongly opposed).
User and landowner support for guide limits (either option) are lower than for the Lower River, which
is consistent with the lower use, crowding ratings, and impact levels on the Middle River.
Most groups oppose per day limits on all powerboat use (guided and unguided), with powerboat
anglers, guides, and landowners more strongly opposed.
e As with the Lower River, "reasonable self interest" provides the best explanation for results. Users
generally support guide limits that reduce use without restricting their own access, while guides
generally oppose actions that would limit themselves.
DRAFT f epos ,hale 2010 Pane 112
Specific use limit actions Upper River
Figure 14 -6 shows percentages that support Upper River camp reservations and a limit on the number of
all boats (developed from focus groups and discussions with agencies and stakeholders). The Upper
River has limits on the total number of guides and "guided starts" per week from the Russian River to
Skilak Lake. Powerboat use is generally not allowed on the Upper River, but some powerboat anglers
(79) and powerboat guides (28) answered these questions because they take trips on the Upper River.
More group information is provided in the supplemental report.
6
D
P
L
D
P
13
D
P
u
G
D
nk anglers
ift anglers
werboat anglers
ndowners
ift guides
werboat guides
nk anglers
ift anglers
werboat angle
ndowners
guided users
ided users
ift guides
werboat guides
23%
31%
41%
38%
36%
38%
46%
57 %a
Require
reservat
6% Limit nu
all boats
28%
74%
P
DRAFT Rei:rertt June 2010
camp
ons
ber of
`ser day
100% 80% 60% 40% 20% 0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%
strongly or slightly oppose slightly or strongy support
Figure 14 -6. Percent support for use limit actions on the Upper River for different groups.
Findings include:
Groups are divided over reservations for on -river camps. Most drift anglers and drift guides (the
primary group with access to these camps) support camp reservations, but bank anglers were divided,
and powerboat users and guides are opposed.
i As with other segments, no group supports limits on all boats except drift guides (who are already
Limited). This is consistent with "reasonable self-interest" and equity concerns.
Page 113
Ken
Estimating boat and guide boat capacities
Capacities refer to a number on a use level scale. On some rivers users and stakeholders are well
calibrated to use levels and have opinions about "how many is too many We were interested in
assessing this for the Kenai, focusing on: 1) number of all boats on the Lower River; 2) the number of
guide boats on the Lower River; and 3) the number of all boats on the Upper River (Sportsman's to Jim's
Landing). Specific questions and findings are given below.
Lower River boat capacities
In the section about the Lower River, respondents were asked:
at
In recent years, Lower River counts indicate the number of boats at one time
during prime hours in July are...
Typically 200 to 300 boats early in the month
Typically 300 to 400 boats later in the month
May exceed 450 boats a few days each year (usually Tuesdays and Saturdays later in the month)
Were generally lower in 2009 due to low king returns; few counts exceeded 300 boats
Counts include boats that are fishing and traveling on the river
Counts refer to 16 miles of river from Warren Ames Bridge (mile 5) to Sterling Hwy Bridge (mile 21)
Because boats are not evenly distributed and some users only fish a part of the river, people may
encounter fewer boats than these counts. However, there is interest in "starting a conversation" about
a "reasonable capacity estimate" for the Lower River the number of boats at one time before the
quality of trips is compromised. Can you make a capacity estimate for the Lower River in July? (Check
all responses that apply)
No, it depends on how the boats are distributed
No, I'm concerned estimates will be used to limit boats, which I oppose
Li No, the number of boats doesn't matter to me
N_ of boats i J matter t I I
No, the number ur uuaio uGesn't matuC� to II EIe as Tong as I'm catching fish
h
U No, I care about the number of boats, but I don't know how to estimate this
No, it's too complicated
Yes (please provide your estimates below)
If you checked "yes" above, please estimate the "reasonable capacity" for the Lower River the
number of boats at one time before the quality of trips is compromised. (Circle one number per row; if
you checked "no" responses, leave blank)
On higher use days (such as 100 200 300 400 500 600 800 1,000 1,500 Other:
Tues and Sat in late July)
DRAFT Report a Jun 200 Pag 1
Table 14 -3 shows responses among users, landowners, and guides. Findings include:
The proportion responding to the series of questions was 42% for all users, 66% for landowners, and
67% for guides, reflecting use of the Lower River and interest in the issue.
For all groups, only about one -fifth of those who answered provided capacity estimates, so estimates
should only be considered a "starting point" for discussion.
Most users and landowners identified three main reasons for not estimating a capacity: 1) they
weren't sure they could; 2) they were concerned that estimates might be used to limit boats (which
they oppose); or 3) capacities depend on how boats are distributed.
d Among those willing to make estimates, there are some interesting findings:
o Most estimated capacities no higher than typical high use levels at the end of July (about 400
boats). Although use did not reach those levels in 2009, it has exceeded this on some days in
other years. Results suggest that current peaks may compromise experiences.
o Average capacity estimates were about 250 to 300 boats for users and landowners, which is
similar to the "rule of thumb" capacity estimates from crowding ratings {Chapter 6).
o Guides on average reported higher capacity estimates than users (about 400 vs. 250 -300); they
may be less sensitive to crowding impacts or targeting a higher capacity to reduce the chance of
lost access if a capacity were implemented).
o Differences between capacities on high vs. low use days were small, suggesting such distinctions
are less important.
Table 14-3. Percent of responses related to Lower River boat capacities.
Percent of those willing to provide capacity estimate
No, it depends on how the boats are distributed
No, the number of boats doesn't matter to me
No, I care about the number of boats, but I don't know
how to estimate this
All users
18
23
8
31
Landowners
17
30
7
33
Guides
6
22
27
23
23
High use days in July (average
Other days in July (average
DRAFT Report June 2010
278
243
270
272
412
385
In July
Lower River guide boat capacities
Parallel questions asked about guide boat capacities on the Lower River (see below):
The peak number of guide boats on the Lower River at one time during "guide hours" (6 am to 6 pm, Tuesday
through Saturday) has varied over the years, In recent years in July, there are typically 100 to 150, with some
peaks about 200. There are lower numbers in other months.
Because guided boats are not evenly distributed and some users only fish a part of the river, boaters may
encounter fewer guided boats than these counts. However, there is interest in "starting a conversation" about a
"reasonable guide capacity estimate" for the Lower River the number of guided boats at one time before the
quality of trips is compromised. Can you make a "guided boat capacity estimate" for the Lower River in July?
(Check all responses that apply)
No, object to defining a "capacity" for guided boats
No, it depends on how guided boats are distributed
No, I'm concerned estimates will be used to limit guided boats, which I oppose
No, the number of guided boats doesn't matter to me
No, the number of guided boats doesn't matter to me as long as I'm catching fish
No, I care about the number of guided boats, but I don't know how to estimate this
No, it's too complicated
Yes (please provide your estimates below)
if you checked "yes" above, please estimate the maximum number of guided boats that should be on the Lower
River at one time. (Circle one number per row, if you checked any of the "no" responses, leave this question
blank),
50 100 150 200 250 300 400 500
600
Other
Tabl 14-4 (nr x t pane) sh r a use rs landowners, and guiriPq for the q io
Findings include:
The proportion responding to this series of questions was 42% among all users, 65% for landowners,
and. 56% for guides, reflecting use of the Lower River and interest in the issue.
Among respondents, 1 7% of the users, 31% of landowners and 16% of guides provided numerical
capacity estimates, so they are only a "starting point" for discussion.
Reasons for not providing an estimate among users were similar to those for "total boat capacities"
(see above). However, 46% of the guides object to identifying a capacity for guide boats. This is
consistent with their complaint that guides have been "singled out" to solve the Kenai's overuse
problems.
Among those willing to estimate a number:
o Most estimated capacities no higher than "typical" high use levels at the end of July (about 150
guide boats). Although use levels did not reach those levels in 2009, it has exceeded this on
several days in previous years. As with total boat capacity estimates, current peaks may
compromise experiences.
o Average capacity estimates were about 130 guide boats for users, but over 200 for guides,
consistent with guides' higher tolerances for crowding impacts and lower support for use limits.
o Differences between capacities on high vs. low use days were small, suggesting such distinctions
are less important.
DRAFT Report_ June 201111 Page 115
Table 14-4. Percent of responses related to Lower River guide boat capacities.
Percent of those willing to provide capacity esfimate
No, I object to defining a 'capacity" for guided boats
No, I'm concerned estimates will be used to limit boats,
which I oppose
No, the number of boats doesn't matter to me as long as
I'm catching fish
No, it's too compiicated
lid J'
who estimated 150 or less
who estimated 150 or less
All users
27
12
12
5
9
80
83
Landowners
31
4
3
8
5
79
89
Guides
46
28
34
6
0
55
67
DRAFT Pf ar6e €t1f Page 117
Upper River boat capacities
a lt: rte 'I.r
Parallel questions asked about boat capacities on the Upper River from Sportsman's to Jim's Landing, the
highest use segment (see below):
Upper River boating counts have increased in recent years. For 2004, the latest year with accurate data, the
number of boats passing the ferry per day in the fishing season...
averaged about 60 boats per day on weekdays
averages about 100 boats per day on weekends
d peaked over 200 boats per day on high use weekends (during red salmon runs)
O guided use is already limited on this segment, and typically ranges from 15 to 20 boats per day
Because everyone travels downstream, there are multiple channels, and there are many daylight hours,
people may encounter many fewer boats than these per day" counts. However, there is interest in "starting a
conversation" about a "reasonable boat capacity estimate" for the Upper River the number of boats per
day before the quality of trips is compromised. Can you make a capacity estimate for the Upper River
(specifically from Sportsman's Landing to Jim's Landing)? (Check all responses that apply)
No, it depends on how the boats are distributed
Li No, I'm concerned estimates will be used to limit boats, which I oppose
No, the number of boats doesn't matter to me
No the number of boats doesn't matter to me as long as I'm catching fish
No, care about the number of boats, but I don't know how to estimate this
No, its too complicated
Li Yes (please provide your estimates below)
If you checked 'yes" above, please estimate the "reasonable capacity" on the Sportsman's to Jim's Landing
segment the number of boats per day before the quality of trips is compromised. (if you checked any of the
"no" responses above, leave this question blank).
During red salmon runs
DRAFT t epo A n 2010
<50
75
100
150
200
250
300
400
Other
Table 14 (next page) shows responses for these questions. Findings include:
The proportion responding to these questions was 58% for all users, 41% for landowners, and 31%
for guides. Fewer in these latter two groups use the Upper River (guides are limited, there is less
private land, and powerboats are prohibited).
Among respondents, 18% of all users, 16% of landowners, and 46% of guides estimated capacities, so
estimates are only a "starting point" for discussion. The high proportion of guides makes sense given
that they are already limited (and probably have greater interest in limits on other users that wouldn
not affect them).
Among users, reasons for not providing an estimate were similar to those for the Lower River (see
above): 1) they weren't sure they could; 2) capacities depend on how boats are distributed; and 3)
they were concerned that estimates might be used to limit boats (which they oppose).
Among those willing to estimate a capacity, findings include:
o Most estimated capacities lower than 150 for red runs, much lower than existing peaks that may
reach 200 per day. As with Lower River capacity estimates (and consistent with crowding and
impact information from Chapter 6), existing peaks may compromise experiences.
o Average capacity estimates for red runs were about 160 boats for users, and 110 for guides. In
contrast to the Lower River, users (rather than guides) may worry about losing access if use was
limited {because guided use is already limited).
o Average capacity estimates on days outside the red runs were lower under 100, suggesting
different capacities during and outside the red runs.
Percent of those willing to provide capacity estimate
Table 14 -5. Percent of responses related to Upper River boat capacities.
it7
No, it depends on how the boats are distributed
No, the number of boats doesn't matter to me
No, I care about the number of boats, but i don't know
how to estimate this
During red runs (average)
During other times (average
Other comments on use limit actions
At users
18
22
10
36
157
150
Landowners
16
26
10
34
118
89
Guides
46
20
2
21
106
86
Taken together, findings show that most Kenai users, landowners, and guides are not enthusiastic about
use limits that might restrict their own access, but many support limits that might reduce someone else's
use. Users and landowners were particularly supportive of limits on guide boats or number of guides,
while guides support limits on unguided boats on the Upper River (where guides are already limited).
Other results are broadly consistent with findings that show some times and segments have high use
levels and associated impacts. Even though many respondents were unwilling to estimate capacities,
those with an opinion typically estimated capacities lower than current peaks.
This is relevant for long -term planning because recreation use levels on the Kenai are unlikely to stabilize
on their own. State, southcentral Alaska, and Kenai Peninsula populations will probably increase over the
next two decades, as will tourism -based visitation. Given the number of undeveloped residential lots on
the river and the increase in retirees from the "baby boom" demographic, increased local use is another
reasonable prediction. The likely result is increasing average and peak use levels which, left unmanaged,
will translate into higher impacts and changed recreation experiences.
DRAFT Report June 2010 P a p 1.19
Some suggest that use increases are not inevitable and may "self regulate," particularly if those sensitive
to higher use or impacts reduce or stop their river use. This study suggests some displacement and
product shift" are already occurring (see Chapter 9), but it is unclear whether this will displace enough
use to prevent increases. More importantly, "self regulation" of this sort creates interim degraded
conditions (the "stagnation and decline" components of the classic "tourism life cycle" (Butler, 1980;
Miller and Galluci, 2004).
It is also possible that stable or declining fishing participation trends in the United States (USFWS, 2006)
or Alaska (Romberg, 2006) may counter population or visitation increases. However, we doubt that these
trends will apply to accessible streams in southcentral Alaska, or a river as popular as the Kenai.
Research suggests the factors affecting fishing participation are complex (Aas, 1995; Fedler and Ditton,
2001; Romberg, 2006), and specific forecasts for the Kenai are beyond the scope of this study. But we
are skeptical that Kenai use will stabilize unless the fisheries decline first.
If use limits are eventually contemplated, it will be important to choose a capacity through a transparent
process with public and stakeholder input. The survey provides a starting point for discussion, but a
greater proportion of users will need to become calibrated to use levels to effectively debate "how much
is too much." Without advocating for a process to define capacities on the Kenai, we note that capacity
decisions are generally less contentious if they can be made before use approaches the Levels under
consideration and cutting back use is usually politically challenging. The Kenai may be past that point for
some segments and seasons, but there are others where capacities are not exceeded now, but could be in
the future. The sooner agencies explore this issue, the better the chance of developing consensus about
the level of use the river can sustain.
It is difficult to manage what you can't measure and discuss, so better information is a necessary step.
Toward this end we have made some use monitoring recommendations for river segments and seasons
likely to receive management attention in the future (see list at the end of this chapter). Measured
systematically and posted online, they could become useful information for anglers and stakeholders
when planning their trips or evaluating what they experienced. in the same way that published sonar
counts provide anglers with a metric to associate with fishing success and biological management goals,
published use information could improve the debate about appropriate use and impact levels.
In the meantime, there is little support for "fully implemented" use limits (e.g., permit systems that limit
people, boats, or camping groups per day). Nonetheless, there are other ways to indirectly influence use
levels. For example, limiting parking spaces at bank angling access points constrains the number of bank
anglers in an area like a State Park unit or the shore accessible by the Russian River Ferry. This is the
primary management tool in place at several Upper and Middle River locations, many of which have fee
parking and defined spaces. However, several of those sites probably allow too many vehicles when they
are completely full, especially because anecdotal evidence suggests many anglers have learned to carpool
or even take taxis to the parking lots, essentially increasing the people per parking space. To be effective,
more explicit decisions about capacities are needed. Angler proximity standards, estimates of anglers per
vehicle, and measurements of accessible shoreline for fishing can all help with this task for specific areas.
Another indirect use limit focuses on redistributing use through information. As discussed in Chapter 6,
this strategy is less likely to be effective with powerboat anglers targeting kings, who may concentrate
their use despite crowding or related impacts. But many other anglers may appreciate information about
use levels, and may adjust their trips to avoid peak days and segments. Publicized use information has
redistributed use information on Oregon's Deschutes River, and this might work to some extent on the
Kenai as well.
Juno 2010 Fagg 120
Finally, limiting guided use is a common strategy on many rivers. This has been adopted on the Upper
River and has been advocated by some unguided users and stakeholder groups for the Lower and Middle
River. But limiting guides at (for example) current use levels will not stop growth if non guided use
continues to increase. The next chapter covers guided /unguided issues in greater detail,
Direct use limits involve trade -offs, including greater regimentation and administrative costs (Brunson et
al., 1992). There are also choices about allocating use among different groups (e.g., commercial vs. non-
commercial users, motorized vs. non motorized users) and rationing method to use (e.g., reservations,
lotteries, first come /first- served). Information in the research literature explore use limit options (Shelby
Danley, 1980; Shelby et al., 1982; Shelby, Whittaker Danley, 1989; EDAW, 1995; Whittaker and
Shelby, 2008).
Recommended use level monitoring
The following use level data can be collected efficiently and provide indicators of use related impacts on
the Kenai. Some are already being collected, while others would require some investment. In all cases, it
is important to make the information accessible in "near real time" (e.g., with a day or two on a website)
so users can become "calibrated" to what they experienced or better plan future trips.
Lower River
Middle River
Collect and post daily during June and July and on Tuesdays, Thursdays, Saturdays, and Sundays from
August 1 through September 15.
Highest at one time ADF&G boat count for the entire Lower River on days when counts are
conducted. Information should include all boats counted (not just those fishing), but should
distinguish guided and unguided counts. These data are already being collected and "instantly"
submitted electronically to ADF&G staff but they are not generally publicized.
On ADF &G's non counting days in July, consider contracting a single at- one -time count between
about 8 and 10 am (the typical highest use period) using the same ADF &G protocols. This would
provide a count for every day in the month.
For August and early September, conduct at- one -time counts using ADF &G protocols on the four
days per week schedule.
Collect and post on Tuesdays, Thursdays, Saturdays, and. Sundays from the start of the second red run
(roughly July 10) through September:
Boats launching from Bing's Landing. This is available from fee information, but is not
systematically tallied by day.
Boat trailers parked at Lower Skilak (at one time count between 2 and 4 pm). This would require
new data collection. It might be contracted with shuttle drivers or guides who use the ramp most
days.
tipper River
Collect and post daily during red runs (roughly June 10 to June 30; July 15 to Aug 10) and on Tuesdays,
Thursdays, Saturdays, and Sundays through September 30:
DRAFT l R fort q. June 2010 Page 121
Boats launching from Cooper Landing per day. This is available from fee information, but not
systematically tallied by day.
Boats launching from Sportsman's per day. This is already available from 1 WS concessionaires, but
it is not published until the end of the season.
Ferry passengers per day,
Trailer count at Jim's Landing and across highway parking (at one time count between 2 and 4 pm).
This would require new data collection, but might be contracted with guides or shuttle drivers who
use the ramp most days.
For all data, it is important to develop clear protocols for counting methods. Once collected, data need to
be made publically available in user friendly form, thereby helping users develop better "calibration"
between use levels and their experiences. As with other (e.g., ADF &G) Kenai data, quality control is
important so those responsible for collecting, tabulating, or reporting/posting information need to be well
trained and conscientious.
DRAFT Report Jun 2010 Page f L2
Statements about guides
DRAFT Report June 2010
nk anglers
ft anglers
P werboat anglers
L ber of guided
U act
ide angers
D ift guides
P- iwerboat guides
B nk anglers
D ift anglers
g. 've
G ided anglers
D ift guides
P werboat guides
kan'lers
Dif
t�}er
U rs
o rs
D i4it!>ore fish
P werboat guides
B: nk anglers
D' ift anglers
P werboat anglers
nereetalims due toafew
U gut ivitiangtjuties
G tded anglers
D 'ft guides
P werbo t. quidqsi
2
15. Guided /Unguided Use Issues
This chapter provides information from the follow-up surveil about attitudes toward guide /unguided use
issues. It focuses on responses to 12 statements about guides, unguided users, and resolving conflicts
between them (on a 5 point agree disagree scale, with a neutral option). The statements were developed
from focus group comments about issues each group has with the other, reviewed by agencies and
stakeholders to reduce bias. The chapter concludes with other differences between guided and unguided
users and comments about addressing guided/unguided conflicts or limits.
Respondents were asked whether they agree or disagree with the following statements about guides or
guided use:
The total number of guided boats can detract from experiences.
Some guides tend to be "more aggressive" (such as getting too close to others, controlling a hole, or cutting
in front of other boats waiting to enter a drift).
Aside from other issues, some people are envious that guided anglers catch more fish.
Problems with guided use are mostly due to a few individual guides.
54%
66%
1
28%
36%
32%
38%
44%
66%
63%
74%
83
77%
76%
78%
83%
1 90°
87%
75%
74%
77%
87%
76%
74%
74%
75%
71%
83%
:i 96i°
90%
100% 80% 60% 40% 20% 0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%
strongly or slightly disagree slightly or strongy agree
Figure 15 -1. Percent agreeldisagree with common statements about guided use.
Page
Figure 15 -1 provides results for different groups. Findings include:
e Most respondents in all groups except powerboat guides agree that the number of guided boats can
detract from trips. This fits with other findings showing there are segments and seasons when use and
impacts too high, but further suggesting guided use is part of the problem for many users (and even
some guides).
Group differences on "the number of guide boats detract" make sense; unguided users were more
likely to agree. In addition, drift or bank anglers were less likely to agree, probably because they are
more likely to use the Upper River (where guide boats are already limited).
Sixty -nine to 90% of all groups agree that some guides can be "aggressive" on the river, and
responses are highly correlated with "the number of guides can detract" (r =0.67, p<.001). The 1992
study discussed this issue (Whittaker and Shelby 1993), noting that guides have at the least a "serious
public relations problem." These data suggest that problem has not gone away, although 2009 data
do not quantify the amount aggressive behavior or the proportion of guides who engage in it. The
Kenai Guide Academy initiative (a week -long course all guides are required to complete) has
probably helped improve guide etiquette, but it seems clear that some guides continue practices that
others resent.
O Users and landowners were divided over whether "envy" about higher guided catch rates helps
explain antipathy toward guided use, although 74 to 77% of guides agree with this statement. The
disparity in catch -rates is striking, but "catch -rate envy" is not widespread (or at least not reported)
among the users presumed to possess it.
Seventy -one to 96% of all groups agree that most guided use problems are caused by a few individual
guides, but this was not correlated p=.254-) with concern about some guides' aggressive
behavior. As discussed in the 1992 study, guides themselves are in the best position to identify and
"sanction" fellow guides who practice aggressive behavior, and "failure to take up this challenge will
probably increase the call for further guide restrictions." Even so, the perception among users is that
aggressive behavior from guides is more widespread than "a few individuals."
Statements about unguided users
Respondents were asked to agree or disagree with the following statements about unguided use:
Some unguided users do not have the appropriate boat equipment to fish in higher density areas.
Some unguided users disrupt fishing for others when they use inappropriate fishing techniques (such as
drifting when others are back trolling or vice versa).
Some unguided users don't know the "rules" for driving on the river and create safety hazards.
Problems with unguided users are mostly due to a few individuals,
DRAFT Report: June 20 ^0 Page 124
B nk anglers
D ift anglers
P \FootbeatroOkikeld users 2
merge appropriate
U ogit Gi 04tts for
areas
ui.es
P►werboat guides
B. nk anglers
D ift anglers
P vairPakkoggittm
U
Otr r. pt fishing
Riate
P werboat guides
B.nk an.iers
Vae
fikK
ers
D ift guides
P.werboat guides
B:.nk anglers
D ift anglers
P awerboat anglers
L ribtAblaxnEs due to a few
U 9uitiedlaagieiguided users
ided anglers
D ift guides
P,werboat guides
WEISSISINSSEM
5
54%
2
1
t1
9
100% 80% 60% 40% 20%
0%
50%
20% 40%
51%
62%
59%
8%
58%
64%
67%
68%
88%
1 88%
65%
73%
71%
69%
66%
77%
64%
69%
1 82%
81%
70%
74%
76%
82%
77%
76%
81%
72p1
60% 80%
9
6
100%
strongly or slightly disagree slightly or strongy agree
Figure 15 -2. Percent agree /disagree with common statements about unguided use.
Figure 15-2 provides results for different groups; findings include:
Most boating users agree that some unguided users lack th appropriate equipment, or boats to fish in
high density situations, and even more agree that some unguided users don't know the "rules of the
road." Responses to the two statements were also correlated (r =0.64, p <.001). Guides agree with
these statements more strongly still, confirming focus group discussion that this is a major source of
friction from the guide perspective. It is not surprising that some unguided users have less river
running knowledge (or less capable boats /equipment) than guides, but widespread recognition of the
problem provides support for increased boater safety education or regulations
O Most users and an even more guides agree that some unguided users disrupt others by using
inappropriate fishing techniques. Responses to this statement were also highly correlated with
"unguided users don't have appropriate boats /equipment" (r =0.69, p <.001) and "unguided users don't
know rules of the road" (r=0.77, p<.001). Taken together, these findings imply that interference
impacts can be reduced if more users improve their boats /equipment, learn to drive better, and fish in
sync with others. Education efforts that encourage this are likely to receive support from both sides.
Majorities (64 to 82 of all groups agree that most unguided use problems stem from behavior of a
few individuals, an analogous finding to the parallel question about guides. However, responses to
this statement were only weakly correlated with others related to unguided use (r 0.13).
Identifying and improving that behavior through education or regulation would garner support from
both groups.
DRAFT Report' jUP 2010 Page 12.5
Statements about other guided /unguided use issues
Respondents were asked to agree or disagree with four additional statements about guides or guided use:
No one group is the problem, everyone needs to share the burden of reducing impacts.
The burden of reducing impacts should be proportional to the group that is causing the impacts.
Limiting guided use is a good way to reduce overall use.
Local economic benefits from guided use are more important than overuse issues_
A
u
users
.:owners
werboat guides
1 users
giftSkaV rs
ifirsoidgttbnal to group
workbag s
73%
D
P
A
0
P
P
P
L
u
P
DV T Report a June 2010
Sway
A l users
L ndowners
U guided angl
'idea anglers
D ift guides
Pfrryrerbpat guides
4
100% 80% 60% 40%
3
1 91 /o
1 87%
1 87%
20% 0%
f0
21%
38%
50%
51%
55%
77%
73%
78%
2%
76%
69%
67%
75%
70%
83%
24% Local econc
14% benefits trot
14% guided use
Aga/, mare import.
29% titan overus
1 457P i1sues
20% 40% 60% 80% 100%
strongly or slightly disagree slightly or strongy agree
Figure 15 -3. Percent agreeidisagree with other statements about guided unguided use issues.
Figure 15 -3 provides results for different groups; findings include:
Large majorities (73 to 91%) of all groups agree that "everyone should share the burden of reducing
impacts." This proportion drops substantially for powerboat guides (to 50 for the statement "the
burden...should be proportional to the groups causing the impacts," probably reflecting concern that
guided use will be limited more than others. Nonetheless, there is conceptual agreement that reducing
impacts is important and should be shared.
Differences between the two groups become more apparent regarding the concept of limiting guides
to address overuse, and responses are consistent with rational self- interest. Limiting guides would
reduce use and impacts at no cost to unguided users, and 70% support it, while guides see lost access
for their group only. Guided users are more divided, but more disagree than agree (48% to 38
33 P€r
Some of these differences are similar for the statement about local economic impacts from guided use
being more important than overuse issues. Most users (particularly unguided users and landowners)
do not think economic benefits "trump" overuse issues. This is also a rational position, as most
would experience better conditions with few direct effects on their own situation. In contrast, guides
are more divided, with powerboat guides more likely to agree than driftboat guides.
Other differences between guided unguided users
Additional analysis explored other issues. Findings include:
A model predicting agreement with "limiting guided use is a good way to reduce overall use"
(R can he improved with other variables, but frequency of guided trips is still the biggest
predictor:
Frequency of guided trips (r=- 0.31); less guided use �i more agreement on limiting guides.
Quality of trips over the years (r= 0.31); more decline more agreement on limiting guides.
Support for use limits in general (r- 0.15); more support more agreement on limiting guides.
Quality of management over the years (r=- 0.11); less improvement in management more
agreement on limiting guides.
The frequency of guided use was significantly correlated with many other variables, but mostly at low
levels (e.g., less than 0.20). Those with higher correlations include:
Guided users reported less crowding, r= -0.20.
Unguided users have reduced /stopped use of some segments more often, r- -0.20.
Unguided users support limiting guided boats on Lower River in July more, r -0.32
Unguided users support limiting total guides on Lower River more, r= -0.31
Unguided users support guide limits per day on Middle River more, r =-0.23
Unguided users support limiting the number of guides (in general) more, r -.25
Other information about guided use
There are many ways to assess the amount of guided use, its contribution to overall use levels, and
whether limiting guides or guide boats per day wouid be effective. In addition to information in Chapter
3 on use levels, we have assembled several graphs that approach the issue in different ways.
Figure 15 -4 shows the number of commercial operator permits on the Kenai from 1982 to the present
(from State Parks data base). The figure shows the number of powerboat guides, drift guides, non fishing
guides, fishing guides, and total guides. Note that some categories can overlap (a non fishing guide could
also he counted in the drift guide total). A companion figure (Figure 15 -5) uses the same data to project
guide numbers out to 2020, assuming long -term trends remain the same. Findings include:
The total number of commercial operators is largely driven by the number of powerboat fishing
guides. Powerboat guides make up 80 to 85 percent of all guides in recent years, and fishing guides
make up 88 to 93% of all guides.
Powerboat guides have increased over the long term although there have been fluctuations for short
periods and the last two years have been down (the 322 in 2009 was about 13% lower than the highest
peak at 372 in 2007). A continued poor national economy and projected weak salmon runs appears
likely to reduce this further in 2010. Another 6 to 7% drop would put powerboat guide numbers
around 300, the 2000 -04 level.
The number of drift guides has been about 60 to 80 over the past 25 years.
DR: F Report ffi Jute 2010 Page 1Z7
The number of non fishing operators (including boat rentals, shuttle operators, guided kayak tours on
the lakes, and a horseback guide) has increased over the years, although at a slightly lower rate than
powerboat guides.
If historical trends were lo continue at the same rate (Figure 15 -5), the total number of commercial
operations might approach 500 by 2020, of which about 470 would be fishing guides. Powerboat
guides would approach 450, drift -based guides would slightly decline to 65, and non fishing guides
increase to about 60.
300
100
Minter aPguides
�I ccmmnczi operdtais
0 'I 1 1 I
1982 1984 1986 1988 1990 1992 1994 1998 1998 2301 2002 2004 206 2608
Figure 15 -4. Number of commercial operators by category,1982 -2009 (from State Parks).
DRAFT Repot 2010 Page 128
1011
a.�
Istafiding guicks
Dift gists
s
t
1962 1964 1986 1988 1990 1992 1994 1996 1998 2700 2802 2004 2006 2008 2010 2012 2014 2016 2018 2727
Figure 15-5. Historical trends for number of commercial operators by category (from State Parks).
DRAFT R po Page 129
The total number of guides may not be the best indicator of guided use levels on any segment or day,
which is probably more important for management. Discussion about guide limits often focuses on the
]..lower River during July, when both kings and reds attract high use. ADF &G counts show that guided
use makes up about 65% of at -one -time use when both guided and unguided users are on the river (6 am
to 6 pm, Tuesdays through Saturdays). Does that proportion hold on highest use days (the days more
likely to be "over capacity" and likely target for use limits on guides or all boaters). Figure 15 -6 shows
the total number of boats during the four highest counts for each of the past five years, as well as the
proportion of guided use during those counts.
T
T
T
T
19
26
30
18
22
25
29
17
21
28
31
19
26
29
18
22
25
WSNNENMIMNWMMMWMBIEEIERYLVMSIOSNOMYBZEMVMM
358
6
341
340
382
41
4
try 341
419
zfAsammaRzaegamos 386
4T
451
440
455
465
T
T
T
T
100% 80% 60% 40% 20% 0
Percent guided
�l1
100 200 300 400 500 600
Total boat count
Figure 15 -6. Total Lower River boat counts and percent of boats
that were guided on high use days in July, 2005-2009.
Findings include:
As discussed in Chapter 3, Lower River boating levels on high use days were higher from 2005 -07
than in the past two years. High use in 2009 was generally less than 350 boats, while it commonly
exceeded 400 to 450 in previous years.
The percent of guided use varies across high use days. On some days it exceeds the July average of
59% (or the full season average of 65 but on most days it is about 50 to 55
Guided use provides the majority of use on high use days, but unguided use is variable and
determines how high use will go.
During the 1992 study, there were only 212 total powerboat guides, and the "rule of thumb" estimate
was that guided use contributed about one -third of total use on the Lower River. In recent years,
there have been as many as 372 powerboat guides, and the guided contribution is usually greater than
65% during the early king run, about 59% during July, and varies between 50 and 70% on high use
days.
Similar data is not available for the Middle and Upper River, but most evidence (discussed in Chapter 3)
suggests guide proportions are much smaller. On the Upper River, the number of guides and starts per
DRAF `f Report w June 2010 Page 130
guide per week are limited, and 2004 photo data suggests less than a third of all boats are guided (with
about half of guided trips scenic rather than fishing). On the Middle River, 2004 FWS interview data
from July and October suggest guided use is about 25% and 22% of all boats, respectively. 2009 data
suggests this may be increasing to about 31%. This may be an area where future monitoring could help
identify trends.
Residency of guides is often discussed as part of the guided /unguided debate. The proportion of guides
with Alaskan residency shows it has varied between 68 and 81% over the years from 1982 to present,
with an average of 76% (Iowest in the late 1980s, 76% in 2009).
Other comments on guided unguided use issues
Taken together, preceding information suggests some common ground. Education and regulation that
improves 1) guide etiquette or 2) unguided craft, equipment, skills, and knowledge are likely to be
supported by all sides. Similarly, most will support efforts to identify and sanction individual guides or
unguided users responsible for problem behaviors. If these programs actually improve behavior on high
use days, some friction will be reduced.
However, even significantly improved behavior (by guides) or improved skill and equipment ((among
unguided users) is unlikely to remove the fundamental tension between these groups, particularly on the
Lower River during .Sly. Guides are easily identified on the river, they make up the majority of use
during "guide hours," they have a majority of clients from out of state, and their numbers have grown in
the past two decades. It is not surprising that unguided users support guide limits that won't apply to
them. Guides also represent a commercial use, and there is long tradition of restricting commercial
recreation uses before all uses in recreation settings (Whittaker and Shelby, 2008).
Many guides are aware of this perspective and "push back" to protect their access. Common rebuttals
include: 1) guided users are part of the public too; 2) guides offer opportunities to people without skill or
equipment; 3) guides are skilled operators that can help establish "best practices" or help with rescues
(when needed); 4) guided use produces local economic benefits; 5) guide access is already restricted to
specific days and hours (and limited on the Upper River); and 6) unguided use has also increased over the
years and should be part of any use limit effort.
These opposing perspectives will make it challenging to develop consensus opinion about the need for or
appropriate level of guided use limits (or all user limits). If agencies contemplate guide limits to meet
capacity goals, they should brace for contentious debates and possibly litigation. In these situations, a
transparent decision making process and extensive opportunity to engage stakeholders will be important
to develop reasonable objectives, apply limits that accomplish those objectives, and treat different groups
fairly.
To help work through such a process, agencies and stakeholders might consider the following:
Guide limits are an issue on the entire river, but not all commercial use is growing and it is possible to
target specific segments and seasons (as do Upper River guide limits). The Lower River in July is the
most prominent segment /season where guide limits are a major issue, although unguided users
support such limits on the Middle River too,
O Many rivers with substantial commercial use and overuse problems have limited guided use, often
without limiting unguided use. But unless one expects all the growth in use to be guided, limits on
guides alone will not solve the problem. On the Upper River, for example, limits on guides have
probably slowed but not stopped increasing use.
DRAFT Report June 20t0 Paga 131
Bid
O Unless guide limits are substantially lower than current levels, they are unlikely to dramatically
reduce use levels. For example, during high use periods on the Lower River (e.g., peak counts over
400 boats per day), guided use may account for 200 to 250 boats, so a 20% reduction in guided use
would only remove 40 to 50 boats (probably noticeable, but within current day -to -day variation
experienced on the river).
Guide limits for the Lower River in July are probably best viewed as a way to slow future growth of
the largest use sector. If a freeze on guide numbers had been implemented in the early 1990s (when
first proposed), there would be 30 to 40% less guided boats now. The open question is whether this
long -term growth trends will continue going forward.
a Limiting the commercial sector first tends to pre determine a "split allocation approach" if a full
system is ever implemented. The advantages and disadvantages of "split allocation" vs. "common
pool" approaches are complex and beyond the scope of this document, but these need to be carefully
examined. A full discussion of river use allocation issues (not to be confused with fishery allocation)
is in Whittaker and Shelby, 2008.
Although over 100 rivers in the country have guide limits specified (with many agencies actively
managing the number of guides or other components of their use), including several federally
managed rivers in Alaska (e.g., Alsek, Gu]kana, Upper Kenai, Karluk, Togiak Refuge rivers). The
State of Alaska has a shorter history and different guide regulation structure that has focused more on
certifying safe operations than regulating the amount of use.
Many use limits (including limits on guides alone) on Lower 48 rivers were supported by existing
guides who were concerned that rising use was degrading their trips. That support often rested on the
assumption that existing guides would retain "grandfather rights" to operate, and open question in
Alaska.
If guide limits are contemplated, consequences will vary depending upon the type of limit (e.g., the
total number of guides vs. the number of guide boats for a specific segment or period). In general,
limiting overall number of guides is a "broader" action. Many of the Kenai's overuse problems
appear on the highest use days, so it makes sense to also target those periods.
If a split approach is taken, one major challenge will be to determine an "appropriate" split (which
may vary by segment, season, or time of day). Because current use on the Lower and Middle River is
unrestricted, a fair assessment of market- driven demand is possible for these segments; once use is
limited, assessing demand becomes nearly impossible leading to value -based debates and difficulty
developing objectives -based decisions.
It is always more challenging to reduce use rather than freeze it; reductions represent loss of income
or access, while a freeze only prevents growth. Given that market conditions appear to be driving
current guide numbers to roughly 2000 -04 levels, there may be a "window" for an interim freeze to
allow agencies, stakeholders, and the public to work through a range of management actions. Such a
freeze would protect current guides, which is probably preferable to allowing growth and then
deciding that reductions are necessary.
DRAFT Report Juaae. 2010 Page 132
This chapter reports responses from the Follow -up survey regarding user fees. .Respondents were asked if
they would he willing to pay user fees. Other issues related to fees in river settings are also reviewed.
User fees are often used to help offset the costs of managing recreation areas. Various federal agencies
have day use camping, and boat launching fees at facilities across Alaska, although most are not for
simple use of the river. On some rivers in the Lower 48 (e.g., Colorado River in Grand Canyon, Oregon's
Deschutes, Idaho's Middle Fork and Main Salmon rivers), daily fees above and beyond facility use have
been in place for many years and are widely accepted.
Opinions about user fees
2009 respondents were asked:
1992 respondents were asked a similar question:
Users
yes in 2009
%yesin
KenE, R e
16. User Fees
Management of the Kenai River (facility maintenance, river patrols, etc.) is currently funded by
state and federal budgets. Would you be willing to pay a 'user fee" on the Kenai (beyond launch or
other facility fees already charged), assuming that ail revenues would be returned to help manage
the river?
no yes
How much would you be willing to pay?
dollars per day
dollars per season
Would you be willing to pay a "user fee" on the Kenai if it were used to increase the quality of services
provided?
The 1992 question was modified because 1) several new facility fees have been introduced since 1992; 2)
agencies wanted to clarify that revenues from fees would be used to help manage the river; and 3) fees we
wanted to ask about were above and beyond current facility -based fees. Despite these differences, it is
useful to compare findings from the two different studies (Table 16 -1).
Table 16 -1. Percent willing to pay user fees and average amounts.
Average per day 2009
Average 1992 (inflation adjustE
Average per season 2009
Average 1992 (mflation aw jI st
DRAFT Report P June 2010
All Bank Drift Powerboat Land- Drift Powerboat
users anglers anglers anglers owners guides guides
48
47
6 5
49 40
1
55
61 75
7
59
Note: Average fees in parentheses adjusted for inflation to 2009 dollars.
Incs
38
5
49
7 (26
30
39
26
48
4
aske
107
not as.
32
Other fee considerations
)g,s 1 l:
F indings include:
Just under half of all users are willing to pay user fees; drift anglers were the only group with a
majority reporting a willingness to pay. Powerboat anglers, landowners, and powerboat guides were
least willing to pay.
Substantially fewer users were willing to pay user fees in 2009 than 1992 (48% vs. 61 Possible
explanations include:
1) The new preamble to the question changes how respondents interpreted the question (in
particular, the 1992 question emphasized "improving quality" rather than collecting fees
"beyond...facility fees
2) Several new day use fees have been added at State Parks or other recreation facilities on the river
since 1992; this may have induced some "fee fatigue" among users.
3) The downturn in the 2009 economy.
4) General anti- government or anti -tax sentiment.
Of those willing to pay in 2009, average amounts were $5 to 7 per day and $40 to 50 per season.
Adjusted for inflation, per day amounts were lower than in 1992 but per season amounts were higher.
2009 differences between drift and powerboat anglers were similar to a study of 1999 Gulkana River
users, where there was more willingness to pay among drift anglers (61 than powerboaters (42
When considering fees, planners should recognize that fee collection introduce a larger "management
footprint" on trips. Fees may also dampen use levels, a potential way to redistribute use from higher to
lower use areas. There is anecdotal evidence that variable launch fees affect use levels at Kenai launches
(e.g., and the Deschutes River in Oregon has effectively applied "congestion fees" (higher fees on
weekends) to redistribute use from weekends to weekdays.
In addition to these direct effects on users, fee programs may also impact future management choices in
subtle ways. If user fees lead to lower legislative appropriations for management, for example, agency
revenue streams dependent on higher use levels could lead some agencies to favor higher density
opportunities. Agencies might also become more interested in developed opportunities that typically
feature higher fees and revenues. Taken together, fee programs run the risk of "commercializing"
recreation experiences, with direct, indirect, and sometimes unintended consequences. Fee programs can
be an important source of management revenue, but fees may be more appropriate for some situations
than others, and deserve consideration beyond the issue of whether people are willing to pay them.
Additional information about fees (their history, advantages, disadvantages, and public support for them)
is available in an annotated bibliography on the topic (Puttkamer, 2001).
DRAFT Report o June 2010 l 134
17. Non Recreation Development Issues
This chapter reviews responses from the follow -up survey about private land development (with a
particular focus on the visual impacts of riverside development, which State Parks has some
responsibility,for). Respondents were asked about current development and permitting requirements.
Preferred levels of development
Respondents were asked to identify the appropriate level of river front development (e.g., docks and
fishing platforms) from a visual perspective. Specific wording for the question follows; it was asked for
each of the three segments:
Public and private and owners on the Kenai River are currently allowed to develop up to one
third of their riverfront property with docks or fishing platforms, For the entire river, at least 12%
of the river's banks have been developed.
Based on this information and your experience, how much development is appropriate from a
visual perspective? (Please check one response for each segment you visit).
Development should be reduced
Keep it near current levels
Allow it to increase slightly
Allow it to increase substantially
Allow it to double
Allow it to triple
I'm uncomfortable answering this (please specify why below)
If you are uncomfortable estimating an appropriate level of bankside development, check at
reasons that apply. (If you identified a development level above, leave this question blank).
1 just don't know
I care about visual impacts but it is difficult to specify an appropriate amount.
I care about visual impacts but the appropriate amount depends on the type location of development.
i don't care about visual impacts as long as there is "no net loss" of fish habitat.
i don't care about visual impacts because property owners have a right to create recreation facilities.
Results for all users are given in Figure 17-1 and Table 17 -1; additional information is in the
supplemental report. Findings include:
Most users favor current levels of development (about 55 or reductions (about 20 Of those
favoring more development, most prefer slight increases, and less than 5% prefer doubling or tripling
development (which current regulations allow).
Differences for the three segments were small, suggesting a broader underlying attitude toward
development (for most, "don't let development increase
Differences between groups were small.
Among those uncomfortable identifying a preferred development level, 36 to 53% said it depends on
the type and location of development. Several verbatim comments specified how some development
was preferred to bank. trampling (see supplemental report).
DRAFT Report Jun. 2 0 Page
n
I just don't know
care about visual impacts but the appropriate amount depends on
the type and location of development.
I care about visual impacts but it is difficult to specify an
appropriate amount.
don't care about visual impacts because property owners have a
right to create recreation access facilities,
I don't care about visual impacts as long as there is "no net loss" of
fish habitat.
1. Among respondents in each group that identified any reasons,
0
an
e
Figure 17.1. Preferred level of bankside development along Kenai River segments among users.
Table 17 -1. For those uncomfortable answering development levels, percent identifying reasons.
All users All guides Landowners
n-459 n=99 n =98
31 13 14
36 51 53
27 32 23
10 14 17
13 25 16
DRAFT Report Jwie 2010 Page 136
Opinions toward land use regulations and permitting
Two questions asked respondents to agree or disagree on a 5 point scale with general statements about
land use regulations and development along the Kenai. Results are shown in Figure 17 -2.
L
A
A I users
In general, permitting
requirements for docks,
Iks, and
erosion control
structures are too
restrictive.
G Ades
In general, existing
zoning and permitting
La rnents protect
the river from
over development.
G
strongly or slightly disagree
100% 80% 60% 40% 20% 0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%
slightly or strongy agree
Figure 17 -2. Percent agree /disagree with statements about permitting.
Findings include:
Fifty -two percent of landowners find permitting requirements too restrictive, while users and guides
are more divided. Landowners have first -hand experience with and may be responding to specific
permitting requirements, while others may be interpreting the question through a broader perspective
about whether restrictions seem fair.
Fifty -three to sixty -two percent of all three groups agree that existing zoning and permitting
requirements protect the river from overdevelopment, which fits with support for the status quo level
of development (reported in Figure 17 -1).
DRAFT Report a Jun 2010 Page 137
18. Concluding comments
The preceding chapters document use and impact levels on the Kenai River and support for management
actions that might be used to address them. Taken together, information supports a common narrative
about the Kenai: there are times and places where use and impacts diminish the quality of experiences,
and the river is "not what it used to be." Results also show considerable support for some actions
(particularly development and education) to address these problems, but more divided opinion about
several regulation options, changes in the type of use (e.g., more drift -only times /segments), or use limits
(for guides or all users).
Implementing actions with greater support should be possible, contingent on agency budgets. But
choosing among actions with less support is likely to be challenging, with extensive stakeholder and
public debate. One goal of this report is to inform agencies, stakeholders, and the public about issues in
these debates. We also offer the following comments:
Management on the Kenai River might be characterized as "mature." The river has been popular and
heavily used for over five decades, and agencies have been concerned about impacts from that use for
at least three. Along with planning and management activities by local and federal agencies, State
driven planning efforts have produced a comprehensive management plan in 1986 and a revision in
1998. These existing plans provide general direction for addressing overuse problems, as well as
constraints on what can be done. It's unlikely that a major overhaul of these plans is needed, and
most initiatives can be developed with "step- down" plans or amendments to the existing
Comprehensive Plan.
It is important that new initiatives be considered in a comprehensive manner and coordinated with
relevant partner agencies. One can liken this to a doctor's prescription to an aging athlete: the
prescription may include exercise, diet, and training advice, in addition to vitamins or drug therapies.
But the athlete can't expect high performance unless all the advice is taken; focusing on just one part
of the prescription is likely to be ineffective (and possibly harmful).
The KRSMA advisory board offers an institutional mechanism for prioritizing and considering
initiatives in a comprehensive fashion. The board and its related Guide, Habitat, and River Use
Committees have representation from multiple agencies and stakeholders, with a structure for
reviewing ideas, considering information, and formulating a reasonable range of management
alternatives to address a problem. Agencies could then review and refine alternatives, conduct
additional analysis as needed, and present options for public review. Utilizing KRSMA as the
initiation point for this process ensures better cross agency and stakeholder coordination. But
committees made up of multiple and sometimes opposing groups often have difficulty developing
strategies that go beyond the "least common denominator" (easier actions with consensus support or
uncomplicated actions). In our experience, leadership from a lead agency can be crucial in
overcoming this disadvantage.
The KRSMA board typically meets from fall through spring, and chooses issues through an ad hoc or
reactive process. A more systematic prioritization of issues conducted in early fall might help
organize the scope of issues they will tackle each year. Study results about issue priorities might
provide a useful starting point. Without a commitment to particular issues, it is too simple to "punt"
on challenging problems.
This study provides considerable information for addressing several issues, but other issues may still
not be "ripe" for resolution without continued monitoring or longer -term attention from the public.
For example, even if there were support for boating use limits, it is challenging to set a definitive
DRAFT Report R June 2010 P ?ge 138
capacity for some segments because data are not reported and is difficult for users to associate use
levels with impacts they care about. This study provides information about potential standards for
social impact indicators (e.g., perceived crowding, bank angling proximity, boating interference
incidents, fishing competition), but broader acceptance of capacities is more likely if users become
familiar with the use levels that would start to violate those standards. Developing an efficient but
meaningful measure of use, then collecting and publicizing that information is important to educate
everyone about use- impact relationships.
Chapter 14 described the probability of increased use over the long -term and recognition that use may
not become "self regulating." Kenai recreation use is a classic "tragedy of the commons" situation,
where there is no incentive for individuals or groups to constrain its own growing use, even though
the collective impacts will inevitably degrade the resource. The solution to this problem, as discussed
in the economics and recreation literature (Hardin, 1968; Shelby Heberlein, 1986; Manning, 2007),
is always some variation of "mutual coercion, mutually agreed upon" collective actions that limit
all groups in equitable ways. The history of resource management (whether applied to fish, forests, or
recreation use) suggests a "line in the sand" will be needed at some point. If there is not sufficient
public interest or political will to define that line now, good management should at least inform
agencies, stakeholders, and the public about current conditions, how they may worsen in the future,
and what is needed to stabilize or improve them.
Ultimately, we hope agencies, stakeholders, and the public use information from this study to make
conscious decisions about the kind of recreation opportunities and conditions they want on the Kenai
River. The goal should be "management by design" rather than "management by default." Higher
density opportunities are not inherently better or worse than lower density ones, but Disneyland is
different from wilderness. Obviously the Kenai falls between these two extremes, but more
recreation development or regulation may be needed to handle the volume of use if there is no
political will to limit use. The challenge is to make deliberate and well informed decisions about
"what kind of place the Kenai will be."
DRAFT h e port a June 2010 Pa 139
DRAFT Report Jute; 2010
wal utr'rx f
1.9, Supplemental Report Sections
Excerpts from Forest Service Report on Upper River bear -human incidents.
Additional information from the study is provided in a separate electronic report. Sections in that report
include:
Onsite surveys copies of the survey instruments for drift anglers, powerboat anglers, bank anglers,
and non anglers.
Follow -up surveys copies of the survey instrument for users, landowners, and guides.
Fieldwork notes information from 2009 fieldwork.
Focus group notes notes from 8 focus groups used to develop the survey instruments.
Use observation forms copies of the use and impact observations forms used to collect information
from on the river.
2009 use level information additional graphs and tables from use data provided by other agencies
and studies (collected in one place for convenience).
Use observation results additional tables with use data for comparisons in future years.
Onsite survey results additional tables and analyses for sub groups and segments.
Follow -up survey results additional tables and analyses for sub groups and segments.
6 Verbatim comments open ended comments from onsite and follow -up surveys by group and topic,
Study technician observations a summary of observations from the Upper River technician, with
particular attention to Jim's Landing congestion issues.
1�
s apt
20. References
Adelman, B. J., Heberiein, T. A., Bonnicksen, T. M. (1982). Social psychological explanations for the
persistence of a conflict between paddling canoeists and motorcraft users in the Boundary Waters Canoe
Area. Leisure Sciences, 5, 45 -61.
Alaska State Parks. 1993. Kenai River Carrying Capacity Study. Final Report. October. Alaska
Department of Natural Resources, Division of Parks and Recreation, Anchorage, Alaska.
Brunson, .M., B. Shelby, and J. Goodwin. 1992. Matching impacts with standards in the design of
wilderness permit systems. In Standards for Wilderness Management. Pacific Northwest Research Station
Gen. Tech. Report #PNW GTR 305, Portland, Oregon.
Butler, R.W., The concept of a tourist area cycle of evolution. Canadian Geographer, 1980. 24(1): p. 5-12.
Cohen, J. 1994. The earth is round (p<.05). American. Psychologist, 49, 997 -1001
Clark, Roger N. and Stankey, George H. 1979. The recreation opportunity spectrum: A framework for
planning, management and research. USDA, Forest Service, Pacific Northwest Forest Experiment
Station; General Technical Report PNW -98, Portland, OR.
Cole, David N. and George H. Stankey. 1998. Historical development of Limits of Acceptable Change:
Conceptual clarifications and possible extensions. In: McCool, S.F. and Cole, D.N. and others (Comps.),
Proceedings: Limits of Acceptable Change and Related Planning Processes: Progress and Future
Directions, pp. 5 -9; May 20 -22, 1997, Missoula, MT. Gen. Tech. Rpt. INT- GTR -371. Ogden, UT:
USDA Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Research Station.
Cole, David N., Margaret E. Petersen and Robert E. Lucas. 1987. Managing wilderness recreation use:
Common problems and potential solutions. USDA, Forest Service, Intermountain Forest and Range
Experiment Station. General Technical Report INT -230. Ogden, UT. 60 pp.
Cordell, H. Ken; Super, Gregory K. 2000. Trends in Americans' outdoor recreation. In: Gartner, William
C.; Lime, David W., eds. Trends in outdoor recreation, leisure and tourism. Wallingford, United
Kingdom: CABI Publishing: 133-144.
Davis, J. 2006. The Environmental Preference of Whitewater Kayakers on Four Southeastern Rivers. In
Proceedings from 28th Annual Southeastern Recreation Research (SERR) Conference. February 26 -28,
2006. Wilmington, North Carolina
Dawson, C. and Alberga, K. A. 2003. Acceptable number of user encounters: a study of Adirondack
and Great Gulf Wilderness hikers. Proceedings of the 2003 Northeastern Recreation Research
Symposium GTR -NE -317.
Donnelly, M. P., Vaske, J. J., Whittaker, D., Shelby, B. 2000. Toward an understanding of norm
prevalence: A comparative- analysis. Environmental Management, 25(4), 403 -414.
EDAW. (1995). Reservation systems for boating on the Lower Deschutes River. Consultant report for
Oregon Parks and Recreation Division, Salem, OR.
DRAFT Report June 201 1; Page 141
ons
Fisher, Roger, William L. Ury and Bruce Patton. Getting to Yes: Negotiating Agreement Without Giving
In, 2nd Edition Boston: Houghton Mifflin Co., April 1992.
Graefe, Alan R.; Kuss, Fred R.; Vaske, Jerry J. 1990. Visitor impact management: the planning
framework: Volume 2. Washington DC: National Parks and Conservation Association. 105 p.
Graefe, A. Thapa., B. 2004. Conflict in natural resource recreation. In Society and Natural Resources:
A summary of knowledge. 209 -224. Editors: Manfredo, M. ,I., Vaske, J. J., Bruyere, B., Field, D. L., 7
Brown, P. J. Modern Litho: Jefferson, MO.
Haas, G. R. 2004. On the waterfront: Vital judicial ruling addresses visitor capacity. Parks and
Recreation. September.
Hardin, G. 1968. The Tragedy of the Commons. Science 162: 1243 -48.
Heberlein, T. A., Vaske, J. J. (1977). Crowding and visitor conflict on the Bois Bruce river. (Report
WISC WRC 77 -04). University of Wisconsin: Water Resources Center.
Hendricks, W.W. 1995. A Resurgence in Recreation Conflict Research: Introduction to the Special Issue.
Leisure Sciences. 17. 157 -158
Jacob, G., Schreyer, R. 1980. Conflict in outdoor Recreation: A theoretical perspective. Journal of
Leisure Research, 12, 368 -380.
Jackson, E.L. and Wong, R.A.G. 1982. Perceived conflict between urban cross country skiers and
snowmobilers in Alberta. Journal of Leisure Research 14(1): 47 -62.
Johnson, R.L., B. Shelby, and N. Bregenzer. 1990. Economic values and product shift on the Rogue
River: A study of non commercial whitewater recreation. Oregon State Univ., Water Resources Research
Institute, Report WRR.I -107.
Kuss, F.R., Graefe, A.R. and Vaske, J.J, 1990. Visitor Impact Management: Volume One A Review of
Research. National Parks and Conservation Association. Washington DC.
Lucas, R. C. 1964. The recreation capacity of the Quetico Superior area. (Research Paper LS -15). St.
Patti, MN: Lake States Experiment Station.
Lucas, R. C. 1982. Recreation regulations when are they needed? Journal of Forestry. 80(3): 148 -151.
Manning, Robert E. 1999. Search for satisfaction. In: Studies in outdoor recreation: search and research
for satisfaction (second edition). Corvallis: Oregon State University Press: 1 -15.
Manning, R. 2007. Parks and Carrying Capacity: Commons without Tragedy. Washington, DC: Island
Press, 313 pages.
Neilson, M, Shelby, B., and Haas, E. 1977. Sociological carrying capacity and the last settler syndrome.
Pacific Sociological Review. 20(4): 568 -581.
Puttkammer, Annette. 2001. Linking wilderness research and management volume 3. Recreation fees in
wilderness and other public lands: an annotated reading list. (Wright, Vita, series ed.) Gen. Tech. Rep.
DRAFT Report June 2010 Page 142
RMRS- GTR- 79 -VOL 3. Fort Collins, CO: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Rocky
Mountain Research Station. 29 p.
Roggenbuck, J W.; Williams, D R.; Bange, S P.; Dean, D J. 1991. River float trip encounter norms:
questioning the use of the social norms concept. Journal of Leisure Research. 23(3): 133 -153.
Roggenbuck, J. W. (1992). Use of persuasion to reduce resource impacts and visitor conflicts, In
Manfredo, M. J. (Editor). Influencing human behavior: Theory and applications in recreation tourism,
and natural resources management. Champaign, Illinois: Sagamore Publishing.
Shelby, B. 1980. Contrasting recreation experiences: Motors and oars in the Grand Canyon. Journal of
Soil Water Conservation 35(3):129 -130
Shelby, 13. Whittaker, D. 2004. River running in the Grand Canyon: Current situation and social
impacts of alternatives. Technical memorandum for inclusion in Administrative Draft of the Colorado
River Management Plan Environmental Impact Statement. National Park Service. March. 160 pages.
Shelby, B. 1981. Encounter norms in backcountry settings: Studies of three rivers. J. Leis. Res. 13(2):129
138.
Shelby, 13. and J.M. Nielsen. 1976. Use levels and Crowding in Grand Canyon. Colorado River Research
Technical Report 42, Grand Canyon National Park, Arizona.
Shelby, 13. and R. Colvin. 1982. Encounter measures in carrying capacity research. J. Leis. Res.,
14(4):350 360.
Shelby, 13., Vaske, J. J. 1991. Using normative data to develop evaluative standards for resource
management: A comment on three recent papers. Journal of Leisure Research, 23,173-187.
Shelby, B., D. Whittaker, R. Speaker and B.E. Starkey, 1987. Social and ecological impacts of recreation
use on the Deschutes River. Oregon State Parks Division, Salem.
Shelby, B., N. Bregenzer, and R. Johnson. 1988. Displacement and product shift: Empirical evidence
from Oregon rivers. Journal of Leisure .Research 20(4):274 -288.
Shelby, B., Vaske, J. J., Donnelly, M. P. 1996. Norms, standards, and natural resources. Leisure
Sciences, 18,103-123.
Shelby, B. Heberlein, T. A. 1986. Carrying capacity in recreation settings. Corvallis, OR: Oregon State
University Press. 164 p.
Shelby, Bo; Vaske, Jerry J.; Heberlein, Thomas A. 1989. Comparative analysis of crowding in multiple
locations: results from fifteen years of research. Leisure Sciences. 11: 269-291.
Shindler, B. and B. Shelby. 1995. Product shift in recreation settings: findings and implications from
panel research. Leisure Sciences 17(2):91 -107.
Spangler, Brad. 2003. Integrative or Interest -Based Bargaining. Beyond Intractability. Editors: Guy
Burgess and Heidi Burgess. Conflict Research Consortium, University of Colorado, Boulder. Posted:
June.
DRAFT Report Ju€nr 2 010 i s 143
Stankey, G. H., Cole, D. N., Lucas, R. C., Petersen, M. E., Frissell, S. S. 1985. The limits of
acceptable change (LAC) system for wilderness planning (Report INT -176). Ogden, Utah: US
Department of Agriculture, Forest Service. Intermountain Forest and Range Experiment Station.
Vaske, J. J. 2008. Survey research and analysis: Applications in parks, recreation, and human
dimensions. Venture Publishing. State College, PA.
Vaske, J. J., Donnelly, M. P. 2002. Generalizing the encounter norm crowding relationship.
Leisure Sciences, 24, 255 -269.
Vaske, J. J., Donnelly, M. P., Heberlein, T. A. 1980. Perceptions of crowding and resource quality by
early and more recent visitors. Leisure Sciences, 3(4), 367 -381.
Vaske, J. J., Donnelly, M. P., Shelby, B. 1993. Establishing management standards: Selected
examples of the normative approach. Environmental Management, 17(5), 629 -643.
Vaske, J. J., Donnelly, M. P., Heberlein, T. A., Shelby, B. B. 1982, Differences in reported
satisfaction ratings by consumptive and non consumptive recreationists. Journal of Leisure Research,
14(3), 195-206.
Vaske, J., M. Donnelly, and D. Whittaker. 2000. Tourism, National Parks, and Impact Management. In
Tourism and National .Parks: Issues and Implications. Butler, R. W S. W Boyd (Ed.). John Wiley and
Sons, Ltd: New York.
Watson, A. E. 1995. An analysis of recent progress in recreation conflict research and perceptions of
future challenges and opportunities. Leisure Sciences, 17, 235 -238.
Watson, A. E., Williams, D. R., Daigle, J. J. 1991. Sources of conflict between hikers and mountain
bike riders in the Rattlesnake NRA. Journal of Park and Recreation Administration, 9, 59 -71.
Whittaker, D. 1990. Susti Basin Recreation Rivers: "White Papers" on critical planning issues.
Anchorage, AK: National Park Service, RTCA report. 62 pp.
Whittaker, D. 1993. Selecting indicators: Which impacts matter more? In Defining wilderness quality:
The role of standards in wilderness management. USDA Forest Service, Pacific Northwest Research
Station General Technical Report No. PNW- GTR -305: 13 -22. Portland, Oregon.
Whittaker, D. 2004. Situk River User Survey: Supplemental Analyses and Findings. Report to Aldo
Leopold Wilderness Research Institute for inclusion in summary report of 2003 recreation visitor survey.
May.
Whittaker, D. 1996. Kanektok, Goodnews, and Togiak Rivers: User Survey Findings and Implications.
Dillingham, AK: US Fish and Wildlife Service. 48 pp.
Whittaker, D. and B. Shelby. 1988. Types of norms for recreation impacts: Extending the social norms
concept. Journal of Leisure Research 20(4):261 -273.
Whittaker, D. and B. Shelby. 1993. Kenai River carrying capacity study: findings and implications for
management. Alaska Department of Natural Resources, Anchorage.
DRAFT Report June 2010 Page 144
o
Whittaker, D. and Shelby, B. 2006. User survey on Delta National Wild and Scenic River. Report to
BLM.. Anchorage, AK. May.
Whittaker, D. and Shelby, B. 2007. Allocation river use: A guide for river professionals. River
Management Society.
Whittaker, D., Shelby, B. 1996. Norms in high- density settings: Results from several Alaskan rivers.
Paper presented at the 6 International Symposium on Society and Resource Management. The
Pennsylvania State University, May.
Whittaker, D., Vaske, J., and Wiliams, T. 2000. 1999 On -river user survey for the Gulkana River,
Alaska. Bureau of Land Management. September.
DRAFT Reps ri d June 2810 Pape 145
the e! of
KENAI, ALASKA
I/c la e with a Past, Ct
210 Fidalgo Avenue, Kenai, Alaska uuu 3
Telephone: 907- 283 -7535 Fax: 907 283 -3014
www.ci.kenai.ak.us
HARBOR COMMISSION
RECOMMENDED CAPITAL IMPROVEMENTS
FOR FISCAL YEARS 2012, 2013 2014
Task
Submit annually to the City Manager and Council, not less than ninety (90) days prior to the
beginning of the budget year, a list of recommended capital improvements, which in the opinion
of the Commission, are necessary or desireable to be constructed during the forthcoming three
(3) year period. Such list shall be arranged in order of preference, with recommendations as to
which projects shall be constructed in which year (KMC 11.10.010(a)(2))
City Manager Proposed Work Schedule
In order for capital projects to be considered in the following year's budget, Administration must
receive any recommendations by January 15 In other words, if the Harbor Commission has
projects that it wishes the Administration and Council to consider for the FY12 budget, those
recommendations must be received by January 15, 2011.
For purposes of discussion I suggest a timeline as follows:
October 26 Harbor Commission Work Session. Administration submits capital
projects recommendations to harbor Commission. Commission discusses
Administration recommendations and may delete or add projects.
Oct 27- -Nov 1 Administration refines scope of work and cost estimates, including
Commission projects added at previous work session.
November 8 Harbor Commission Meeting. Commission drafts capital improvement
project lists for FY12, FY13 FY14, and prioritizes lists for submission to
Planning Zoning Commission.
December 8 Planning Zoning Commission Meeting. New Business Discussion Item.
Comments to be provided to Harbor Commission.
December 13 Harbor Commission Meeting. Consider P Z comments, if any, and
finalize capital project lists and priorities.
Jan 5, 2011 Submit Recommended Capital Improvements List to City Council and City
Manager.
City of Kenai Commissions
Schedule for Submission of Capital Improvement Recommendations to Council /Administration
FY2012, FY2013, FY2014
September November December Janua Februa
Task Milestone External Tasks
Split Summary 111, 10111 1111110 1111 11 1. External Milestone
L abed
1-1./6111 PaM
OL /LMDL nil
Wed 10/13/10
01/171 /01 nil
01/I2/01 n4I
1 0 LILZ /01 PaM
1 01/83/01 NI
Thu 11/4/101
F 0L /L /1 PeM
r 0L /8 /Zt PeM
1 1;1/6Zlt PeM
nil
1- L /IJ L !ad
Wed 1/19111
LUS /L PaM
01 /LLI0LuoJ
Mon 10/18/101
Tue 10/19/101
101/9Z/0 L en!
Mon 1111/101
Tue 11/2/1
01/8/ L 1 uotAl
0L /L /Z1 PeM
;oil /1-
01/8/1 PaM J
01/C1/31 uo
Mon 12113/10;
I 0 L /171/Z L end
t /9 /L PeM
1 uels
Thu 10!7/10
1 01 /L/01 nil
01 /8101 !a d
1 01/171401- nil
1 0111.Z/01 nil
1 01/ZZ /0 L !�d
01/8Z /01 n41
Thu 11/4/101
Wed 12/1/101
0118/Z1 PeM
Wed 12/2911 p j
11 /911- r €il
Ll/Z/L Lrd
LL /fit /L PeM
!01111 /OLUOW
Mon 10/11/101
Tue 10/12/10
01161/01. end
The 10126/10
Wed 1O/27/101
1 011IL1end
Mon 11/8/10
01. /1/31. PeM
01/Z /1 nil
0118 /Z1. PeM
0 L/c Lr:1 uoLN 1
Mon 12/13/10
1- and
11 /9 /1 PeM
uogt ma
sABP SL
1 hep .L._._...
steep y
hep L
hep
1steep
[hep
heP L
hep
[Rep t
[hep L
he p
hvp
I he p
step Eg
1 hePL
1s/cep S
hep L
A p
4 days
hep
hep
hep
AW
Arp
hep
hep
'hep.
hep L
Task Name
Parks Rec Recommended CIP List
CM Meet with Commission
Admin, Prepares Info for Commission
Admin Info submitted to Commission
GIP List Work Session
Admin. Refines Scope Estimates
Admin Lnfo submitted to Commission
Commission Meeting (Draft Final List)
Submit CIP List to P &Z Commission 1
P &Z Commission Meeting (Comments)
P &Z Comments submitted to Commission
Commission Meeting -Final GIP List
Submit CIP List to Administration
Submit CIP List to Council
Harbor Commission Recommended GIP List
CM Meetwith Commission
Admin. Prepares Info for Commission
Admin Info submitted to Commission
CIP List Work Session
i
Admin. Refines Scope Estimates
Admin Info submitted to Commission
Commission Meeting (Draft Final List)
r Submit CIP List to P &Z Commission
Submit CIP List to P &Z Commission
P &Z Commission Meeting
P &Z Comments submitted to Commission
Commission Meeting-Final CIP List
Submit CIP List to Administration
r Submit CIP List to Council
0
r
cu
C
v
La
ca
as
rn
1
LI.
E
E1
171
9I-
91.
L
81
61.
0Z
1Z
ZZZ
CZ
trZ
9Z
LZ
8Z
83
Oc
NOTES /COMMENTS
Repair Damaged Pile, Install Zinc Anodes on remainder of
Dock, Assumption Damaged Pile can be pulled w/o Barge
Construction 75,325
Contingency 15,065
Project Management 9,039
Environmental Permitting 4,000
JNIONC13
(1311111O
0
0
rri
0
0
DESCRIPTION
Pile Repair Cathodic Protection
PROJECT TITLE
Kenai Dock Repair
PRIORITY
NUMBER
r-I
N
rr
u1
u
IC
ce
ot
O.
LU
LU
LL
CITY OF KENAI DOCK AND BOAT RAMP
NOTES /COMMENTS
Design $20,000
Contingency 2,500
Project Management 6,000
Environmental Permitting 4,000
REQUIRED
FUNDING
0
0
0
0
in
ur
DESCRIPTION
Phase 1 to construct a cantilevered walk way
PROJECT TITLE
Dock Public Access Improvements
Design
PRIORITY
NUMBER
r-+
N
CO
cY
0
0
dA
CZ
EY
CITY OF KENAI DOCK AND BOAT RAIVIP
OGRAM (CIP) PRIORITIES FOR
CAPITAL IMPROVEMENTS P
NOTES /COMMENTS
Construction 241,200
Contingency 36,000
Project Management 15,000
REQUIRED
FUNDING
0
0
C7
0
iN
0 0
VI-
DESCRIPTION
Aem )lem palan e Pn1lsUo3 z aseyd
PROJECT TITLE
Dock Public Access Improvements
Construction
PRIORITY
NUMBER
cv
CO
rr
0
a.
a.
n
CITY OF KENAI DOCK AND BOAT RAMP
NOTES /COMMENTS
REQUIRED
FUNDING
o
o
O
vl-
00
DESCRIPTION
PROJECT TITLE
Drift Boat Pullout (lower river)
Emergency Response Facility
(Boat House)
(suol 7as s) xuauneldaU leolj poa
',Waren Ames Walk Way
PRIORITY
NUMBER
r
N
h 1
CP
DOCK AND BOAT RAMP
CITY OF KENA
w
H
O
ci
u
2
O
tn
w
1-
0
v
2
C9
0
a m
0 2
M
o. 2
Mission Statement
It is the mission of the Kenai Harbor Commission to serve as an advisory body to the Kenai City
Council in all matters concerning the Kenai City Harbor, dock operations, tidelands and waters
of the Kenai River under the jurisdiction of the City of Kenai. In this capacity, members of the
Harbor Commission are tasked with acting as stewards to ensure the ecological protection of
the Kenai River while promoting safe, responsible recreational use, aesthetics and economic
development. The goal of the Harbor Commission is to provide all present and future users of
the Kenai River, private and commercial, the best recreational experience and economic growth
possible.
Short -term Goals Objectives:
Goal: Economics
Objectives:
1. Continue Exploring the possibility of developing commercial leased areas, either for
yardage or buildings.
2. Evaluate fee structure.
3. Solicit fuel service bids.
Goal: Infrastructure
Objectives:
1. Maintain kiosk for best display of public information.
2. Maintain ramp signage (loading unloading signs).
3. Continue using ramp attendants during dip net season.
4. Inventory gangways for welding.
5. Inspect and replace metal pins on wooden floats as needed.
6. Provide on -site user survey forms for feedback.
7. Pursue support for drift boat pullout in lower Kenai River. Continue working with Kenai
Watershed Forum on construction of boardwalk or pathway leading from bird viewing to
river.
8. Upgrade web site (pictures, rate schedule, survey link, etc.)
9. Pursue repair of bent piling.
10. Pursue Passive Corrosion System (zinc plates and galvanized paint).
11. Install secondary gate beyond bird viewing platform along Boat Launch Road,
Goal: Environmental
Objectives:
1. Work jointly with the Kenai Watershed Forum for utilization of bird viewing platform and
related restoration work.
2. Continue supporting City's efforts toward enhancement and protection of sensitive
wetlands and sand dunes.
3. Investigate funding for seasonal boardwalk to prevent further wetland degradation on
southwest bank of Warren Ames Bridge.
Goals: Safety
Objectives:
1. Implement a Preventative Maintenance program.
2. Continue use of KPD digital reader board at Boat Launch Road and Bridge Access
during peak periods.
NOVEMBER 2010
CITY OF KENAI DOCK AND BOAT RAM ite"(06
MISSION STATEMENT GOALS
Page 1
CITY OF KENAI DOCK AND BOAT RAMP
MISSION STATEMENT GOALS
Goals: Esthetics
Objectives:
1. Evaluate signage for adequacy, attractiveness and ease of reading.
Long-term Goals Objectives:
Goals: Economics
Objectives:
1. Encourage development of infrastructure along Bridge Access Road which will stimulate
business growth.
2. Continue evaluating fee structure.
Goals: Infrastructure
Objectives:
1. Encourage and support completion of Unity Trial along Bridge Access Road.
2. Assess condition of wooden floats and plan for possible replacement.
3. Continue support for drift boat pull -out in lower Kenai River.
4. Explore funding for paving of parking lot and Boat Launch Road.
5. Continue investigating need and funding for a short -term tie -off dock.
Goals: Environmental
1. Continue support for bluff erosion project.
2. Encourage siltation studies in the lower river and explore ways to minimize siltation
buildup at the dock and boat ramps.
3. Explore possibility of providing habitat protection measures and enhancement along
those sections of the river bank heavily accessed.
Goals: Safety
Objectives:
1. Continue providing safe use of facilities through staff training and public input.
2. Review and modify Preventative Maintenance Plan annually as needed.
3. Monitor vehicular and pedestrian traffic patterns for areas of concern and modify as
needed.
Goals: Esthetics
Objectives:
1. Explore possibility of providing beautification enhancements along Bridge Access right
of -ways.
NOVEMBER 2010
Page 2
ITEM A: CALL TO ORDER
ACTION AGENDA
KENAI CITY COUNCIL REGULAR MEETING
OCTOBER 6, 2010
7:00 P.M.
KENAI CITY COUNCIL CHAMBERS
http: www. ci kenai. ak. u s
1. Pledge of Allegiance
2. Roll Call
3. Agenda Approval
4. Consent Agenda (Public comment Iimited to 3 minutes per speaker. Persons may give
their time over to another speaker present, however no single speaker present may speak
for more than 30 minutes combined on their own and on others' behalf)
*All items listed with an asterisk (1 are considered to be routine and non-
controversial by the council and will be approved by one motion. There will be no
separate discussion of these items unless a council member so requests, in which case
the item will be removed from the consent agenda and considered in its normal
sequence on the agenda as part of the General Orders.
ITEM 13: SCHEDULED PUBLIC COMMENTS (Public comment limited to 0 minutes
per speaker)
ITEM C: UNSCHEDULED PUBLIC COMMENTS (Public comment limited to 3
minutes per speaker)
ITEM D: PUBLIC HEARINGS (Testimony limited to 3 minutes per speaker. Persons
may give their time over to another speaker- present, however no single speaker
present may speak for more than. 30 minutes combined on their own and on others'
behalf.)
1. PASSED UNANIMOUSLY. Ordinance No. 2513-2010 Increasing
Estimated Revenues and Appropriations by $3,300 in the General Fund
for Police Forensic Equipment Reimbursements From Internet Crimes
Against Children (ICAC).
2. REMOVED FROM AGENDA. Resolution No. 2010 -54 Rescinding and
Replacing the City of Kenai Retention Schedule.
3. AMENDED AND PASSED UNANIMOUSLY. Resolution No. 2010-55
Authorizing City of Kenai Administration to Submit to the State of Alaska
an Application for a Federal Grant for a Historical Public Preservation
Education Project for a Historic Restoration Project in the Townsite
Historic District of Kenai, Alaska.
4. PASSED UNANIMOUSLY. Resolution No. 2010 -56 Awarding a
Contract to Alaskan Industries, Inc. for the Project Entitled "Kenai
Recreation Center Gym Floor Replacement 2010" for the Total Amount
of 122,000.00.
5. PASSED UNANIMOUSLY. Resolution No. 2010 57 Adopting the City
of Kenai Capital Improvements Plan Priority List for State and Federal
Funding Requests for the Fiscal Year 2012.
ITEM E: MINUTES
1. APPROVED BY CONSENT AGENDA. *Regular Meeting of September 15,
2010.
ITEM F: UNFINISHED BUSINESS
ITEM 0: NEW BUSINESS
1. APPROVED. Ratification of Bills
2. AMENDED AND APPROVED. Approval of Purchase Orders Exceeding
15,000
3. INTRODUCED BY CONSENT AGENDA. *Ordinance No. 2514 2010
Amending KMC Chapter 4.30.015, Local Amendments to the National
Electrical Code 2008, to Allow the Use of Non Metallic Cable in Type III,
IV, and V Construction as Otherwise Pei witted in 334.10(3) of the
National Electrical Code 2008.
4. INTRODUCED BY CONSENT AGENDA. *Ordinance No. 2515 2010
Increasing Estimated Revenues and Appropriations by $3,600.00 in the
General Fund for the Purchase of Land for a Public and /or Charitable
Use.
5. APPROVED. Action /Approval Vintage Pointe Insurance Settlement
Release
6. RESCHEDULED TO NOVEMBER 23, 2010. Discussion/Action
Reschedule November 17, 2010 Council Meeting
7, NO ACTION REQUIRED. Discussion Absentee Voting
Procedures /Inconsistencies in City Election
ITEM H: COMMISSION /COMMITTEE REPORTS
1. Council on. Aging
2. Airport Commission
3. Harbor Commission
4. Library Commission
5. Parks 8z Recreation Commission
6. Planning 8 Zoning Commission
7 Miscellaneous Commissions and Committees
a. Beautification Committee
b. Alaska Municipal League Report
c. Mini -Grant Steering Committee
d. Kenai Convention Visitors Bureau
e. Reports of KPB Assembly, Legislators and Councils
ITEM I: REPORT OF THE MAYOR
ITEM J: ADMINISTRATION REPORTS
1. City Manager
2. Attorney
3. City Clerk
ITEM K: ADDITIONAL PUBLIC COMMENT
1. Citizen COnimentS (Public comment lim.ited to 5 minutes per speaker)
2. Council Member Comments
EXECUTIVE SESSION A matter, the immediate knowledge of which would clearly
have an adverse effect upon the finances of the City of Kenai and to give direction to
the City Manager in the handling of a specific financial and legal matter (location of
graves at the Kenai Cemetery).
ITEM L: PENDING LEGISLATION (This item lists legislation which will be
addressed at a later date as noted.)
ITEM M: ADJOURNMENT
ITEM A: CALL TO ORDER
ACTION AGENDA
KENAI CITY COUNCIL REGULAR MEETING
OCTOBER 20, 2010
7:00 P.M.
KENAI CITY COUNCIL CHAMBERS
http: /www.ci.kenai.ak.us
1. Pledge of Allegiance
2. Roll Call
3. UNANIMOUSLY APPROVED. CERTIFICATION OF ELECTION
4. ADMINISTER OATHS OF OFFICE
5. POSTPONED TO 11/3/2010. ELECTION OF VICE MAYOR
6. Agenda Approval
7. Consent Agenda (Public comment limited to 3 minutes per speaker. Persons may give
their time over to another speaker present, however no single speaker present may speak
for more than 30 minutes combined on their own and on others' behalf.)
*All items listed with an asterisk are considered to be routine and non-
controversial by the council and will be approved by one motion. There will be no
separate discussion of these items unless a council member so requests, in which case
the item will be removed from the consent agenda and considered in its noillial
sequence on the agenda as part of the General Orders.
ITEM B: SCHEDULED PUBLIC COMMENTS (Public comment limited to 10 minutes
per speaker)
1. Vincent Goddard Public Safety Concerns Related to the Proposed
Natural Gas Storage Facility in Kenai.
2. John O. Robertson, PhD, P.E. Expert Witness Testimony Regarding
Public Safety Concerns Related to the Geology and Seismic Factors for
the Proposed Natural Gas Storage Facility in Kenai.
ITEM C: UNSCHEDULED PUBLIC COMMENTS (Public comment limited to 3
minutes per speaker)
ITEM D: PUBLIC HEARINGS (Testimony limited to 3 minutes per speaker. Persons
may give their time over to another speaker present, however no single speaker
present may speak for more than 30 minutes combined on their own and on others'
behalf.)
1. PASSED UNANIMOUSLY. Ordinance No. 2514 -2010 Amending KMC
Chapter 4.30.015, Local Amendments to the National Electrical Code
2008, to Allow the Use of Non- Metallic Cable in Type III, IV, and V
Construction as Otherwise Permitted in 334.10(3) of the National
Electrical Code 2008.
2. PASSED UNANIMOUSLY. Ordinance No 2515 -2010 Increasing
Estimated Revenues and Appropriations by S3,600.00 in the General
Fund for the Purchase of Land for a Public and /or Charitable Use.
3. PASSED UNANIMOUSLY. Resolution No 2010 58 Authorizing the
Purchase of Approximately 4.234 Acres of Property Described as
Government Lots 131, 165 and 166, Section 31, Township 6 North,
Range 11 West, Seward Meridian, Kenai, Alaska from the State of Alaska
for $3,500.00 for a Municipal Production Well Site and Wellhead
Protection Area, Greenbelt, Pedestrian Pathway and Conservation and /or
Other Public Recreation Purposes.
4, PASSED UNAMMOUSLY. Resolution No. 2010 59 Approving the
Budget Transfer of S25,000 for a Snowplowing /Sanding Service Contract
for Services at the Airport Terminal Building, Kenai Flight Service Station
and the Alaska Fire Training Center.
5, PASSED UNANIMOUSLY. Resolution No. 2010 60 Supporting the
Use of Funding Provided Through the Economic Recovery Act for
Buccaneer Alaska and Possibly Other Companies to Acquire a Jack -Up
Drill Rig for Use in Cook Inlet.
ITEM E: MINUTES
1 APPROVED. `Regular Meeting of October 6, 2010.
ITEM F: UNFINISHED BUSINESS
ITEM G: NEW BUSINESS
1. Ratification of Bills
2. APPROVED. Approval of Purchase Orders Exceeding $15,000
3. INTRODUCED. *Ordinance No. 2516 2010 Increasing Estimated
Revenues and Appropriations by 13,800 in the Visitors Center Fund for
Professional Services to Provide for a Collection Inventory.
4. INTRODUCED. *Ordinance No. 2517 Decreasing Estimated
Revenues and Appropriations by $8,167.75 in the Congregate Housing
Capital Project Fund Due to the Settlement Reached With the Insurance
Company.
5. INTRODUCED. *Ordinance No. 2518 2010 Increasing Estimated
Revenues and Appropriations by $30,000 in the General Fund and
Vintage Pointe Capital Project Funds for Needed ADA Improvements.
6. APPROVED. Approval /Action Approval of Lease to Kenai Nikiski Pipe
Line, LLC (KNPL) for an Approximate 22,575 Square Foot Portion of Tract
A, Plat No. 78 -111.
7. POSTPONED TO 11/3/2010. Discussion /Action Council
Commission /Committee Assignments
ITEM H: COMMISSION /COMMITTEE REPORTS
1. Council on Aging
2. Airport Commission
3. Harbor Commission
4. Library Commission
5. Parks Recreation Commission
6. Planning Zoning Commission
7. Miscellaneous Commissions and Committees
a. Beautification. Committee
b. Alaska Municipal League Report
c. Mini -Grant Steering Committee
d. Kenai Convention Visitors Bureau
e. Reports of KPB Assembly, Legislators and Councils
ITEM I: REPORT OF THE MAYOR
ITEM J: ADMINISTRATION REPORTS
1. City Manager
2. Attorney
3. City Clerk
ITEM K: ADDITIONAL pTJBLIC CO 1rMENT
EXECUTIVE SESSION None Scheduled
ITEM L:
ITEM M:
1. Citizen Comments (Public comment limited to 5 minutes per speaker)
2. Council Member Comments
PENDING LEGISLATION (This item lists legislation which will be
addressed at a later date as noted.)
ADJOURNMENT
Jan 2010
M T W T S
2
4 7 8 9
City of Kenai
2010 Meeting Schedule
All meetings take place at Kenai City Hall Council Chambers, 210 Fidalgo Avenue, Kenai, unless otherwise noted. Meeting
dates do not include cancellations or special meetings. For more information call 283 -8231.
City Council
January 6, 2010
January 20, 2010
February 3, 2010
February 17, 2010
March 3, 2010
March 17, 2010
April 7, 2010
April 21, 2010
May 5, 2010
May 19, 2010
June 2, 2010
June 15, 2010
January 13, 2010
January 27, 2010
February 10, 2010
February 24, 2010
March 10, 2010
March 24, 2010
April 14, 2010
April 28, 2010
May 12, 2010
May 26, 2010
June 9, 2010
June 23, 2010
Airport Commission
January 14, 2010
February 11, 2010
March 11, 2010
April 15, 2010 (moved to)
May 13, 2010
June 10, 2010
January 14, 2010
February 11, 2010
March 11, 2010
April 8, 2010
May 13, 2010
June 10, 2010
Beautification Committee
February 9, 2010
March 9, 2010
Harbor Commission
January 11, 2010
February 8, 2010
March 8, 2010
April 12, 2010
May 10, 2010
June 7, 2010
EP s zs0
Parks Recreation CoR1 m ssion
February 4, 2010 (Special)
April 1, 2010
August 5, 2010
Library Commission
January 5, 2010
February 2, 2010
March 2, 2010
April 6, 2010
May 4, 2010
June 1, 2010
Council on Aging (meet at Senior Cent
July 7, 2010
July 21, 2010
August 4, 2010
August 18, 2010
September 1, 2010
September 15, 2010
October 6, 2010
October 20, 2010
November 3, 2010
November 23, 2010
December 1, 2010
December 15, 2010
July 14, 2010
July 28, 2010
August 11, 2010
August 25, 2010
September 8, 2010
September 22, 2010
October 13, 2010
October 27, 2010
November 10, 2010
November 24, 2010
December 8, 2010
December 22, 2010
October 7, 2010
December 2, 2010
July 6, 2010
August 3, 2010
September 7, 2010
October 5, 2010
November 2, 2010
December 7, 2010
July 8, 2010
August 12, 2010
September 9, 2010
October 14, 2010
November 18, 2010
December 16, 2010
er check for time)
July 8, 2010
August 12, 2010
September 9, 2010
October 14, 2010
November 18, 2010
December 16, 2010
May 11,2010
September 14, 2010
October 12, 2010
July 12, 2010
August 9, 2010
September 13, 2010
October 11, 2010
November 8, 2010
December 13, 2010
fib.
Nov 2010
S M T W T F S
1 4 5 6
7 a 9 ;M 12 13
14 15 16 17 18 19 20
21 22 wrie 27
28 29 30
12 13 14
19 20 21
26 27 28 29
Dec 2010
T 1111 T F
3
10
16 17