DOCSLIB.ORG

Kenai River Recreation Study Major Findings and Implications

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Kenai River Recreation Study Major Findings and Implications Kenai River Recreation Study Major Findings and Implications 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 June 2010 Kenai Recreation Study Major Findings and Implications Acknowledgements The authors thank Alaska State Parks for the opportunity to study recreation issues on the Kenai River, as well as assistance with several aspects of the study, including: providing use information, developing the guide survey sample, assisting with our fieldwork, inviting us their patrols, and reviewing study plans, analyses, presentations, or the report. In particular, we would like to thank Don Barber, Tami Carrico, Chris Degernes, Denise Dutile, Alison Eskelin, James King, Jacques Kosto, Jack Ransom, Pam Russell, and Jack Sinclair. We appreciate help from staff at the Alaska Department of Fish and Game on several aspects of the study, including participation in fieldwork, providing boat counts from the lower river, and thoughtful comments on study plans, draft surveys, or an earlier draft of the report. In particular, we thank Robert Begich, Robert Clark, James Hasbrouck, Ivan Karic, Stacie Mallette, Brad Palach, Jeffrey Perschbacher, Bill Romberg, and Tom Vania. We thank Robert Ruffner and the Kenai Watershed Forum for providing July 2009 overflight use information on the lower and middle river; Bobbi Jo Skibo, John Eavis, and Branden Bornemann from the US Forest Service for providing use information from the Russian River Campground and confluence angler counts; Janet Schmidt (US Fish and Wildlife Service) for providing Russian River Ferry information; George Heim for recording daily fishing reports for the Upper River; and Cheryle James (Wildman’s) and Annette & Max Finch (Alaska Canoe and Campground) for 2009 shuttle use information. We also appreciate assistance in developing the landowner sample from John Mohorcich and Dan Nelson (KPB). We thank many guides, experienced users, agency staff, and landowners who shared information about the river or their trips at focus group meetings, KRSMA board or committee meetings, or in the field, including: Natasha Ala, Walt Arthur, Bill Bailey, Tina Baldridge, Duane Bannock, Ray DeBardelaben, Ed Bellyea, Jeff Benkert, John Bernard, Jeff Brooks, Patty Brown, Rik Bucy, Andrew Carmichael, Dohn Cho, Bob Cider, Robert Clark, Joe Connors, Aaron Cooper, Mike Crawford, James Czarneski, Joe Connors, Jenny Davis, Jack Dean, Ray Debardelaben, Richard Dykema, Jack Erickson, Dick Erkeneff, Tom Farrington, Dave Fena, Suzanne Fisler, Gary Galbraith, David Gayer, Ricky Gease, Dennis Gease, Robert Gibson, Michelle Glaves, Dave Goggia, Jim Golden, Carl Grauvogel, Ron Gravenhorst, Victoria Hampton, Shannon Hamrick, Jack Harris, George Heim, Kirk Hoessle, Cheryle James, Pete Jeskie, Tony Johnson, Rick Johnston, Jim Jolin, Will Josey, Ron Boo, Kyle Kelley, Gary Kernan, Mary King, Bruce King, Bruce Knowles, Kyle Kolodziejski, Dwight Kramer, George Krumm, Tanya Lauteret, Nick Lemieux, Ginny Litchfield, Jeremy Lobb, Kathy Lucksinger, Neil Marlow, Ken Marlow, Larry Marsh, Peter Micciche, Scott Misner, Gary Mitchell, John Mohorcich, Bill Niederhauser, Ed O'Connor, Carol Padgett, Mona Painter, Doug Palmer, Ron Peck, Mark Primo, Charles Quarre, Ron Rainey, Bernadine Raiskums, Tom Reale, Adam Reimer, Carl Remnick, Monte Roberts, Erik Route, Janet Schmidt, Larry Semmens, Guff Sherman, Bobbi Jo Skibo, Doug Staller, Tim Stevens, Jerry Strieby, Jim Stubbs, Andy Szczesay, Ken Tarbox, Brenda Trefon, Gary Turner, Tyland Van Lier, Ted Wellman, and Robin West. We thank Melissa Arndt, Suzanne Fisler, and Dan Shelby for conducting the onsite survey and observations, or participating in fieldwork. They provided useful reviews of many study components and offered many insights from talking with users throughout the summer. Finally we thank over 2,000 Kenai river users, guides, and landowners who took time away from their trips or leisure to complete on-site, on-line, or mail surveys. As their survey comments attest, many users have great passion for the river and strong opinions about how it should be managed. We hope this report conveys some of that passion as well as fair characterizations of the opinions of diverse users. Of course, inclusion in the preceding lists does not imply endorsement of information or conclusions in the report. These people provided very helpful information and diverse opinions that we have attempted to understand and represent, but we are responsible for how the study was conducted and presented. Doug Whittaker and Bo Shelby October 2010 Page ii Kenai Recreation Study Major Findings and Implications 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. Methods 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 perceived as “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” perceived crowding (50 to 65%), and a few had “low-normal” (35 to 50%) or “no crowding” (< 35%). Perceived crowding was higher while fishing than while using facilities, parking, or traveling to fishing. 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 October 2010 Page iii Kenai Recreation Study Major Findings and Implications 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 least 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
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Erosion and Sedimentation in the Kenai Fiver, Alaska
    Erosion and Sedimentation in the Kenai fiver, Alaska By KEVIN M. SCOTT GEOLOGICAL SURVEY PROFESSIONAL PAPER 1235 Prepared in cooperation with the U.S.Fish and Wildlife Service UNITED STATES GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE, WASHINGTON : 1982 UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR JAMES G. WATT, Secretary GEOLOGICAL SURVEY Dallas L. Peck, Director Library of Congress Cataloging in Publication Data Scott, Kevin M.I 1935- Erosion and sedimentation in the Kenai River, Alaska. (Geological Survey professional paper ; 1235) Bibliography: p. 33-35 Supt. of Docs. no.: I19.16:1235 1. Sediments (Geology)--Alaska--Kenai River watershed. 2. Erosion-- Alaska--Kenai River watershed. I. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 11. Title. 111. Series: United States. Geological Survey Professional Paper 1235. QE571. S412 553.7'8'097983 81-6755 AACR2 For sale by the Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Printing Office Washington, D.C. 20402 CONTENTS Page Page Abstract ........................................ 1 Bed material-Continued Introduction ........................................ 1 Gravel dunes in channel below Skilak Lake - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 17 The Kenai River watershed - - -- -- - - - - - - -- - - - - - - - - - _- - - - - - - 3 Armoring of the channel ............................. 18 Climate ........................................ 3 Possible effects of armoring on salmon habitat ---_------- 19 Vegetation ........................................ 3 Surficial deposits of the modern flood plain ------------- 19 Hydrology-------------------------------------------_
    [Show full text]
  • Resurrection River Landscape Assessment Area
    United States Resurrection River Department of Agriculture Landscape Assessment Forest Service Seward Ranger District, October 2010 Chugach National Forest Exit Glacier, courtesy of Kenai Fjords National Park. The U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) prohibits discrimination in all its programs and activities on the basis of race, color, national origin, age, disability, and where applicable, sex, marital status, familial status, parental status, religion, sexual orientation, genetic information, political beliefs, reprisal, or because all or part of an individual's income is derived from any public assistance program. (Not all prohibited bases apply to all programs.) Persons with disabilities who require alternative means for communication of program information (Braille, large print, audiotape, etc.) should contact USDA's TARGET Center at (202) 720-2600 (voice and TDD). To file a complaint of discrimination, write to USDA, Director, Office of Civil Rights, 1400 Independence Avenue, S.W., Washington, D.C. 20250-9410, or call (800) 795-3272 (voice) or (202) 720- 6382 (TDD). USDA is an equal opportunity provider and employer. Landscape Assessment Table of Contents Introduction ........................................................................................................................................................1 Purpose ............................................................................................................................................................1 The Analysis Area ...........................................................................................................................................2
    [Show full text]
  • Russian River Landscape Assessment
    Russian River Landscape Assessment Brown Bear, Lower Russian River Prepared by the U.S. Department of Agriculture Chugach National Forest Seward Ranger District August 2004 Russian River Landscape Assessment August 2004 RUSSIAN RIVER LANDSCAPE ASSESSMENT August 2004 Prepared by: Team Leader s Mary Ann Benoit Eric Johansen Recreation Karen Kromrey, Bill Jackson Minerals Sherry Nelson Cultural Resources Tony Largaespada Shannon Huber Hydrology Bill MacFarlane Soils Ricardo Velarde Fire Brian Sines Fisheries Eric Johansen Wildlife Mary Ann Benoit, Jeff Selinger, Bill Shuster Vegetation/Ecology Elizabeth Bella GIS Trey Schillie Lands Karen O’Leary, Bill Jackson Approved by: _____________________________ ____________ Deb Cooper, Seward District Ranger Date US Forest Service ii August 2004 Russian River Landscape Assessment August 2004 TABLE OF CONTENTS 1.0 INTRODUCTION .......................................................................................1 2.0 WATERSHED CHARACTERIZATION......................................................2 2.1 Lands .................................................................................................................. 2 2.2 Geology, Minerals, and Soils .............................................................................. 1 2.2.1 Geology ................................................................................................ 1 2.2.2 Minerals ................................................................................................ 1 2.2.3 Soils .....................................................................................................
    [Show full text]
  • The Harding Icefield: a Shrinking Landscape on the Kenai Peninsula by John Morton
    Refuge Notebook • Vol. 19, No. 47 • November 24, 2017 The Harding Icefield: A shrinking landscape on the Kenai Peninsula by John Morton The Harding Icefield, named after President Warren Harding who visited the Territory of Alaska in 1923, straddlesthe Kenai Mountains between Kenai National Wildlife Refuge and Kenai Fjords National Park. There’s something as big as the island of Mauion than 30 glaciers that feed off the Harding Icefield. the Kenai Peninsula that many locals have not seen One of four icefields remaining in the U.S., the or not seen well. Unless you’re a pilot, your expo- Harding Icefield is the largest wholly within U.S. sure to this mystery blob has likely been constrained to boundaries. It covers over 700 square miles, stretching the hiking trail at Exit Glacier, or perhaps to viewing more than 50 miles from the Resurrection River south- the tidewater glaciers in Northwestern Fjord from a ward to the divide in the Kenai Mountains between commercial tour boat, or perhaps to the edge of Skilak Bradley Lake and Nuka Bay. The icefield embraces Glacier if you’re hunting sheep or goat. These glaciers, Truuli Peak, the highest point in the Kenai Mountains as big as they seem, are three slivers among the more at 6,612 feet above sea level, suggesting that the Hard- USFWS Kenai National Wildlife Refuge 95 Refuge Notebook • Vol. 19, No. 47 • November 24, 2017 ing is likely a mile deep in some places. gae germinate in response to increased light and melt- We need all that ice.
    [Show full text]
  • Kenai Mountains to Sea
    KENAI MOUNTAINS TO SEA A Land Conservation Strategy to Sustain Our Way of Life on the Kenai Peninsula Kachemak Heritage Land Trust Audubon Alaska Cook Inletkeeper Kenai Watershed Forum Pacific Coast Joint Venture U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service February 2015 (updated Nov 2016) EXECUTIVE SUMMARY The 6 million-acre Kenai Peninsula is a spectacular place to call home. Much of our economy is based on the Kenai’s abundant natural resources that support commercial, recreational and subsistence fishing, charter services for hunting and wildlife viewing, tourism and other derivative benefits. However, the downside of this natural bounty is that the Kenai is one of the fastest-growing and most visited areas in Alaska. Although almost three-fourths of the peninsula is managed in three Federal conservation units by the U.S. Forest Service, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service and National Park Service, road and home building, groundwater withdrawal, logging practices, recreational activities, loss of salmon habitat and increasing human-wildlife conflicts fray at the ecological and cultural integrity of the peninsula. There is a need for a peninsula-wide land conservation strategy to sustain our way of life by promoting natural resource-based community assets. The Kenai Mountains to Sea partnership proposes to leverage existing land conservation by focusing on interjurisdictional anadromous stream corridors that pass from the Federal conservation estate through nonfederal lands (including private parcels) to reach the sea. Our goal is to build a broad-based partnership to support and strengthen long-standing and effective private-public partnerships dedicated to voluntarily conserving and enhancing fish and wildlife habitats for the continuing economic, recreational and cultural benefits to residents and visitors of the Kenai Peninsula Borough.
    [Show full text]
  • A Guide to the Late Quaternary History of Northern and Western Kenai Peninsula, Alaska
    A GUIDE TO THE LATE QUATERNARY HISTORY OF NORTHERN AND WESTERN KENAI PENINSULA, ALASKA by R.D. Reger, A.G. Sturmann, E.E. Berg, and P.A.C. Burns Guidebook 8 Published by STATE OF ALASKA DEPARTMENT OF NATURAL RESOURCES DIVISION OF GEOLOGICAL & GEOPHYSICAL SURVEYS 2007 A GUIDE TO THE LATE QUATERNARY HISTORY OF NORTHERN AND WESTERN KENAI PENINSULA, ALASKA by R.D. Reger, A.G. Sturmann, E.E. Berg, and P.A.C. Burns Division of Geological & Geophysical Surveys Guidebook 8 Cover photo: Granitic erratic, measuring 15 m (50 ft) high by 30 m (100 ft) long, was probably carried southward at least 160 km (100 mi) from the Talkeetna Mountains by ice of the Moosehorn stade of the last major glaciation and deposited in the southwest quarter of Kenai C-3 SW Quadrangle. This huge block is one of a series of granitic monoliths that form a north-trending block train across northeastern Kenai Peninsula lowland. STATE OF ALASKA Sarah Palin, Governor DEPARTMENT OF NATURAL RESOURCES Tom Irwin, Commissioner DIVISION OF GEOLOGICAL & GEOPHYSICAL SURVEYS Robert F. Swenson, State Geologist and Acting Director Division of Geological & Geophysical Surveys publications can be inspected at the following locations. Address mail orders to the Fairbanks offi ce. Alaska Division of Geological University of Alaska Anchorage Library & Geophysical Surveys 3211 Providence Drive 3354 College Road Anchorage, Alaska 99508 Fairbanks, Alaska 99709-3707 Elmer E. Rasmuson Library Alaska Resource Library University of Alaska Fairbanks and Information Services (ARLIS) Fairbanks, Alaska 99775-1005 3150 C Street, Suite 100 Anchorage, Alaska 99503 Alaska State Library State Offi ce Building, 8th Floor 333 Willoughby Avenue Juneau, Alaska 99811-0571 This publication released by the Division of Geological & Geophysical Surveys was produced and printed in Anchorage, Alaska at a cost of $25.00 per copy.
    [Show full text]
  • Chapter 2: Background Information
    Kenai River Comprehensive Management Plan December 1997 CHAPTER 2 BACKGROUND INFORMATION 1.0 Introduction The Kenai River, its tributaries, and the hydrauli- cally connected wetlands are complex ecological and hydrological systems resilient to external pressures to some unknown degree. However, individual im- pacts together can cause cumulative impacts that Photo not will harm the system and jeopardize its continued included health. It is important to understand the attributes of this system, the factors that may be affecting its continued integrity, and the degree to which the system has been harmed by external influences. This chapter provides background information on the most important attributes of this system. Included are descriptions of the seven principal river segments, information on the amount and distribution of fish and wildlife resources, upland and water recreation activities, and the results of the ADF&G 309 Cumulative Impact Study. This study identi- fied critical habitat locations for the rearing period of the Chinook salmon, identified by ADF&G as an indicator species for the Kenai River. 2.0 Natural Conditions The Kenai River drains more than 2,000 square miles of diverse landscape, including glaciers, icefields, large lakes, high mountains and extensive lowlands. From headwaters in the Kenai Mountains, numer- ous tributary rivers - including the Snow and Trail rivers - flow into Kenai Lake. From the western end of Kenai Lake at Cooper Landing, the upper Kenai River flows 18 miles before emptying into Skilak Lake. From the lakes outlet, the lower Kenai River flows 50 miles before emptying into Cook Inlet. The Kenai River is an underfit river.
    [Show full text]
  • Snow River Landscape Assessment
    Snow River Landscape Assessment Prepared by the U.S. Department of Agriculture Chugach National Forest Seward Ranger District August 2005 SNOW RIVER LANDSCAPE ASSESSMENT August 2005 Prepared by: Team Leader s Mary Ann Benoit Recreation Karen Kromrey Geology Carol Huber Minerals Sherry Nelson Cultural Resources Leslie Schick Tessa Villalobos Hydrology Bill MacFarlane Soils Ricardo Velarde Fire Brian Sines Dave Lockwood Fisheries Eric Johansen Ruth D’Amico Wildlife Mary Ann Benoit Michelle Dragoo Vegetation/Ecology Elizabeth Bella GIS Trey Schillie Lands Karen O’Leary Josh Milligan Approved by: _____________________________ ____________ Deb Cooper, Seward District Ranger Date Snow River Landscape Assessment August 2005 TABLE OF CONTENTS 1 Introduction .............................................................................................................. 1 1.1 Purpose ............................................................................................................ 1 1.2 The Analysis Area ............................................................................................. 2 2 Watershed Characterization ..................................................................................... 3 2.1 Lands ................................................................................................................ 3 2.2 Geology, Minerals, and Soils ............................................................................. 4 2.2.1 Geology ......................................................................................................
    [Show full text]