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