Commercial Whitewater Rafting Review of Recreational Use Limit and Allocation System
Total Page:16
File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb
MAINE STATE LEGISLATURE The following document is provided by the LAW AND LEGISLATIVE DIGITAL LIBRARY at the Maine State Law and Legislative Reference Library http://legislature.maine.gov/lawlib Reproduced from scanned originals with text recognition applied (searchable text may contain some errors and/or omissions) COMMERCIAL WHITEWATER RAFTING REVIEW OF RECREATIONAL USE LIMIT AND ALLOCATION SYSTEM FINAL REPORT BUREAU OF PARKS AND RECREATION DEPARTMENT OF CONSERVATION AND DEPARTMENT OF INLAND FISHERIES AND WILDLIFE DECEMBER 15, 1985 COMMERCIAL WHITEWATER RAFTING: REVIEW OF RECREATIONAL USE LIMIT AND ALLOCATION SYSTEM F' INAL REPor~T II Introduction ............. I11 •••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••• 1 II. Additional Information Contained in the Final Report. ..... 1 III. Findings and Recommendations A. Recreational Use Limi t ...•............................ 1 B. Allocation System .................................... 12 C. Other River Management Objectives ................... , 19 IV. Proposed Changes to Commercial Whitewater Rafting Legislation •..................................... 21 V. Appendices A. 1985 Use Data ..•............... o ••••••••••••••••••••• 26 B. Results of Outfitter Survey Regarding Recreational Use Limit and Allocation System ................ ...... 38 C. Results of Review of Outfitter Brochures and Informational Material ............................... 51 D. Comments on the Impact of Rafting Received at Public Meetings ...................................... 58 E. Comments Received in Response to Preliminary Report .. 85 COMMERCIAL WH1TEWATEU UA~TING: REVIEW OF RECREATIONAL USE LIMIT AND ALLOCATION SYSTEM I. INTRODUCTION This report completes the review of the recreational use limit and allocation system established in 1983 by PL Chapter 503, An Act to Regulate Commercial Whitewater Rafting. The review, undertaken jointly by the Bureau of Parks and Recreation (BPR) and the Department of Inland Fisheries and Wildlife (DIFW) in accordance with Section 6 of PL 1983, c. 5 0 2, has bee n pre par e din two par t s . A I.:£~.~_.~_~t!!..~U'_.-B.~J2.~r t , submitted to the Legislature on October 1, 1985, presents preliminary findings and issues and contains an analysis of all data considered to that point. This f.U:~.~.~_~~~..E£E. .t presents final findings and recommendations and includes additional important data. The two reports are companion documents. II. ADDITIONAL INFORMATION CONTAINED IN THE FINAL REPORT Ad d i t ion ali n for mat ion con t a i ned i nth i s !:~~I].9.L_~~P..?E".t~ i s supplementary to that contained in the ~£~~"l~~_I].9_E.Y. __ .~.~J?or.1::..:_ The information is presented in a series of appendices. The new information includes the following: -use data (commercial whitewater rafting passengers) for the 1985 season; -results of a survey of commercial whitewater rafting outfitters regarding the recreational use limit and allocation system; -results of a review of outfitter brochures and informational materials regarding types of trips, trip services and prices; -comments about the impact of rafting received at public meetings in The Forks and Millinocket; -comments received in response to the Preliminary Repor t. III.FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS The" Whrtewater~Advrsory"cOrniTlittee has reviewed and supports the recommendations presented below. A. RECREATIONAL USE LIMIT AND IMPACT OF RAFTING 1. Commercial whitewater rafting continues to grow. (See Figures 1 and 2) Between 1983 and 1985 there was an increase of between 15,000 and 16,000 rafters (a 54% increase) on the Kennebec, Penobscot, Dead and Rapid Rivers. Commercial rafting on all but the Kennebec and Penobscot Rivers - 1 - 60,000 V) GROWTH OF COMMERCIAL WHITEWATER RAFTING ~ w 50,000 (.!:) 1976 - 1985 :z: w V) Fig. 1 V) c:( a.. (.!:) :z:...... ~ 40,000 l..L. c:( ~ ~ w ~ c:( 3: W ......~ 30,000 :c 3: -J ......c:( u ~ w L L 0 20,000 U l..L. 0 ~ w co L- =::> :z: 10,000 1987 NUMBER OF COMMERCIAL WHITEWATER RAFTING PASSENGERS 1976 600 1981 1400 1977 2000 1982 250001 19784700 1983 28851 2 1979 7500 1984 3974l~ 1980 8000 (drought yr.) 1985 44540 1. 1976 through 1982 fi gures are from "Whitewater Rafti ng, Report of the Commercial Whitewater Rafting Study Commission to the Maine Legislature," March 1983, and are estimates provided by the Whitewater Outfitters Association of Maine. The numbers were originally reported as»passenger days" but are believed to reflect the actual number of passengers. It is not known if the figures include passengers on the Dead or Rapid rivers. 2. DIFW records do not report passengers for the entire 1983 season. The 1983 estimate reflects the actual number of commercial passengers on the Kennebec reported by CMP for the full season, plus the number of Penobscot passengers reported in DIFW records adjusted upward according to the difference between CMP and DIFW figures on the Kennebec. Commercial passengers on the Dead and Rapid rivers are not included. 3. Includes commercial passengers on the Dead and Rapid rivers. -2- 60,000 (/) GROWTH OF COMMERCIAL WHITEWATER RAFTING a: w on the Kennebec & Penobscot Rivers <.!J :z: 1976 - 1985 w 50,000 (/) (/) Fig. 2 e:( 0_ <.!J :z: Kennebec River >-< f- • l..I- . • e:( Penobscot River a: 40,000 a: w f- e:( 3· w f- ....... I 3 30,000 --1 e:( ....... U a: w :::;: :::;: 0 U l..I- 20,000 0 a: w CLl :::;: :=J :z: 10,000 7 NUMBER OF COMMERCIAL WHITEWATER RAFTING PASSENGERS Kennebec River Penobscot River 1976 600 o 1977 1260 213 1978 2600 976 1979 4335 3800 1980 5340 6106 1981 7341 8425 1982 13326 8588 1983 1 17517 11981 1984 22369 15382 19852 23677 18912 1. Figures for 1976 through 1983 are from "Application for License for Big "A" Hydroelectric Project, Vol. XI, Exhibit E, Environmental Report, Section E 7.0, Report on Recreational Resources," Great Northern Paper Company, March, 1984. This is the only source which provides use figures by river for years prior to 1983. -- 2. Figures for 1984 and 1985 are from DIFW records. -3- remains low (under 2,000 rafters) and confined to limited per i 0 d s 0 f h i g h wa t e r • ~~'1.~~~!..~'?~._<?_~_~,?J!1.~~.~_~~.~.~ __ J_~t.!:.~.~9. on other rivers is not recommended at this time. Levels ·-........-........ ·_..-~-....-'-'-'~,_,~_· ....... ·&_,_··_·._-"_ ........... u .. ·~_·_· ....... ,_,~,,_,""'- ~,._,._ ......... _~,_,_,.~ ••_ ••~, ..... '-'_ •• _ ..................._ ........ ~_. __ ••_._,_._._.~ •• _____ _ of use on other rivers should continue to be monitored n!:~o u 9.~ -§:~~f i t:(iii--r-~E~:~=~~=fII~~:=~rf~.=~iFW:-·--~·~--"··-·-.... --- 2. Commercial rafting on the Kennebec River increased 35% (over 6,000 additional rafters) between 1983 and 1985. Rafting on the Penobscot River increased 58% (close to 7,000 additional rafters) over the same period. In spite of a considerable increase in the number of rafters on these rivers, overall levels of use are well below what is permitted by the recreational use limits on a season long basis: May to September rafting on the Kennebec is at 15% of maximum use, and May to September rafting on the Penobscot is at 22% of maximum use. Weekend days in July and August, however, are periods of heavy use, and on allocated days in these months rafting is at 88% of maximum use on the Kennebec and at 82% of maximum use on the Penobscot. Use limits were exceeded on only two days (Saturdays) in 1985: August 17 on the Kennebec and July 20 on the Penobscot. Levels of use in J u :lY..._~~9..~~~§'.~§'~9.9.~§.t~.!:h ~!' __ .!:'~~~_~_~..b.2.!:l_.~9. .. _be- §.!..f:2:f.i:'i-use·- 1 i ~.~t..J:.~t'?~.S:~!!l e n t ...E.~I..~.2.9.§.._t'?I._~!X.~.~__ .... ~~t.t i 0.9.. .. ..9 n ._~~~.~j_~~ I.~ m~ i n §.._§.~ttl-..~ i e !2..!:.!Y~~_.~2.~ ... ~~~I~~!2.9._.~~Y.~ 1 s ...t h ~ t no ~9.9.lll-..'?~ a 1._~!~_2.~ a t ~9. ..2..~:t.:?~~.~~_...E.~2.~~~_~9.~9.L_~'?~~Y..~..E..L.~ 2L_~._'?L~~~.. s h<2.~!~ ... 2~_~2.~.i t'?E_~9.~Y._!:'h e .. _I?_~_p.9.~_!.me ~.L_<?~ Y~~I.:lY.._!?~sis. 3. Commercial rafting is having an impact on the river environment, access roads, on other users and the quality of the wilderness experience, and on area communities, and these impacts are identified below. Be~~~§.~~P.~~t§. a r ~~~_££.~_!2.~.t._P.I.~s e n t _1 e v ~§' __ 2..L..!:l..§.~. .L_i.t._.~§._ d i tt~ c u 1 t .t 0 .. _E~ c om m~~9.....~!2.LJ.!2.~E.~~§.~ __ l-..~_~!.9_!?.~_i§.b.~.9. __ ~~_~._ ..~~~. t s .~ At !.~ e .....§.~~....!..~~~.L._ t ~~P.9 c !.~9..E.~_~'?.t._.f2.~~9._J:<? be e x c:~P.!. i 0 !2.~l~:i..._9_~ v e.~ .. _an 9.._ s t:~§.._~~Ll?~._!:.I..~~9.._!: 0 _§.9. d ~ e s s P.E'? b 1 ~~..§..._~i-_~ 0 u t _. r e 9.~~.i n 9..._!.b.~~§.!.~!?"l,~.§.~.~_<?_ .. _~§.~_.!.~~i t s , .t h u s ._P.~~.~ v i ~9.._§'!..~b i ~.~!:..Y._i~ ....!.b.~_I.9.J.!:..~f.1_9 __ .~~9.!:l_§'~ The responsibility for taking these steps rests with outfitters, landowners, BPR and DIFW. 4. Commercial outfitters do an excellent job of managing litter and trash along the rivers. An inspection of river sites in the summer of 1985 revealed no litter at rafter sites along the Kennebec, and little or no litter at sites used predominantly by rafters on the Penobscot. Trash generated by commercial rafting does result in increased solid waste volumes at area dumps, but there are no complaints that disposal sites are filling up at greatly accelerated rates.