Results 1 to 19 of 19

Thread: Kenai No-wake/speed limit Zone???

  1. #1
    Member
    Join Date
    May 2006
    Posts
    3,073

    Default Kenai No-wake/speed limit Zone???

    I got a letter from DNR asking for comment on various proposals, one of them being a "short" no wake and speed limit zone on the Kenai. It gave no indication of river mile or any relevant idea of where or how big of an area they are talking about.

    It is tough to comment and participate in the process without some details. Does anyone know what area they are talking about?

  2. #2
    Member
    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Posts
    5,519

    Default asssume it has to do with carrying capacity study

    Quote Originally Posted by yukon View Post
    I got a letter from DNR asking for comment on various proposals, one of them being a "short" no wake and speed limit zone on the Kenai. It gave no indication of river mile or any relevant idea of where or how big of an area they are talking about.

    It is tough to comment and participate in the process without some details. Does anyone know what area they are talking about?
    I assume this has to do with the carrying capacity study. They want to survey guides independent of other users. So my guess is you are on the list.

  3. #3
    Member
    Join Date
    May 2006
    Posts
    3,073

    Default

    I don't think it has to do witht he study, it is on a list of 18 changes that DNR wants to make, most of the things are about Eklutna or Eagle River or definition channges. There is only one Kenai regulation changed in it and it is very vague.

    Tell me how to comment on something that all they tell you is this:

    11 AAC 20.870 is proposed to be amended to add a no-wake zone and speed limit in a short part of the Kenai River Special Management Area to reduce bank damage:

    That is all it says, pretty tough to comment on that. Of 18 changes proposed this is the only one for the Kenai in the entire letter. The only other one of note is one to raise the boat launch fees (statewide) to recover costs. Dwight might be interested in that one. I heard he is not a big fan of that.

    Looking at the letter a lot of the stuff was originally to be comment on Nov. 30, 2007. This is some old stuff reappearing.

  4. #4
    Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2008
    Location
    soldotna
    Posts
    841

    Default

    Last year the area around Taku Harbor on the Kenai was being discussed as being a no wake zone. I wonder if that is what this is if is dated 2007?

  5. #5
    Member
    Join Date
    May 2006
    Posts
    3,073

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by iceblue View Post
    Last year the area around Taku Harbor on the Kenai was being discussed as being a no wake zone. I wonder if that is what this is if is dated 2007?
    That is what what I was thinking, but Parks said nothing of the location.

  6. #6
    Member
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Location
    Kenai
    Posts
    233

    Default A few things to consider

    I keep a boat in Tukak Harbor and testified on that one a few years back. The petitioner was the property owner at the harbor entrance who put a dock right below the harbor entrance. This one was not about bank damage, it was about his boat getting rocked as harbor users re entered the lagoon. His nice Willys was taking a beating against his dock every time a boat came in. Everbody idles out, but coming back in the water is pretty shallow and very swift. If you trim up and reduce speed in an attempt to re enter your wake is larger than if you come in on step. It's a narrow little slot and there is no other way to come in. The current is fast enough that you cannot make headway at a no wake speed. I hope that one is dead.

  7. #7
    Member
    Join Date
    May 2006
    Posts
    3,073

    Default

    I think that it is that Tukuk harbor entrance. I got a feeling it is back, those that use that area may want to pay attention to this one as it is back.

  8. #8
    Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2008
    Location
    soldotna
    Posts
    841

    Default

    I agree gotfish.

    The no wake zone also extended out to the island which would of made it very difficult to go up or downstream under power in this area during low water times of the year. Ice changed the channel somewhat during the ice jams that year so going up through Airplane into Porters meant that you had to go behind the Island to make it without getting stuck on a gravel bar. Also tough on those fishing the slot at Porters if boats are trying to take the main river channel to get by.

  9. #9
    Member
    Join Date
    May 2006
    Posts
    3,073

    Default

    I got the letter on Saturday, am I the only one who got it????

  10. #10
    Member
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Location
    Kenai
    Posts
    233

    Default kissing the tax base butt

    I will check with the owner of the harbor. He should know. Last time he informed all of us what was up and we haven't heard anything yet. He's not answering his phone, as soon as i find out I will let you know.

  11. #11
    Member
    Join Date
    Nov 2006
    Location
    Soldotna
    Posts
    607

    Default

    They are not able to do a very effective job enforcing the regs that are currently on the books....where will they get the staff to enforce a "no wake" zone??

  12. #12
    Member thewhop2000's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Location
    Wasilla
    Posts
    2,366

    Default Anyone know of launch fees going up? Yukon?

    Does that letter state anything about trying to raise the launch fee's again? It was proposed a year or two ago, I believe, but was shot down. Are they trying to raise them to match private launch fee's in the same local areas? Had a few friends go testify and when they tried to ascertain who submitted the proposal, DNR claimed not to know. What is up with that? It is almost as goofy as DNR wanting to make it a crime to pick up antlers found on DNR lands. They wanted to let everyone enjoy seeing the antler on the ground and proposed making it illegal to pick up. Sounds like a bunch of California's best are making up these proposals, again.

  13. #13
    Member
    Join Date
    May 2006
    Posts
    3,073

    Default

    Yes, that is the first thing on the list:

    "11AAC 05.010(a)(12)(F) is proposed to be amended to change fees for boat launch and annual boat launch decals, to cover operationg costs"

    It says nothing of how much the increase would be. Again, how can one intelligently comment, is it a $5 increase or a $20 increase, it would be good to know.

  14. #14
    New member
    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    Posts
    2

    Default No Wake Location

    I believe that "no wake" area being referred to is over at Castaway Cove, not the area in front of Tukak Harbor. The river mileage is similar, but this is on the north side.

  15. #15
    New member
    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    Posts
    2

    Default Proposed Reg on "No Wake"

    11 AAC 20.870 is amended by adding a new subsection to read:
    (d) A person may not operate a boat or aircraft at a speed greater than five miles per hour in the no wake area within the channel north of the island located between river mile 15.2 and river mile 14.7, which includes the upstream and downstream entrances to Castaway Cove. (Eff.4/26/86, Register 98; am 12/25/91, Register 120; am 7/1/98, Register 146; am ___/___/____,Register ____)
    Authority: AS 41.21.020 AS 41.21.040 AS 41.21.506

  16. #16
    Member
    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Posts
    2,883

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by yukon
    It says nothing of how much the increase would be. Again, how can one intelligently comment, is it a $5 increase or a $20 increase, it would be good to know.
    The letter clearly states you can contact the DNR PIC for a copy of the proposed regulation changes, or call Chris Degernes @ 907-269-8720 with questions.

    The letter doesn't say anything about raising launch fees. It says the section of 11 AAC 05.010(a)(12)(F) is to be amended to change fees for boat launch and annual boat launch decals, to cover operating costs.

    Currently, that section says those fees are to be used for an improved boat ramp in a park facility developed principally for boat launching, not operating costs.

    So it appears DNR wants to amend that section so the fees go toward operating costs, not just improving the boat launch and decals.

  17. #17
    Member
    Join Date
    May 2006
    Posts
    3,073

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Grampyfishes View Post
    The letter doesn't say anything about raising launch fees. It says the section of 11 AAC 05.010(a)(12)(F) is to be amended to change fees for boat launch and annual boat launch decals, to cover operating costs. .
    Your are right, dead on, totally correct, 100% accurate, it does say nothing about raising the fees, only to "change fees". Maybe they will lower the fees to cover operating costs.

    I don't have a problem with changing fees to improve facilities, add more access, and cover operating costs. I just thought it would be pretty simple to put it in the letter, what that "change" would be.

  18. #18
    Member
    Join Date
    Nov 2006
    Location
    Soldotna
    Posts
    607

    Default

    Boy I sure am looking forward to the lower launch fees......thanks for bringing it up Grampy - I might have gotten upset over a possible increase but the way you see it looks really good to me!!

  19. #19
    Member
    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Posts
    2,883

    Default

    gusdog44, I didn't say anything about lower launch fees. Not sure where you got that.

    thewhop2000 asked if the letter said anything about raising launch fees. Yukon replied, "Yes, that is the first thing on the list". That is wrong. I got the same letter. It says nothing about raising launch fees, only that fees are proposed to be changed to cover operating costs.

    Yukon claimed he could not "intelligently comment". Yet I spoke with DNR on the phone, looked up the old code, and looked up the proposed amendment in its entirety. Took 5 minutes.

    DNR simply wants comments on their proposal. According to them, the proposed change does not mean fees will go up, or that the maximum amount will be charged, or that any increase will go into effect. It simply means that is the potential maximum amount that could be charged, but not exceeded, to cover operating expenses, in some areas.

    If you did not receive a copy of the letter in the mail, you can read it HERE.

    You can find a summary of the proposals HERE.

    You can find the current 11 AAC 05.010(a)(12)(F) HERE.

    And you can find the proposed amendment in its entirety HERE.

    "11 AAC 05.010. Fees

    (a) Non-refundable fees to apply for authorizations, and fees to obtain publications or services from the department, are as follows:

    (12) parks and outdoor recreation, except for activities in a state park operated under a concession contract or a competitive and exclusive use permit

    (F)the fees for the following shall be established by order of the director, and may not exceed

    11 AAC 05.010(a)(12)(F)(ii) is amended to read:

    (ii) $20 [$10] per boat per day, or $150 [$100] per boat per year for a nontransferable calendar year annual boat launching pass decal, for use of an improved boat ramp in a park facility developed principally for boat launching;"

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •