From Sunday's Peninsula Clarion:

Web posted Sunday, October 15, 2006

In the wake of pollution
Focus of Kenai River motor debate switches to hydrocarbon levels
By PATRICE KOHL
Peninsula Clarion

Newly revealed concerns over hydrocarbon pollution in the Kenai River has added a new twist to the debate over whether horsepower limits should be increased from 35 to 50 for boat motors on the river.

High pollution levels found in the Kenai River for the last six years will likely place the river on a list of impaired waters under section 303d of the federal Clean Water Act, requiring the state to devise a plan to restore it.

The possible listing drew special attention to an unanswered question in the debate over horsepower limits on the river, at Thursday’s Kenai River Special Management Area Advisory Board meeting.

Most boats on the Kenai River are powered by 50 horsepower motors detuned to meet the river’s horsepower limit of 35, and board members questioned whether detuning draws down motor efficiency so that a detuned 50 horsepower motor pollutes just as much or more than a 50 horsepower motor that has not been detuned.

But while members of the Department of Environmental Conservation, Department of Natural Resources and Alaska Department of Fish and Game were present at the meeting, no one offered an answer.

Kent Patrick-Riley, DEC protection and restoration manager, said that while research shows a correlation between increased horsepower and pollution, that there is no research available that has tested the impact of detuning on motor efficiency.

Appearing to take a stand against a proposal to increase horsepower limits to 50 at a Sept. 28 KRSMA meeting, Patrick-Riley said increasing the horsepower limit from 35 to 50 would create a corresponding elevation in pollution levels, and called the proposed 50 horsepower limit a move in the wrong direction.

But at Thursday’s meeting the DEC presented a letter in which it said it did not take a position on the horsepower issue.

Retired Fish and Game biologist Ken Tarbox said this seemed oddly contradictory and faulted the DEC, DNR, Fish and Game, and other interest groups for failing to protect the river.

“Nobody is looking out for the river’s best interest in a comprehensive way,” he said.

DEC Division of Water Director Lynn Tomich Kent said the DEC’s concerns extend to other water quality issues as well, such as turbidity, and that if the proposed 50 horsepower limit can improve other water quality and environmental issues, those should be balanced with the hydrocarbon issue.

KRSMA first proposed an increase in horsepower limits based on results from the first phase of a Kenai River boat wake study, which suggests increased horsepower might play a role in reducing boat wakes by helping boats plane over the water rather than plow through it.

Opponents, however, argue the results of the first phase of the study suggest several additional factors, such as boat size and loading, could also play a role in reducing boat wakes and might offer a more prudent method of addressing boat wakes than the 50 horsepower proposal.

With respect to the hydrocarbons found in the Kenai River, DEC has said there is no question boat motors are responsible for the high pollution levels found in the river, levels that have exceeded state water quality standards every July for the last six years.

When asked to compare the discharge from boats in the Kenai River to the permitted discharge from oil platforms in Cook Inlet, Patrick-Riley said the boats on the Kenai River come out on top, contributing as much as 600 gallons of fuel into the river in a single day during the month of July, compared to the 300 gallons the platforms are allowed to discharge in a single day.

Fueling the debate

According to the Department of Environmental Conservation, boat motors on the Kenai River dump as much as 600 gallons of fuel in the river in a single day in July. By comparison, Cook Inlet oil platforms can discharge up to 300 gallons in a day.