The Alaska Department of Environmental Conservation tonight (10/12/'06) at the Kenai River Special Management Area advisory board meeting, stated that they intend to list the Kenai River with the Environmental Protection Agency as impaired under the Clean Water Act. This action is based on violation of state standards for the protection of aquatic life. DEC representatives stated that 600 gallons of fuel a day enters the river in the month of July. The primary cause of this pollution is boats.

DEC also stated that horsepower increases will not solve the fuel problem and that a reduction in boats or use patterns will be necessary.

The classification of this world-class river as impaired is a statement on the unwillingness of state agencies to control the growth of motorized boat use of the Kenai and resultant pollution.

The Department of Natural Resources has control over use patterns on the river through special legislation passed in the mid-80's for the protection of fish and wildlife. DNR has failed because special-interest groups have been able to politically stop or alter regulations to protect the river. These user groups maintain they want to save the river and raise millions of dollars under the habitat banner only to stiffle real and meaningful change.

The impact on the communities of the Kenai Peninsula from this lisitng are not fully understood at this time. However, because the tourism industry in Alaska sells a pristine environment as a prime reason for visiting the State, it is hard to believe this will have no impact on people coming to the Kenai Peninsula. After all, the Kenai River now shares the same status as polluted streams in their home towns.

It is a sad day for Alaska, but it shows we are no different from any other community that has allowed itself to be used by powerful political leaders. Every year the politically powerful come to the Kenai for the Kenai River Classic and donate millions of dollars for habitat issues. Kind of hard to sell that anymore given 600 gallons of fuel flow down the river each day in July. (—edited from an Alaska Web site, posted last night)

That sucks.

But, maybe on a more positive note, something will be done about the boat traffic and pollution problems and the Kenai *might* get a second chance...

Probably have to lose a few dollars now to gain a few dollars in the future.

Personally, I'd like to see the Kenai be a good fishery for many years to come. I don't travel all the way up to the Kenai because it sucks as much as our rivers down here do.

Clean up the Kenai AK. Please.

Greetings Marcus.

I'm not sure what is "sad". Is it that the Kenai River is being polluted with 600 gallons of fuel in July each year, or that it was designated as 'impaired' under the Clean Water Act. Or both.

The fact that the Kenai River has experienced alot of motorized recreation each summer is certainly not new; nor is it surprising the river may be suffering because of it. Perhaps some Alaskans are beginning to realize that their corner of the world isn't much different than the rest of the Pacific Northwest, as Carver correctly points out. That indeed is a sad commentary on what can happen to a river when is fully exploited by a user group; in this case, recreational anglers (like me).

Fortunately, the solution is easy. Ban motorized boats on the Kenai. Go to a DB fishery only. The problem isn't the boats or the anglers or the catch rates. It's the motors. Just think what the Kenai River would be like without all those sleds.......

Not entirely "easy". DB's are fine on the upper Kenai. But on the lower Kenai you have either:
1. high gradient big water or
2. tidal water.
Neither are ideal for DB's. And from one end to the other you have serious access issues. To ban motors on this section you are effectively banning boats.

I think it's a great plan to ban OB Motors on the Kenai. Maybe some sanity will return to this overfished resource. I'm all for DBs headwaters to mouth.
This will definetly produce skinnier guides.

It would be easier to be a galley slave on the high seas than to be guide with a DB on the Kenai.

Save the river at all costs. If tourism is going to be a problem, Put in a launch or two for DBs? Maybe it will still be a neat place for my grandkids to go someday.

What's Bob have to say about this. That generous joker that runs this site seems to get by very nicely with a DB.

-t

The Kenai has been a joke for 10 years. The guide took it over and have screwed it up. Limit outboard motors to a certain number per day by lottery and charge the guides about $5,000 guide fees to help clean it up.

A buddy of mine just returned from the skeena system in canada. His stories are of epic fish, beautiful scenery and NO SLEDS, single barbless hooks, etc etc etc!

That place is strict but well managed. The amount of regulations and restrictions are far overshadowed by the amount of BITING fish.....

I personally run a sled on a regular basis. i love it. its rad.

The above being stated. If me running my sled now threatens my childrens chance at salmon/steelhead i WOULD GLADLY give up my sled and drift.

I was lucky to grow up spring/summers on the Aluetian chain... I understand what alaska looks like and this news hurts me deeply.

Alaska is Shang-ri-La to all anglers.

the bottom line is We all need to make sacrifices locally and when we take trips to other regions to support mother nature.

we need to learn what we can about sportsmanship and respect from respectable people, follow there lead and be leaders in our own right by the example we set on the river and in our conversations.

Does anyone have to prove that there is damage enough to warrent further regulations? Or is this a proposal for another unstated purpose? I personally have no idea, but am aware that fisherman usually are the best base of information....not state or fed employees. So what do you who fish the Kenai have to say?

Fishermen carry water quality testing kits with them on the rivers they fish? I've noticed that most fishermen don't even know what the water temperature is, let alone its DO, pH, or hydrocarbon concentrations.

If only our state would manage our systems like Canada does we would have the same type of fishery that they do. I beleive in banning all jet boats on all rivers. That goes for indians two. Save the fish not Indians.

Salmo......I would just like to know if there have been obvious results of the "600 gallons/day" statement...like dead fish, birds, bears, fishermen, etc., that can verify a need to further regulate.

I wouldn't discount a water test, if I knew the details, like where, when, frequency of tests and the depth of samples and flow conditions, etc. Since fuel tends to float then evaporate, I have my doubts that fish are much affected by outboard exhaust. I would think that the fisherman would be more apt to suffer the effects of second-hand smoke than the fish. Am I wrong?

I like how the 50hp issue, was side-stepped by saying that it won't solve the water pollution problem. I say quit coming up with problems and start finding solutions. Going to 50hp would have been a start. All the "hubub" about needing to go to 35hp to cut down on bank erosion, has now been doing the opposite. A boat loaded with 5 people under limited power, causes more bank erosion than anything else. I say to solve the pollution problem, don't take motor's off the river, take polluting motors off the river. Motors should be checked to pass 2006 EPA emission standards...except that will never happen, because then all the older 2-strokes would be out, and that would create a guide/civilian issue. I just hope that before DNR, the feds, or whomever starts resticting, that they aren't too hasty. Any decision to limit use of this resource, can be extremly detrimental to the community and its patrons.

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.

As I recall, isn't there one day a week where only DB's are allowed on the Kenai? They call it "Drift Boat Monday". Or is it Tuesday?

If "DB only" is okay for once a week, why not seven days a week during July? That would cure the problem quickly.

I just can't see the justification for continuing to allow 600 gallons of fuel a day to be released into the Kenai River. Or any other river of comparable size in the Pacific Northwest.

Really? I saw quite a few sleds on the Skeena running clients 2 weeks ago. Are the rulez up there different during the salmon season?

Sleds are allowed on the Bulkley, Babine, and most of the Skeena as far as I know...