Page 1 of 17 12311 ... LastLast
Results 1 to 20 of 334

Thread: 2007 hydrocarbon results in the Kenai River

  1. #1
    Member
    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Posts
    5,522

    Default 2007 hydrocarbon results in the Kenai River

    At the City of Kenai council meeting some preliminary results were presented on hydrocarbon levels measured in the Kenai River in 2007.

    The measurements were taken on three days toward the end of July. The measurement points were RM 1.5,5, and 7. The highest level ever recorded in any year happened in 2007 at RM 1.5 - near 23 ppb (I am reading them off a figure so do not have the exact number). At RM 5 and 7 the levels were between 5-8 ppb at the highest levels. They were lower in the morning and became higher during the day.

    Peak boat counts was 720 and about 250 of those were in the PU fishery.

    So things are getting worse, not better for the Kenai.

    It will be interesting to see how DNR and DEC will handle these data. The PU fishery will need serous reductions as the percent of two stroke engines was approaching 50% from the discussion at the meeting. Are we going to see over half the boats in the PU fishery eliminated so the upriver guided and private sport fishery can continue at the present levels. Maybe the total elimination of two strokes will solve the problem but the cost to resident Alaskan who use the PU fishery will be greater.

    With DNR increasing fuel by going to 50 hp is that fair when all the two stroke users are being told to get off the river?

    Just thought the new data would be of interest to readers on this forum

  2. #2
    Member
    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Posts
    5,522

    Default correction

    I said the highest levels were between 5-8, I meant to say they were clustered around 5-8. There may be higher levels.

  3. #3

    Default

    I will miss the days of the two stroke.....

  4. #4

    Default A bit shocked

    Nerka,

    I am a bit surprised on your post. Not necessarily by the figures but by your statements. In the past, your posts have been very much data driven and not seemingly agenda driven, but I sense the latter in this thread.

    First of all, the Kenai is getting better in that the levels that you reported do not appear to have exceeded the threshold level of 10ppb above the bridge.

    Secondly, with the readings at RM 1.5, you left out one serious user group and likely a very major contributor to the hydrocarbon issue below the bridge... the commercial drift fleet. Their bilge water is pumped directly into the river. Heaven only knows what is contained in this...

    Also, a peak boat count of 720 with 250 being PU fishers... that leaves 470 sport fishing. Of those 470 remaining.. how many were guided and how many non-guided?

  5. #5
    Member
    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Posts
    2,883

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Nerka
    With DNR increasing fuel by going to 50 hp is that fair when all the two stroke users are being told to get off the river?
    Of course it's not fair. Political agendas by certain special interest groups never are.

    I didn't contribute to any of that pollution...yet my 3-year old 35 hp 2-stroke, which I use twice a year on the Kenai River, is being banned in lue of bigger engines that are used day in and day out by commercial operators. I can't afford $5-6K for a new outboard...so I'll be completely pushed off the river.


    Quote Originally Posted by alaskanfishguides
    First of all, the Kenai is getting better in that the levels that you reported do not appear to have exceeded the threshold level of 10ppb above the bridge.
    720 boats and 23 ppb...yeah, that's better.


    Quote Originally Posted by alaskanfishguides
    readings at RM 1.5, you left out one serious user group and likely a very major contributor to the hydrocarbon issue below the bridge... the commercial drift fleet.
    The drift fleet is below RM 1.5.


    Quote Originally Posted by alaskanfishguides
    that leaves 470 sport fishing. Of those 470 remaining.. how many were guided and how many non-guided?
    The real question is how much of the pollution is being contributed by those guides, and will it decrease when they get their way to increase their engine size.


    Quote Originally Posted by alaskanfishguides
    I am a bit surprised on your post...In the past, your posts have been very much data driven and not seemingly agenda driven, but I sense the latter in this thread.
    Nerka said they were preliminary results, and he did not have the exact data. If you've got better data, then post it.

  6. #6
    Mark
    Guest

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Nerka View Post
    .....With DNR increasing fuel by going to 50 hp is that fair when all the two stroke users are being told to get off the river?....
    This defies logic. Riverbank erosion was what supposedly justified the 35 hp limit in the first place, and there are still plenty of folks crying about streambank erosion.

    But, then, what does logic have to do with Kenai River politics?.....................

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

    Default

    Nerka, you anti-50 agenda is coming out again. The DNR data shows that the increase in HP will increase HC very little, if any, IMO, as boat spent little time a full throttle while on the river. By advocationg 35hp you are advocating a motor that is modified and does not meet EPA standards, let alone not avaialble without the work of motor manufactures.

    That data tells me the primary problem is the PU fishery. Let's focus on how to fix that. Looking at the data 2-strokes should be banned below the bridge as well.

    The data shows that above the bridge no days were over the 10 ppb? Sounds like the river is better above the bridge and worse in the PU fishery.

    But again, as already done in a previous post, lets blame the guides.

    Grampyfishes, get a clue, read the data 720 boats and 250 of them below the bridge, looks like the overall effort in the King fishery is down. 23 ppb is at river mile 1.5, below the king fishery, at the king fishery it is 5 to 8 ppb not exceeding the 10 ppb as it has in pervious years. Yes, that is better than in past years.

    Heck, you are worried about you 2-stroke, better read some posts, there are some on here that want everything to go drift only.

  8. #8
    New member
    Join Date
    Feb 2004
    Location
    Soldotna
    Posts
    5,639

    Default Mistaken?

    Quote Originally Posted by Mark View Post
    . . . Riverbank erosion was what supposedly justified the 35 hp limit in the first place,. . .
    It's my understanding that the 35-horsepower limit was imposed for reasons of safety, not erosion.


  9. #9
    New member
    Join Date
    Feb 2004
    Location
    Soldotna
    Posts
    5,639

    Cool And on and on and on. . .

    Quote Originally Posted by yukon View Post
    Nerka, you anti-50 agenda is coming out again.
    Over 60% of respondents to a Peninsula Clarion poll and DNR's Web page have an "anti-50" agenda. If Nerka has an "anti-50" agenda as you accuse him of, he's far from alone.

    The impetus behind an increase to 50-horsepower on the Kenai has, over the past several years, come overwhelmingly from commercial users. Back around 2003-2004 when I sat on the Kenai-Soldotna ADF&G Advisory Committee, members of the AC who were commercial users were pushing for it then.

    And the beat goes on. . . .


  10. #10
    Member
    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Posts
    2,883

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Mark View Post
    This defies logic. Riverbank erosion was what supposedly justified the 35 hp limit in the first place, and there are still plenty of folks crying about streambank erosion.

    But, then, what does logic have to do with Kenai River politics?.....................
    And you think it's logical to address increased hydrocarbon issues, increased bank erosion, and crowding issues by increasing horsepower? Larger outboards weigh more, use more fuel, produce more hydrocarbons, require larger boats, accomodate higher speeds, are generally noisier, and yes...produce waves with more energy. And all this while the little local guy like me who goes out twice a year with his little 18'er and 35 hp 2-stroke must give it up? Where's the logic in that Mark?

    The intent of the original 35 hp law was wide-spread. Safety, boat size, speed, erosion, noise, and an overall concensus by the locals and the public. And you know, to this day nothing is wrong with that law....other than the guides finding the loop-holes and abusing it, and proposing an increase.

  11. #11
    Member
    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Posts
    5,522

    Default just facts.

    I was not trying to advocate for any position but to pose the questions that DEC and DNR must deal with - sorry if it came across that way.

    Relative to 50 hp the estimate is about 1 ppb increase by going from 35 to 50 (DEC models)

    Yukon, you stated my point and your position. You are saying that the sport fishery should be allowed 5-8 ppb and the PU fishery something less. However, the goal for the hydrocarbon plan has to be 8 ppb according to the EPA - they require a safety margin of 2 ppb from the standard. So if the upriver fishery is pushing 8 then there is no room for the PU fishery. I have advocated for a comprehensive plan for the river so this piecemeal regulation approach does not create problems.

    However, since two strokes are still on the upriver the final levels may be lower and allow for some PU fishery to take place. That is the point - how we as a society are going to make those trade-offs.

    Relative to the commercial boats in the lower river they are not significant. The Kenai Watershed Forum tested for their contribution and I believe they stated it is not an issue.

    Hope this helps.

  12. #12
    Member
    Join Date
    May 2006
    Posts
    3,073

    Default

    Nerka, 8 ppm, shouldn't be a problem if the models are correct and the upriver hydrocarbon is reduced with the elimination of 2 strokes (3 to 4 ppb if I remember correctly) and if the PU would follow suit I think we would easily be under the 8 ppb, even on the busiest days.

    With all the controversy this year I was really watching for 2-stroke motors. You can hear them and smell them a long ways away. There are quite a few of them out there and I truely believe (and the data shows) getting them off the river will make a difference.

    Marcus, 50 hp originated in the erosion studies. The data shows if the boats stay the same size (part of the regulation) then 50 hp will reduce wake size, both phase 1 and 2 show that. Some will fight it for various reasons but that is what came out in the studies.

  13. #13
    Member
    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Posts
    2,883

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by yukon
    The DNR data shows that the increase in HP will increase HC
    Yukon, if the data shows that increased hp will increase hydrocarbon levels, then why in the world would we want to do that when we are trying to decrease hydrocarbon levels?


    Quote Originally Posted by yukon
    By advocationg 35hp you are advocating a motor that is modified and does not meet EPA standards, let alone not avaialble without the work of motor manufactures.
    First, a 50 hp 4-stroke detuned to 35 hp does meet EPA standards. The motor is not modified, it is simply factory detuned at the throttle.

    Second, all major outboard manufacturers make 40 hp models. The guides ignored that when they proposed this increase from 35 hp to 50 hp. The excuse that the manufacturers don't make lesser hp models available that would work is deceiving. These outboards produce less hydrocarbons, and have many other advantages over the larger 50 hp in this case.


    Quote Originally Posted by yukon
    That data tells me the primary problem is the PU fishery. Let's focus on how to fix that. Looking at the data 2-strokes should be banned below the bridge as well.
    There is a lot of River between RM 1.5 and RM 5-7 where the PU fishery isn't taking place and the commercial guide fishery is. I would imagine the hydrocarbon measurements at RM 1.5 include that from up River.


    Quote Originally Posted by yukon
    But again, as already done in a previous post, lets blame the guides.
    The guides are exactly the ones who introduced the proposal to increase hp, which increases fuel consumption and hydrocarbons.


    Quote Originally Posted by yukon
    Grampyfishes, get a clue, read the data 720 boats and 250 of them below the bridge, looks like the overall effort in the King fishery is down. 23 ppb is at river mile 1.5, below the king fishery
    yukon, are you saying that of the 470 boats fishing Kings none are fishing between RM 1.5 and RM 7 and none contribute to the hydrocarbon levels at RM 1.5?

  14. #14

    Default Why only test in July?

    I am confused as to why the tests are only done in July on peak days? We are talking about a two week period when the river is this crowded. How about right now? I bet the levels are way down at the present moment. I would also bet that the river remains way down for 340 of the 365 days in the year.

    Shouldn't a more comprehensive study of the pollution levels be done during an entire year? Or even over a period of two to three years? I don't get how you can take readings from the three busiest days of the year, and then label the entire river polluted.

  15. #15
    Member
    Join Date
    May 2006
    Posts
    3,073

    Default

    I fish around the Warren Ames Bridge, okay, maybe 2 to 5 guide boats are below the bridge on an incoming tide, that's it.

    Guides did not intoduce the proposal, the Kenai River Special Management Area committee did and it passed unamiously.

    No there isn't much sport fishing taking placed below the bridge, RM 5 or so.

    The reason for 50 was the 2 boat wake studies showed 50hp will decrease erosion. It was a good balance between a small increase in HC for a lowering of erosion.

    40 hp was taken into consideration, it was discussed and since 50 hp was tested for and the majority of motors are detuned 50's that made the most sense. The biggest polluters are the old 2-strokes ( 10 to 20 times more HC out of your motor than a 4-stroke) they would come off the river in a timely fashion. Even if the regulation went to 40 hp 4-strokes the old 2-stroke users would have to buy a new motor. It makes sense to make it 50 because the majority of guides and non-guides are running detuned 50 hp. Therefore impacting the fewest users.


    Also, yes upriver users contribute to the HC at RM 1.5, Yes I am saying not many (maybe 5 boats) fish below river mile 5 where the HC was 5-8 ppb. So below the bridge (PU fishery) the increade was bwetween 13 and 18 ppb in 3.5 miles of river in which the vast use is the PU fishery. Yes, that is what I am saying and I think Nerka would even back me up on that one.

    If you don't know Grampy, the PU boat fishery is up to RM 5 the Warren Ames Bridge. There is basically no sportfisherman below the bridge. Like I stated, maybe 5 on an incoming tide.

  16. #16
    Mark
    Guest

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Grampyfishes View Post
    Originally Posted by Mark
    This defies logic. Riverbank erosion was what supposedly justified the 35 hp limit in the first place, and there are still plenty of folks crying about streambank erosion.

    But, then, what does logic have to do with Kenai River politics?.....................
    And you think it's logical to address increased hydrocarbon issues, increased bank erosion, and crowding issues by increasing horsepower?...
    Nope. That's why an increase in hp isn't logical..........

    ....Larger outboards weigh more, use more fuel, produce more hydrocarbons, require larger boats, accomodate higher speeds, are generally noisier, and yes...produce waves with more energy. And all this while the little local guy like me who goes out twice a year with his little 18'er and 35 hp 2-stroke must give it up? Where's the logic in that Mark?....
    I don't know. I asked first.

    Like I wrote, I find little logic at all regarding Kenai River politics.

    .....The intent of the original 35 hp law was wide-spread. Safety, boat size, speed, erosion, noise, and an overall concensus by the locals and the public.....
    I remember the intent was to get the big, V-8 powered jetboats off the river. I'm sure safety was used as one of the strawmen with which to get that goal accomplished (even though I didn't know of any accidents with such boats on the river), noise was used as another strawman (just like with airboats), and riverbank erosion.

    What I pointed out is that riverbank erosion is still an issue. The noise issue is gone, but some are trying to make safety issues about the sheer number of boats on the water during certain periods and in certain areas of the river.

    You can be sure that some will drag up whatever strawman they can in order to close the place off to others...........

  17. #17
    New member
    Join Date
    Feb 2004
    Location
    Soldotna
    Posts
    5,639

    Cool Almost. . . .

    Quote Originally Posted by yukon View Post
    Guides did not intoduce the proposal, the Kenai River Special Management Area committee did and it passed unamiously.
    If I'm not mistaken, the proposal was placed before the KRSMA board by a board member who is guide. . .

    The proposal initially passed unanimously, but I believe that situation has modified somewhat.

    The 50-horsepower thing, not a done-deal at this point in time, is beginning to sound like the "c&r-first-run-kings" fiasco of a few years back. Public outrage simply won't go away. . . and is maybe increasing?


  18. #18
    Member
    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Posts
    2,883

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by yukon
    Guides did not intoduce the proposal, the Kenai River Special Management Area committee did and it passed unamiously.
    Better dig a little deeper yukon. It came straight from the guides, who had already finagled their 50 hp outboards and their Predators onto the river in large masses before studies were even completed. KRSMA carried the torch. It was pure political and blatently driven by special interests. Go back and read some of the minutes from the early guide meetings. And BTW, the KRSMA committee consists mostly of commercial guides and others with Kenai River special interests.


    Quote Originally Posted by yukon
    No there isn't much sport fishing taking placed below the bridge, RM 5 or so.
    Guides are in large numbers below RM 7. Sometimes you can see hundreds of them from the WA bridge.


    Quote Originally Posted by yukon
    The reason for 50 was the 2 boat wake studies showed 50hp will decrease erosion.
    50 hp was being pushed, and literally introduced to DNR, prior to any conclusive studies. An indication that the studies had little meaning compared to politics.

    The real reason was that the guides couldn't legally get their huge Predators full of clients up river fast enough and without making huge wakes. Rather than sensibly opt for smaller, flat-bottom boats that produce less wake and hydrocarbons, they pushed for more. At the sake of accomodating themselves, they put the burden of purchasing new outboards and new boats on the rest of the public.

    Quote Originally Posted by yukon
    It was a good balance between a small increase in HC for a lowering of erosion.
    Why not a decrease in HC and a lowering of erosion?

    yukon, 40 hp wasnt' considered because the guides didn't want to pay to re-power with something that also wouldn't push their large boats up river. Even 40 wasn't enough for them. They didn't even request that they be tested. If increased hp reduces boat wake like you say, then the increase from 35 to 40 would've done that. So why 50? Why not 75? And since increasing hp is apparently ok where hydrocarbons are concerned (even though we know more hp = more hydrocarbons), why didn't they shoot for 75 hp?


    Quote Originally Posted by yukon
    It makes sense to make it 50 because the majority of guides and non-guides are running detuned 50 hp. Therefore impacting the fewest users.
    Since you seem to have the numbers, how many fisherman have 35's and detuned 40's?

  19. #19
    Member
    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Posts
    5,522

    Default some more data

    I thought I would give you some additional information. The sampling was done on Sat July 21nd, Sunday 22rd, and Tuesday 24th.

    The RM 5 and 7 levels reached between 10-12 ppb on the 21st in the afternoon. The levels climbed all day until that peak.

    Of the 17 individual tests at RM 1.5 the standard was exceeded in 15 of them. Even at 9 am in the morning on the 21st and 22nd the standard was exceeded at RM 1.5(about 12-13 ppb) with some measurements jumping to close to 20 ppb shortly after that.

    Yukon, you cannot keep towing the company line about reduced erosion with 50 hp. You state the boat size will remain the same on the river. That is not true. The average sized boat will increase with this regulation as people purchase larger boats since they can have higher horsepower. You also fail to mention that the 50 hp can be altered to higher horsepower will little chance that DNR will catch the person doing it. Finally, the report from the Corp of Eng. points out very clearly that hull design and weight are the important factors on erosion and that getting up on step and off to navigate the river is a major concern.

  20. #20
    Member
    Join Date
    May 2006
    Posts
    3,073

    Default

    2 members of the KRSMA committee are guides, I believe there are 11 members, I could be wrong on that 11 number, it may be 13.

    Guides could really careless, I have predator and I run 35, it would be nice to get on step faster, that is what 50 will do, and getting on step faster will reduce erosion.

    Call Parks and get the data, I can't remember the number off hand but non-guide boats get a lot more tickets for being 50 hp. And yes, guides are getting checked frequently.

    Why do guides pass you??? Because they know how to prop their boats, use their power lifts and load correctly.

    Yes, there are guide boat at rivermile 7, I never argued that, I used the RM 5 in my statement. You don't see guide boats below the bridge.

    The vast, vast majority of the guides are running 35hp, truely. I will put up the fleet of guide boats against the non-guides any day as who is running legal and who is not. It is simply not worth the risk for a guide. Guides get a ticket and suspended for 3 days the next year, not worth the risk.

    The talk of 50 prompted the studies, phase one came out infavor of 50. In my opinion DNR did not like that so they ordered phase two and delayed the presentation of it. They kept telling the committee next month and kept that up for almost a year. Well, it too came back infavor of 50.

    Great idea, smaller boats = more boats, just what he public wants, more guide boats. Everyone vilifies the willie predator, there are a lot of semi-v boats out there. A lot of non-guides have willie's. You think people are mad at getting new motors, try and take away their semi-v boats.

    I already told you why 50 was tested and not 40. Read the post.

    Sorry Grandpafishes, I guess you are just made that you have to get rid of your two-stoke, for that I am sorry. Too bad your the two times you are on the river you pollute for a total of 10+ other boats. If that makes you feel good, putting all those HC in the water then so be it.

    The bottom line, everyone blames the guides, they are an easy target.

    Like I have said before, get rid of guides and all the problems on the river will go away, and you will save me a lot of money in permits and fees.

Page 1 of 17 12311 ... LastLast

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
  •