Page 1 of 6 123 ... LastLast
Results 1 to 20 of 119

Thread: Kenai River turbidity too high

  1. #1
    Member
    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Posts
    5,533

    Default Kenai River turbidity too high

    Recently at two forums the Kenai Watershed Forum presented data collected on turbidity in the lower Kenai River. The unit of measurement is called NTU and the state standard for drinking water is 5 NTU over the background and for fish and wildlife 25 NTU's over the background.

    The data collected the last two years is significant and at the KRSMA meeeting the DEC representative said this could put the Kenai back on the impaired river status.

    For a picture of the measures the Redoubt Reporter had a figure but to summarize the facts look like this. When the boat activity is gone from the river the NTU's measure less than 25 - Mondays in July, early June, August. When the tribs dump mud the levels will get to 50 NTU's but only for a few days.

    The results of the measurements show that levels in July when the boats are out the levels reach as high as 170 NTU measured 30 feef from the bank. The levels are even higher near the bank. It is typical in July to see levels reach over 100 NTUs on boat days.

    Further, the measurements show that probably over 80 percent of them exceed the water quality standard.

    Why is this significant? As most people know juvenile chinook salmon rear right up next to the bank and with these levels of turbidity feeding and activity is impacted. What is disturbing is that people will say that the chinook adult run is healthy so there must not be a problem. That is not correct. One segment of the population could be adversely impacted and that reduces the overall resilent nature of the system, plus one does not know how metapopulations are being impacted. Therefore, we need to take this seriously.

    I know the guides are already being naysayers - the guide association president showed some ignorance at the last KRSMA board meeting by saying this is not a problem the stuff just flows out into the inlet.

    When are we going to realize that use on this river and the type of use is just too much - the system is telling us this over and over again - from hydrocarbons, nearbank development, boat wakes, erosion, and now turbidity. Even large chinook are missing - Someone should listen to these warning signs.

    The response from DEC and DNR - we are going to collect more data next year before we do anything. Lets wait until the river is declared impaired before we do anything. Of course that is DEC and DNR attitude - political decision making ruined the salmon runs of the Pacific Northwest and we are doing the same here.

    We should start to plan to reduce boat use or the pattern of boat use on the Kenai and start now. There are ways to do this if we think about it. Drift only is not the only solution. Permits, start times, and other options are available.

    My comment to those who want to argue this point - show me no harm to the resource and why the standard is not acceptable. Do not put the burden of proof on biologist to show harm - the offending group should show no harm-

  2. #2
    Member fishNphysician's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Location
    Aberdeen WA
    Posts
    4,516

    Default Lots of questions...

    Implications for user activity in tidewater are certainly up in the air.

    It's in the tidewater reaches that the river current slows and water backs up in cyclical fashion. It's the natural place for the river's suspended sediment loads to settle out.

    It also means that it's the area most vulnerable to re-suspending those sediment loads if the water gets sloshed around to any degree. And there's no doubt that there's a whole lot of sloshin' goin' on as powerboats travel up and down this stretch of the river. Even the wake of a solitary boat traversing this reach will cause enough turbulence and bank slap to visibly muddy the nearshore water out 8-10 feet.

    Unless there's been a fresh slide or a fresh raw cut of open earth on a high bank, reaches further upriver are generally armored in gravel and much less prone to re-suspension of large sediment loads.

    The question is where do you draw the line in the sand. How much turbidity are we willing to tolerate, because ANY amount of use will cause some measurable amount.

    The standard is somewhat vague as it does not say where the turbidity should be measured to count... how far upriver? how close to the bank?

    For how long must the elevated turbidity persist to count... 2 hours a day, 12 hours a day, 24 hours a day? How many days per week? How many months per year?

    We can all intuitively agree that NOT artificially elevating turbidity is going to be better for the river than creating excessive man-caused turbidity. While the turbidity itself is readily measurable, the true impact is NOT. It would be just as difficult to prove harm as it would be to prove no harm.

    It's clear that a standard should be set and enforced. The devil is in the details of defining the standard and how/where the specific samples are to be measured.
    "Let every angler who loves to fish think what it would mean to him to find the fish were gone." Zane Grey
    http://www.piscatorialpursuits.com/uploads/UP12710.jpg
    The KeenEye MD

  3. #3
    Member
    Join Date
    May 2006
    Posts
    3,080

    Default

    Sorry Nerka, works both ways, show me harm. Show me why 25 NTU's over baseline is bad, show me the damage. Run with this, I am not sure what you want for an outcome, but if drift only is what you want keep going. Go public, be loud, get those powerboats off the river, it is up to you to save the Kenai. You want us to show you no harm, prove a negative, sorry, don't work like that.

    I will show you no harm, escapements are being met and/or exceeded yearly. Done

  4. #4
    Member
    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Posts
    5,533

    Default clear to me

    Quote Originally Posted by fishNphysician View Post
    Implications for user activity in tidewater are certainly up in the air.

    It's in the tidewater reaches that the river current slows and water backs up in cyclical fashion. It's the natural place for the river's suspended sediment loads to settle out.

    It also means that it's the area most vulnerable to re-suspending those sediment loads if the water gets sloshed around to any degree. And there's no doubt that there's a whole lot of sloshin' goin' on as powerboats travel up and down this stretch of the river. Even the wake of a solitary boat traversing this reach will cause enough turbulence and bank slap to visibly muddy the nearshore water out 8-10 feet.

    Unless there's been a fresh slide or a fresh raw cut of open earth on a high bank, reaches further upriver are generally armored in gravel and much less prone to re-suspension of large sediment loads.

    The question is where do you draw the line in the sand. How much turbidity are we willing to tolerate, because ANY amount of use will cause some measurable amount.

    The standard is somewhat vague as it does not say where the turbidity should be measured to count... how far upriver? how close to the bank?

    For how long must the elevated turbidity persist to count... 2 hours a day, 12 hours a day, 24 hours a day? How many days per week? How many months per year?

    We can all intuitively agree that NOT artificially elevating turbidity is going to be better for the river than creating excessive man-caused turbidity. While the turbidity itself is readily measurable, the true impact is NOT. It would be just as difficult to prove harm as it would be to prove no harm.

    It's clear that a standard should be set and enforced. The devil is in the details of defining the standard and how/where the specific samples are to be measured.
    The standard DEC uses is that 10 percent of the samples can violate the measurement, whereever it is. The measurements this year are much higher and greater than 10 percent of them. There is no doubt that a violation is taking place - also the idea this is tide related does not play out on Monday and the impact can be sen upstream of the sampling location.

    Again, users want to try and make excuses for their actions and ignore the fact these levels are so high that it is not close.

  5. #5

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by fishNphysician View Post
    While the turbidity itself is readily measurable, the true impact is NOT. It would be just as difficult to prove harm as it would be to prove no harm.
    Amen brother.

    It makes me think of the days when the river had unlimited horsepower and in the 90's when there were more boats on the river than in recent years. Was turbidity a factor back then? Has there been a decline in the Kenai in its ability to produce salmon and to meet escapement goals year after year after year? Sure there's been times when there have been restrictions but as a whole, year after year, the Kenai is healthy.

    It's good to be concerned about water issues but let's be pragmatic about it as well.

  6. #6
    Member
    Join Date
    May 2006
    Posts
    3,080

    Default

    Nerka, this is your baby, U go with it, I am out.

    What is your solution?

    I will leave with that

  7. #7
    Member
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Location
    Kenai
    Posts
    233

    Default it's gonna take us all

    Looks like we are going to need another study to show that this turbidity is effecting all those juvenile king salmon that rear down there in that tidewater around Eagle Rock and Mud Island. I am trying to remain open minded about these studies but they are looking more and more like an agenda to make the river drift only. Thank the stars that the new regulations regarding 4 stroke motors had such a positive impact on hydrocarbons. I am getting too old to row. Tcman has a good point about the river being more crowded with boats and bigger motors back in the mid eighties and early nineties. Nerka, are you saying that the turbidity is killing the big kings? I was beginning to think the guides caught them all. I really have to wonder how Joe Fisherman is going to feel when he gets told he can't fish when he has a day off or gets off work because he doesn't have a permit or his shotgun start was missed. I am not so sure KPFC really has the best interest of Joe at heart. I agree that the river gets crowded at times. I wish we could figure out something that gave the local joe fisherman some priority. (above and beyond the no guides 6 to 6 rule) I wish we could figure out how to limit the guides. I wish we could figure out how to fairly reduce the crowd. I would be very interested to hear the other options you referred to Nerka. In my mind drift only, without reducing the crowd, creates as many problems as it solves.
    Last edited by gotfish?; 02-16-2009 at 21:47. Reason: punctuation

  8. #8
    Member fishNphysician's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Location
    Aberdeen WA
    Posts
    4,516

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Nerka View Post
    The standard DEC uses is that 10 percent of the samples can violate the measurement, wherever it is.

    Wherever?

    That just illustrates my point about the vague and nebulous way the standard is actually defined.

    Wherever? I don't think that's good enough. The regulatory bodies need to tighten that definition up a bit, especially with regard to what constitutes a representative sample in very specific terms of space and time.

    If my sled was the only one on the river and I made one pass on full step along any one of the high muddy banks, it would leave a visible strip 8 ft wide in the water immediately adjacent to the bank. If someone immediately took ten samples within that strip along 1/4 mile of river, they would ALL be in violation of the standard. FAIL! If they promptly sampled the mid-channel over the same length of river, you'd never know I went by. They would all be perfect! PASS! If you waited an hour later there would be no trace of my disturbance even along the near-shore samples. PASS!

    I chose those ridiculous scenarios only to make the point that "wherever" ain't good enough. I'm not trying to be an ***** here, just illustrating how the sampling could be biased either way to move the turbidity status across the threshold, depending on the motivations.

    A good definition is paramount, otherwise how would we ever know if our remedial actions have finally satisfied the intent of the standard.
    "Let every angler who loves to fish think what it would mean to him to find the fish were gone." Zane Grey
    http://www.piscatorialpursuits.com/uploads/UP12710.jpg
    The KeenEye MD

  9. #9
    Member TYNMON's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Location
    Corvallis, Oregon, United States
    Posts
    918

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by fishNphysician View Post
    Wherever?

    That just illustrates my point about the vague and nebulous way the standard is actually defined.

    Wherever? I don't think that's good enough. The regulatory bodies need to tighten that definition up a bit, especially with regard to what constitutes a representative sample in very specific terms of space and time.

    If my sled was the only one on the river and I made one pass on full step along any one of the high muddy banks, it would leave a visible strip 8 ft wide in the water immediately adjacent to the bank. If someone immediately took ten samples within that strip along 1/4 mile of river, they would ALL be in violation of the standard. FAIL! If they promptly sampled the mid-channel over the same length of river, you'd never know I went by. They would all be perfect! PASS! If you waited an hour later there would be no trace of my disturbance even along the near-shore samples. PASS!

    I chose those ridiculous scenarios only to make the point that "wherever" ain't good enough. I'm not trying to be an ***** here, just illustrating how the sampling could be biased either way to move the turbidity status across the threshold, depending on the motivations.

    A good definition is paramount, otherwise how would we ever know if our remedial actions have finally satisfied the intent of the standard.

    Unfortunately....

    This could be the sword that cuts the rope that has restrained guide limited entry in the past...

    I am doubtful that the turbity is helpful to juvenile salmon and we already know the bank is pounded from all the increased wake activity.... The writing is kinda on the wall for July at least... I bet we are facing further power boat restrictions w/ this study.... Next board of fish will take a miracle to keep more drift days being put into law.... Sad fact is 50 drift boat is the equivelent crowd of 400 power boats.... Power boats just spread out the pressure way better the drift boats...

  10. #10
    Member
    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Posts
    5,533

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by fishNphysician View Post
    Wherever?

    That just illustrates my point about the vague and nebulous way the standard is actually defined.

    Wherever? I don't think that's good enough. The regulatory bodies need to tighten that definition up a bit, especially with regard to what constitutes a representative sample in very specific terms of space and time.

    If my sled was the only one on the river and I made one pass on full step along any one of the high muddy banks, it would leave a visible strip 8 ft wide in the water immediately adjacent to the bank. If someone immediately took ten samples within that strip along 1/4 mile of river, they would ALL be in violation of the standard. FAIL! If they promptly sampled the mid-channel over the same length of river, you'd never know I went by. They would all be perfect! PASS! If you waited an hour later there would be no trace of my disturbance even along the near-shore samples. PASS!

    I chose those ridiculous scenarios only to make the point that "wherever" ain't good enough. I'm not trying to be an ***** here, just illustrating how the sampling could be biased either way to move the turbidity status across the threshold, depending on the motivations.

    A good definition is paramount, otherwise how would we ever know if our remedial actions have finally satisfied the intent of the standard.
    The sampling that was done was also across the river but the impact is on juvenile fish near the bank where the levels are highest along with the overall productivity of the river. People are so oriented to salmon they forget these standards are designed to protect the whole ecosystem. Making relative clear water dirty is a fundemental change in the system.

    Funny doc how you are so concerned about mainstem spawners being removed from the spawning populaiton but seem to care little about where these fish rear.

    Yukon, your true colors keep coming out - me first, money money money.

    Environmental law Yukon is based on the applicant showing what harm if any they will do by thier actions - NEPA, Clean Water Act, and M/Stevens. That is not proving a negative it is showing what one's actions are.

    This forum participants keep saying how concerned they are for the river health and then when faced with threats they fall back to thier self interests. KAFC will put the river first and users second - including thier own interests. That is clear in our meetings.

    Escapement goals measure the total return not subpopulations. Doc has made this point over and over again relative to mainstem spawners. Not being biologists I understand how one could simply reduce this issue to escapement numbers but that is not the correct way to look at it. That approach will result in lost resources in the long run.

    But keep pushing Yukon and others who think thier guide business is more important than the river's long term health. Same discussion that took place on hydrocarbons and erosion. The answer bigger boats and more horsepower - will not work on this one.

    Yukon, it is not my job to provide a solution. It is DNR, DEC, and ADF&G to define the options to deal with this. I will tell you this-- when the two years of data are complete this river will be on the impaired water list again unless people act sooner rather than later. I and others will make sure EPA keeps the state honest.

  11. #11
    Member
    Join Date
    May 2006
    Posts
    3,080

    Default

    What a joke Nerka, you gotta be kiddin me. You have come up with solutions for every problem you precieve on the Kenai, and now your silent, no postion on a possible solution. I know why........there is only one solution and U don't want to go there, but that is exactly what you are trying to do. In the end you will take ma and pa off the river for a problem that isn't there and is not affecting the salmon. Show me the peer reviewed study how this is negatively affecting a sub population on the Kenai, then I will get on board with you. I know you love studies, especially peer reviewed ones, lets see it. Heck, I could make a good arguement on how turbidity in that section of river helps the salmon and I would have just as much of a peer reviewed study as you do.

  12. #12

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Nerka View Post
    That approach will result in lost resources in the long run.
    .

    I am not a scientist but how long is the "long run". Ever since the first outboard motor ran the Kenai River there has been man made turbidity. Are you telling me that the Kenai has been going down hill ever since then?

    All I'm saying is there have been points in the history of the usage of the Kenai River where larger boats and motors where allowed and a time in the 90's where boat traffic exceeded the traffic today. The logical conclusion is that turbidity has been worse in the past. What effects did this have? Has the Kenai suffered a major decline in its salmonoid population over the years? Just because one or even two studies show that the turbidity exceeds a benchmark set by an agency why would the conclusion be that the river is in great peril?


    Nerka, I am not against studies for the river, but this turbidity study should be used as a BASELINE for "long run" changes. This is just a step, an important step, but I think if change is made now (or after the second study) it's a knee jerk reaction to address a situation (notice I didn't say problem) that has been there for a long time.

  13. #13
    Member
    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Posts
    5,533

    Default It is your job Yukon

    Quote Originally Posted by yukon View Post
    What a joke Nerka, you gotta be kiddin me. You have come up with solutions for every problem you precieve on the Kenai, and now your silent, no postion on a possible solution. I know why........there is only one solution and U don't want to go there, but that is exactly what you are trying to do. In the end you will take ma and pa off the river for a problem that isn't there and is not affecting the salmon. Show me the peer reviewed study how this is negatively affecting a sub population on the Kenai, then I will get on board with you. I know you love studies, especially peer reviewed ones, lets see it. Heck, I could make a good arguement on how turbidity in that section of river helps the salmon and I would have just as much of a peer reviewed study as you do.

    Yukon, it is you and the other users responsibility to show that this is not harming resources. Stating escapement numbers for one species of salmon is not proof of anything. Maybe you should read more and speak less - read the book Upstream on how small culmulative changes in a system will impact it in the long run. Understand that there are subpopulsitons out there that are impacted in different ways that reduce the ability of the system to withstand natural changes, read that the laws and regulations apply to all aquatic organisms not just salmon. Your myoptic view of the world is too simplistic.

    Relative to peer reviewed studies you only have to google the topic to see hundreds of papers on turbidity and fish production. Not a subject that no one has looked at. In fact at the national level it is designated one of the most important issues for fish habitat by the federal resource agecies.

    Relative to the issue has the Kenai River been in a decline the answer is yes - as I noted earlier river bank development, erosion from boats, hydrocarbons, differential harvest of mainstem spawners, road runoff, culvert blockages to migration, agricultural practice in the tribs (Slikok Cree), dstruction of riparian vegetation, trampling of banks, and urbanization with a population growth all have degraded this river system. Rivers can bend but eventually they will break. Yukon, your approach and others on this forum want to push the system to the breaking point. I and others want to keep that from happening. Your time frame is the length of your guide business mine and others is for our grandchildrens grandchildren.

    Relative to solutions it is time the agencies step up and offer options. I would prefer a drift only river for the long term but there are other otpions - no wake zones, only downstream movement, fixed start and stop points, permits for different start times, less boats, and the list goes on. However, the guides as represented by their leadership and your comments will fight tooth and nail to keep money flowing into your pocket at a cost to the rest of society. I think the term that applies in this case is parasite. You will eventually kill the host that feeds you.

  14. #14

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Nerka View Post
    Relative to the issue has the Kenai River been in a decline the answer is yes - as I noted earlier river bank development, erosion from boats, hydrocarbons, differential harvest of mainstem spawners, road runoff, culvert blockages to migration, agricultural practice in the tribs (Slikok Cree), dstruction of riparian vegetation, trampling of banks, and urbanization with a population growth all have degraded this river system. Rivers can bend but eventually they will break.
    I think you forget the biggest culprit of change on the Kenai in the last couple of years....Mother Nature.

    Is the ice jam flood a couple of winters conveniently forgot? Is this just "healthy change" when it scours the riverbank but shouldn't be discussed (Mother Nature: Good, Man: Bad). If you talk to many of the property owners that live in the area where the winter flood occurred I'm sure they would tell you more damage happened that winter than the cumulative wakes generated by years of powerboat use has.

  15. #15
    Member fishNphysician's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Location
    Aberdeen WA
    Posts
    4,516

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Nerka View Post
    Funny doc how you are so concerned about mainstem spawners being removed from the spawning population but seem to care little about where these fish rear.
    Didn't say I wasn't concerned about turbidity, nerka. In fact what I said was that none is best.

    Quote Originally Posted by fishNphysician
    We can all intuitively agree that NOT artificially elevating turbidity is going to be better for the river than creating excessive man-caused turbidity. While the turbidity itself is readily measurable, the true impact is NOT. It would be just as difficult to prove harm as it would be to prove no harm.
    The real-life impact is what I am struggling with here. It's not like turbidity is some foreign toxin being introduced into the system the way, say hydrocarbon level was an issue, or say mining waste/effluent flowing into a "mixing zone" is an issue. Turbidity is a transient part of the ebb and flow of the natural riverscape... here today, gone tomorrow.

    The man-caused turbidity that we're talking about here is confined largely to the intertidal zone. The rest of the river, where the bulk of the nearshore juvenile salmonid rearing occurs is quite clean. So please don't label me as unconcerned.

    Not saying that there isn't some level of juvenile rearing that occurs from Eagle Rock on down (I'm sure some does), but it seems the nearshore vegetation, overhanging trees, sweepers and submerged large woody debris found in greater abundance just a little further upriver would be more conducive habitat for rearing salmon fry.

    Is there a body of research that shows when and how much time juveniles spend rearing in this intertidal zone? Or does it function more as a transient migratory corridor for outgoing smolts to acclimate to a saltier habitat. Wave and tide action at the rivermouth naturally creates extremely turbid conditions, and the outbound migrants survive it just fine. One could even make the argument that turbidity reduces fry/smolt predation.

    Again not saying there isn't an impact from man-caused turbidity... just that the impact would be incredibly difficult to measure.

    If we are going to go down the path of restricting motorized use in this reach, where do we draw the line in space and time? How far downriver is the man-caused turbidity eclipsed by wave/tide action from Cook Inlet?How much of the man-caused turbidity is brought downriver by the sport fleet versus how much is brought upriver by the commercial fleet?

    Perhaps the powerboat traffic could be relocated further upriver where their ability to stir-up sediments is much less.... relegate the drift fleet to the turbid-susceptible intertidal zone since they are much less able to stir up sediment?

    Lots more questions than there are answers, that's for sure.

    I think bringing awareness of the issue is a good start, but there's lots of other other work to do to arrive at a better, more meaningful and undeniably enforceable standard for turbidity.
    "Let every angler who loves to fish think what it would mean to him to find the fish were gone." Zane Grey
    http://www.piscatorialpursuits.com/uploads/UP12710.jpg
    The KeenEye MD

  16. #16
    Member
    Join Date
    May 2006
    Posts
    3,080

    Default

    This is not a guide issue, not even close, take all the guides off the river and you will still exceed the limit, not a guide issue at all. This is a user issue plain and simple. You will affect Ma and Pa more than the guides. Good luck with that. Nerka, this is yours, take it and run.
    BTW, I never, ever mentioned money in all this, that was you. Don't forget, I can row a boat all day, not a problem. It is "Joe fishermen" that will be affected the most, you can blame the guides all you want for whatever you want but that ain't goin' fly. Hmm...the measurements were taken at Eagle Rock, hmm.... probably the most popular fishing spots for locals.

  17. #17
    Member
    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Posts
    5,533

    Default not totally true Yukon

    Quote Originally Posted by yukon View Post
    This is not a guide issue, not even close, take all the guides off the river and you will still exceed the limit, not a guide issue at all. This is a user issue plain and simple. You will affect Ma and Pa more than the guides. Good luck with that. Nerka, this is yours, take it and run.
    BTW, I never, ever mentioned money in all this, that was you. Don't forget, I can row a boat all day, not a problem. It is "Joe fishermen" that will be affected the most, you can blame the guides all you want for whatever you want but that ain't goin' fly. Hmm...the measurements were taken at Eagle Rock, hmm.... probably the most popular fishing spots for locals.
    First, the guide issue came up because the guide association president made a public statement that this is not a problem.

    Second, you are correct all users will be impacted as they should. However, how the commercial operators respond is part of the problem or part of the solution.

    I am not running with anything. I am pointing out that if we wait to deal with this it will be ugly and not a good process. If we wait until harm is shown then the system is broken and probably the fix will be more painful.

    So proactive instead of reactive is a better approach in my opinion. I will participate in this as it is the right thing to do for the river and future generations. You can sit on the sideline Yukon - that is your choice but this is not going away.

  18. #18
    Member
    Join Date
    May 2006
    Posts
    3,080

    Default

    I will sit and see where it goes and where you take it. Again, personally, I think the problem is in the standard. What level is bad for the fish?????? Not how many NTU's above a baseline, that is arbitrary. Heck, there are not many, if any king salmon smolt hanging out in tidewater for any lenth of time. Come to my place on the river and I will show you where they hang out. Heck more turbidity will make it harder for the birds to eat them up on their way out to sea.

    Have tests been done on the Killey River, I bet that system would be in violation if you sampled at the right times and no power boats ever go up that river. That is how crazy the standard is.

  19. #19
    Member
    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Posts
    5,533

    Default ignorance does not help Yukon

    Quote Originally Posted by yukon View Post
    I will sit and see where it goes and where you take it. Again, personally, I think the problem is in the standard. What level is bad for the fish?????? Not how many NTU's above a baseline, that is arbitrary. Heck, there are not many, if any king salmon smolt hanging out in tidewater for any lenth of time. Come to my place on the river and I will show you where they hang out. Heck more turbidity will make it harder for the birds to eat them up on their way out to sea.

    Have tests been done on the Killey River, I bet that system would be in violation if you sampled at the right times and no power boats ever go up that river. That is how crazy the standard is.
    Ignorance does not help the discussion Yukon. The standard is set above the background level - so no the Killey with no boats would not violate the standard. The Killey would have a higher background level for some periods of time but the background level can vary from river to river. Again the standard is above background.

    Second to say tidal impacted areas do not rear significant king salmon smolt is just plain ignorance. However, even if no chinook smolt rear there the standard is set to protect aquatic life. Contrary to your myoptic view of the world there are more resources than salmon in the river.

    You need to read about the standard and how it was set - for fish it is 25 NTU above background. That is a fairly significant increase over a system like the Kenai. However, the background level is being exceeded by 150 to 175 NTU's on some days. Not even close to the standard. Double or triple the standard and it still violates. Make is 75 NTU's over background which means about 100 NTU's and the measurements are still double this.

    Yukon, when are you and the guides going to take responsibility for your actions? When will a guide president say that we have a problem and we have to work to solve it rather than make ignorant statements like he did in today's Clarion.

    The standard is wrong is the same point I heard on the hydrocarbon issue from the guides - however, that dog did not hunt then and will not hunt now.

    Read Yukon, read, read, read, and then come back to this forum with some useful comments. At least understand the standard and how it works.

  20. #20
    Member
    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Posts
    2,883

    Default

    Thank you Nerka. Addressing the turbidity issue is long overdue. Your foresight and concern is commendable....probably that grandchildren's grandchildren thing.

    Forget the studies...anyone can watch boat wake literally churn the bank. It doesn't take a rocket scientist to figure out what's going on. I flew the River in a Super Cub several years ago, and I could actually see the discoloration streaking from the banks where the boats were running. The ignorance on whether or not turbidity is an issue is amazing.

    Yukon can call the tubidity standard fluff, and criticize it all he wants. But the fact is we have a turbidity standard and it appears that standard is being exceeded. We also know from other studies that increased turbidity is a detrement to rearing fish. But more importantly (and what guides like yukon miss) is that we know turbidity is a detrement to the entire ecosystem.

    A biologist or scientist wouldn't be too good if all he did was reactionary, after-the-fact work. After all, anyone can say, "I don't see a problem, so there must not be one." Or, "Hey, I guess turbidity did have something to do with what happened to our resource and ecosystem. What do we do now?" Or, "25 NTU's over the baseline isn't bad". No, a good biologist or scientist understands the issue and addresses it before things get decimated.

    I guess if yukon doesn't like the standard, I'll sit here and wait for him to change it. And if he thinks the current turbidity levels are fluff, then I'll sit here and wait for him to show how. Nerka doesn't have to prove anything...other than we have a standard and it is being exceeded.

    IMO, the solution is simple...generate less turbidity. How are you going to do that? Less powerboat traffic. You could cut turbidity levels in half just by cutting powerboat time in half. Maybe a 50/50 powerboat/driftboat designation. Allow fewer boats on the River at any one time. Or alternate half-day mornings and nights. Cut wave energy...smaller, lighter, flat-bottom boats with smaller, lighter horsepower. Designating low impact channels for powerboat operation. Make susceptible areas off limits. Of course all things that a guide like yukon will resist.

Page 1 of 6 123 ... 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
  •