59.0°

The first year of results from last summer's Kenai River turbidity study has stirred up debate over its meaning among different river user groups.

Robert Ruffner, executive director of the Kenai Watershed Forum, has presented his findings to local activist and advisory boards in the past month.

Turbidity, as Ruffner defines it simply, is how muddy the water is.

Turbidity occurs naturally in many water bodies, and is certainly present in the glacially fed Kenai.

The concern on the Kenai however, is not that glaciers or rainstorms are flooding the river with silt, but what impact the hundreds of boats fishing on the lower river in mid through late July may be having.

"It's a lot of fun and lot of people enjoy it, but is it good for the ecosystem to have that much compressed activity down there?" Ruffner said. "My gut sense is that that's not a good thing, but it's hard to measure these things quantitatively."

To better understand what impact the late run king fishery has on the river, water quality studies, such as turbidity measurements are used.

Ruffner set up two measurement sites last summer -- one at River Mile 23 and one at Eagle Rock. Measurements came from mid-depth about 20 feet from shore, where instruments recorded the turbidity every 15 minutes from mid-May through September.

In all his presentations thus far, Ruffner's made clear that the data is still raw in his opinion.

His data shows that through the month of June, turbidity at the two sites both track similar trends nearly identically as natural rain and snowmelt cause turbidity in the river to rise and fall.

Starting in July, however, Ruffner said turbidity events begin to spike at Eagle Rock, often twice, every day of the week except Monday. On Mondays powerboats aren't allowed to fish the river.

The turbidity spikes typically started at or just prior to 6 a.m. then again occur later in the evening.

In August, the spikes leveled off and the two instruments began to again track similar trends without the almost daily spikes at Eagle Rock.

State standards on turbidity do exist, though they don't attempt to address natural turbidity, only turbidity above background levels.

In order to establish these background levels, two full years of data collection are needed before any action can be taken.

At a Kenai River Special Management Area Advisory Board meeting on Feb. 12, Tim Stevens, Department of Environmental Conservation environmental program specialist for Anchorage and Southcentral Alaska, said that pending the results of future studies, turbidity could become a significant concern on the lower river, but those studies were needed first.

Some, like Ken Tarbox, a retired fisheries biologist and member of the board of directors for the Kenai Area Fishermen's Coalition, argue that waiting is not an option.

"I think it's a fairly serious issue and points to another symptom among many that shows that we're pushing the entire river," Tarbox said.

He said he'd like to see regulation sooner rather than later.

"I was hoping that (the Department of Natural Resources) and the DEC would take the lede on this and start thinking about it now," he said.

Waiting longer could be worse for the river in his opinion.

"I think we're going to lose a year or more of time when we could plan for the future," he said. "If we get into a crisis mode we get emotions running higher and don't have the ability to sit in a forum where self interest can be reduced."

Tarbox said he's concerned that with increases in turbidity so close to shore, everything from young chinook to aquatic insects could be feeling the effects. He noted as well that July is an important rearing period for juvenile salmon.

"The problem with this is that people want to see an immediate reaction. They'll say 'We're still getting lots of adults back,'" he said.

Having consistent returns of adult salmon doesn't necessarily mean that turbidity in the lower river isn't having an effect on the whole population, according to Tarbox.

"This is limited to one section of the river. It may be having adverse effects on fish that rear in that area, but we can't measure that," he said.

Tarbox said he's concerned that reducing or limiting juvenile fish rearing habitat in the lower river jeopardizes the entire population's resilience.

Dwight Kramer, chair of the KAFC, said concerns reach beyond the high water mark too.

"I think it's cumulative because a fair amount of boat traffic isn't letting washed up areas on the banks recuperate and revegetate while increased development along the river has reduced the natural vegetation and bank stabilization," Kramer said.

Kramer also said that he believes the increased turbidity is impacting fishing.

"I suspect that it's effecting harvest potential and if people aren't catching fish they're not apt to come back," he said.

Kramer and Tarbox suggested a few potential solutions.

Kramer noted that using flat bottom boats over the semi-v boats that are favored by most guides could cut down on the impact of wakes. He also said that having boats idle on their way downstream would cut down on half the wake impact.

"The absolute way would be to have more drift days but that's unpopular with guides," Kramer said.

Tarbox agreed, noting that using different access points, permitting or sectionalizing the river could be used as well, but that he thought the number of boats was the root of the problem.

"The issue is the number of boats. Now you have another symptom, but you don't just treat a symptom you need to treat the disease, and the disease is the use pattern," Tarbox said.

Monte Roberts, president of the Kenai River Professional Guide Association, said he's concerned about the results of the study as well.

"We are concerned about any impacts we have on the river," Roberts said, "but we feel like the standards set were designed for standing water and drinking water quality. I'm pretty confident any river used by boaters during that time of year by boats would exceed water quality standards for turbidity."

Roberts said he's concerned that the turbidity study is drawing focus away from other more important issues on the river.

"If they can prove we're having a significant impact on water quality and habitat I'll jump on board, but right now we've got bigger issues to deal with than if there's little mud in the water," Roberts said.

Ricky Gease, executive director of the Kenai River Sportfishing Association, agreed.

"It's always important to have baseline studies of water quality and quantity, but again the real question is where does it rank in the prioritization of long term studies on the river," Gease said.

Both Gease and Roberts said they believe that trubidty likely doesn't have much of an impact on adult salmon.

"We have good escapements coming in the river for all adult salmon swimming back upstream. They've evolved in glacial systems and are well designed for rivers that have turbidity, so does this effect adults, probably not," Gease said.

Roberts pointed out that salmon also live in streams with far higher levels of turbidity than the Kenai.

"If muddy water bugged them they would not exist in the Copper or Kasilof Rivers, where turbidity exceeds the Kenai's by eons," Roberts said.

Roberts also argued that flood events could send turbidity levels up through out much of the river for far longer periods than daily boat traffic in July.

Gease noted too that this has been going on in the river for years.

"Is this a major issue, I don't know. It's difficult to say that after 30 years of this annual trend it's had a major deleterious effect on the Kenai," Gease said.

Roberts said he wouldn't argue that the turbidity spikes were caused by boat wakes.

"It's boat traffic that causes it. We can reduce that impact drastically like (the data) shows in June by not making 1,200 boats run past (Eagle Rock,)" he said.

He sees solutions, like building ramps closer to the fishing grounds, or having more public restrooms on the lower river.

Both Gease and Roberts said they want to see the study completed and a second year of data gathered, however, before any decisions are made.

Gease said he hopes that the baseline studies are thorough.

"The standards should reflect the range of conditions below Skilak Lake. As the Killey River blows out it increases the river's turbidity, so measurements should be taken to get the full range of changes that occur and are natural," Gease said. "Baseline studies have to be thorough."

Gease and Roberts also noted that they would like to see monitoring at other locations through the lower river too.

Both noted that while Eagle Rock is a busy area for boat traffic, it is also an area where turbidity should be expected.

"Of course there's a tie between boats and suspended solids. Particles on the bottom are going to be stirred up easily any time they're in an intertidal zone and if there's a disturbance it will stir it up," Gease said. "Even walking in the water down there you stir stuff up."

Roberts said he understood why Ruffner chose Eagle Rock as a study site, but said he worried the bank compositions and river bottom there both influence to its turbidity.

"It's probably the greatest impact area for having a false indication of a problem, and I'm not saying it's a false indication of a problem, but it's the most drastic indicator for use," Roberts said. "If we want to make a problem look larger than it is, we picked the worst spot."

All arguments on future studies may be moot however, at least for next summer.

Ruffner said he thought it was unlikely there would be enough funding to conduct further research this summer.

"The state is telling us they don't have the money for a second year's study," Ruffner said.

Last summer's study cost about $160,000; $40,000 of that was funded by KWF while the rest came through federal grants money.

Ruffner said if a follow-up study isn't conducted in the near future, this year's data could go out the window as well as far as establishing a baseline study.

"Data needs to be gathered in a timely manner, within about five years, otherwise they consider the data old," he said.

Ruffner said he hoped that doesn't happen.

"It would be unfortunate to say, 'You can't make an evaluation unless we have two years' worth of data and the solution is, well let's just not have two years' worth of data,'" he said.

He said he does believe a future study is needed.

"I hope it does happen, but somebody besides us will have to suggest it," he said.

Ruffner said he also hopes user groups don't take the preliminary findings out of context.

"It's premature to say we need to take action next year, and it's equally early to say there's no worries, nothing's down there. Both are knee jerk reactions from the eyes of users," Ruffner said. "At this point, since it's brand new stuff, I'd encourage people to take a step back and not get all riled up."

Dante Petri can be reached at dante.petri@peninsulaclarion.com.