Representatives from various government agencies came prepared with answers to many of the questions area residents had at a meeting regarding petroleum pollution in the lower Kenai River, including how much pollution was found and what the likely source of that pollution is.
But the burning question debated around the room was not one that could be easily answered: What does this mean to the fish?
The Tuesday meeting was a community forum put on by the Kenai Watershed Forum at the Kenai River Center. It was designed to give residents and experts a chance to meet and discuss the Alaska Department of Environmental Conservation study findings that levels of a type of pollution associated with gasoline in the lower Kenai River exceeded federal standards in July. Representatives from DEC, the Alaska Department of Fish and Game and the U.S. Geological Survey attended the meeting to discuss the study and answer questions.
The DEC study was conducted from May through August 2003, during which time DEC took 284 samples at various locations in the lower river, from bank to bank and at various river depths. Sampling was done every Tuesday during those months and intensive sampling was conducted every two hours during a three-day stretch from July 20 to 22, explained Tim Stevens, an environmental specialist with DEC, in the overview presentation.
According to Stevens, some pollution was linked to storm water drainage and harbor activity, but the amount was minuscule and well within the bounds of the federal water quality standard.
The highest concentrations of pollution were from samples taken below river mile 10 in July ‹ the peak motor boat traffic season on the river. Hydrocarbon pollution levels were found throughout the water column and were elevated during the day and dropped off at night. During the intensive sampling period from July 20 to 22, pollution levels peaked at high points throughout the day July 20, a Sunday, and in the morning of July 22, a Tuesday ‹ generally times coinciding with high motor boat activity on the lower river. Pollution levels were nearly nonexistent in samples taken July 21, a Monday, at a time of low motor boat activity.
The two instances where pollution exceeded the federal water quality standard of 10 parts per billion were at noon and 2 p.m. July 20 at levels of 10.2 and 10.76 parts per billion, respectively. From the study's findings, DEC estimates that as much as 10,000 gallons of pollution ‹ presumably gasoline ‹ was discharged in the river in July alone.
Study findings point a fairly indisputable finger at motor boat activity as the main culprit of the river pollution, although Stevens said the link between the two needs to be studied further, and will be this summer by the Kenai Watershed Forum in conjunction with DEC.
Most of the people at Tuesday's meeting did not dispute a link between motor boats and pollution in the river, although some presented other theories on what might be causing the pollution, ranging from the possibility of an undetected underground crude oil seep, increased asphalt usage and people deliberately pouring gas into the river in a plot to impugn motor boat users.
There was some discussion as to what types of boat motors were most to blame. According to Stevens, he's seen research from the Internet that says 10 to 30 percent of the fuel that goes through two-stroke motors remains unburned and is discharged, compared to 4 to 10 percent for four-stroke motors. However, that statistic does not take into account the age and condition of the motor. For instance a brand new two-stroke motor could be at least as efficient as an aging, much-used four-stroke.
Motor mechanics and sampling method details aside, what most of the people at Tuesday's meeting really wanted to know was what the pollution means to the river, and especially the fish.
"What we're all here about is the fish and the effects to the fish," said Joe Hanes.
That proved to be a difficult question to answer. For one thing, there is no information available about pollution levels in the river from 20 or 30 years ago to compare with DEC's study's data. Hanes contends river pollution is getting better, not worse.
"It's not the world coming to an end," he said. "We're undoubtedly way ahead of where we were 20 years ago. ... I think it's worth monitoring, but I think we should test the fish and find out if we have a problem or not," he said.
There haven't been any comprehensive studies done on how the amount of pollution found in the river affects fish health. That's because those studies would be difficult to do, said Stevens.
Several factors complicate the matter. If fish like salmon were to be studied, researchers would have to track and study them throughout their entire life cycle to get concrete results, not just during the time they are in the river. Even if studies were limited to resident river fish, it would be difficult to judge the effect of pollution on them because fish are presumably only exposed to the pollution during the day in times of peak boat traffic. Once that traffic dies down the pollution is flushed from the river and the fish metabolize whatever pollution it ingested. The fish are not exposed to the pollution for a prolonged amount of time.
However, some factors could serve to intensify the effects of that exposure, like the amount of water in the river. DEC did its study during a summer when the river had 20 percent more water in it than normal, Stevens said. During a dry year when the river has 20 percent less water in it than usual, river organisms may be more affected by the pollution.
It also is not known what effect pollution has on salmon eggs and fry in the river. It is possible that some of the pollution settles to the river bottom, according to Stevens, and eggs would be more susceptible to harm from pollution than fully developed fish. However, the period of pollution is in July, which is before most salmon eggs are laid and start developing. In addition, the lower Kenai River where the pollution was found is not prime salmon spawning ground.
But even if fish aren't dying off or suffering other catastrophic effects from the river pollution, they still could be affected in less noticeable ways, according to Mark Fink, a habitat biologist from Fish and Game. For instance, pollution could impair a fish's swimming ability, which would make it easier prey for predators.
Fink said more study needs to be done into the matter, as far as Fish and Game is concerned. At this point, he could not support a measure such as banning two-stroke motors from the river.
"I need more information before I know if there's a threat (to fish)," he said. "To make any drastic changes yet that some people think need to be done, I think there's more information out there (that we need)."
Stevens said any fish tissue or fish health studies are outside the realm of his division within DEC, because they don't directly relate to water quality. However, he said he would recommend the environmental health division look into the matter.
The studies that will be conducted this summer will focus on the link between motor boat usage and river pollution, he said. The Kenai Watershed Forum will conduct the river sampling. Josselyn Burke, Kenai Watershed Forum member coordinator, said the organization is planning to hold similar community forum meetings on this and other topics in the future.
"This sparked our radar screen," she said. "Maybe it doesn't warrant huge action now, but it may sooner or later and it's best to get dialogue started now."
