Week 14: Research Paper Final Draft

The Polluted Kenai River

How can the Kenai River be famous for its fishing and be listed as impaired by the Environmental Protection Agency? The main issue is pollution on the Kenai River, especially in the month of July. July is the peak time for both red salmon and king salmon. It is also when thousands of dip netters descend on the river. Although the new boat and motor restrictions have shown to reduce hydrocarbon pollution, they create other problems because it does not improve bank erosion, trash pollution, or the cost and effort by the city of Kenai or the Kenai Borough for trash clean up following the dip netting season.

The new regulations for boats and motors as implemented by the Alaska Department of Fish and Game, and the Alaska Department of Natural Resources are as follows: no longer will older two stroke motors be allowed in the personal use dip net fishery. Only four stroke or direct injected two stroke motors will be allowed and they also have a fifty horsepower limit. Electric motors are also allowed. Boats cannot be more than twenty one feet long or one hundred and six inches wide (1). The old regulations allowed any size boat and unlimited horsepower below the Warren Ames Bridge. The Warren Ames Bridge is the upper boundary for dip netting. The remainder of the Kenai River had a thirty five horsepower limit but the type of motor was not regulated. According to the Alaska Department of Fish and Game, the boundaries of the dip net area extend from the mouth of the Kenai River up to the downstream side of the Warren Ames Bridge. It covers both sides of the river bank and up and down the beach in both directions approximately 1 mile from the mouth of the river.

Bank erosion studies have shown that the most erosion occurs between river mile nine and river mile eighteen and between river mile thirty nine and river mile forty six. The study was conducted along a sixty seven mile long stretch of the river. The monitoring was conducted between late May and early August. The boat traffic peaked on weekend days in mid July. The most common boat was between sixteen and twenty feet long and carried four or five passengers. It was also noted that over fifty percent of all the boats observed by the Alaska Department of Fish and Game, the Alaska Department of Natural Resources and local observers were guide boats (Dorava 6). It must also be noted that of all the boat caused bank erosion studies, none were conducted in the personal use dip netting area.

In a report by Robert J. Frates, Kenai Parks and Recreation director, the City of Kenai spent over one hundred and five thousand dollars during the two to three week long two thousand and eight dip net season (18-19). This cost is for trash removal, portable toilets, signage, and various other supplies used specifically for the cleanup during and after the dip net season. The City of Kenai also spent more than twenty eight thousand dollars for increased police patrols and extra personnel placed into service for the last three weeks of July.
According to the Environmental Protection Agency and the Kenai Watershed Forum the Kenai River has exceeded the Alaska state limits for hydrocarbon pollution consistently during the month of July for the last ten years. The current hydrocarbon limits are ten parts per billion. Once the river was labeled “impaired” by the Environmental Protection Agency and the new regulations were put into place, there was a very noticeable improvement in the amount of hydrocarbons in the river as measured at the same time and same place in both two thousand and seven and in two thousand and eight. The new regulations are not the only reason for the improvement. It was shown that the Kenai River’s flow was at least thirty percent greater in two thousand and eight than it was in two thousand and seven due to greater rainfall and runoff from snow. With that much more flow it causes more dilution of hydrocarbon pollution. Also it was recorded that there were fifteen percent fewer boats on the river on that same day as the year before. This would be a good indication of how many people could not afford the new boat motors. With fewer boats on the river there would be less sources of pollution. Another important factor in the reduction of pollution would be that there was a much greater tidal fluctuation in the lower river which would cause even further dilution of hydrocarbon pollution. In addition to the elimination of the non Direct Fuel Injected two stroke motors, all of these factors contributed to the measured reduction in gasoline pollution (Kenai Watershed Forum). In a study done in the coastal waters and marinas of North Carolina, a type of plankton was used as an indicator species and found that their numbers, health, and reproduction were not affected by hydrocarbon pollution in and around the marinas (Piehler 157). This is because of the great mixing and flushing action of the ocean.
Salmon need different types of water habitat throughout its life cycle. Adult salmon return from the ocean to inlets in groups. The adult salmon then travel upriver, to spawning areas. Spawning areas are often tributaries. The female salmon create a “nest” called a “redd”, where she lays her eggs. A male salmon fertilizes the eggs. The eggs hatch, and tiny salmon fry remain in the rearing area of the stream. The rearing area of the stream needs edge habitat, off-channel habitat, habitat structures, various types of water and shade cover, a certain amount of sediment, and food and space capacity for the fry (Bartz 1580). Once the fry grow into juvenile salmon, the juveniles leave the spawning area, making their way back to the ocean to form schools of salmon. The salmon then remain in the ocean 2-6 years before returning inland to spawn.
In a study of Atlantic salmon declines, many fry were found in the rivers, but few juvenile salmon. A lack of suitable habitat was blamed for the loss of fish. Habitat must include larger boulders and other materials in order to allow for higher survival rates of juveniles (Landers 21). In a study of Pacific Coast salmon declines, the Columbia River Watershed and salmon rearing habitat are both in crisis. Chinook salmon in the Snake River Basin were listed by the National Marine Fisheries Service under the Endangered Species Act in 1992. The impacts are in the form of irrigation, tilled agriculture, hydroelectric development, logging, grazing and mining. Available information suggests that the construction and operation of dams throughout the Columbia River Basin have been the single largest cause of declines in salmon populations (Espinoza Jr. 207). The Kenai River system does not have these issues.
Studies have shown that bank erosion and hydrocarbon pollution can harm salmon fry because they spend the first year in shallow shoreline water. However, the designated dip netting area is not a salmon fry rearing area because of the tidal waters. The fry are much further upstream in clear water, not silty, brackish water. In two thousand and seven while dip netting from my boat my family and I caught numerous flounder as far as two miles upstream of the Kenai City dock. This should indicate how much the ocean salt water mixes with the river. The tide fluctuations affect the river as far as eight to ten miles upstream from the mouth.
The down side is more people, me included, now have to fish from the bank instead of my boat, which is causing a tremendous amount of bank erosion and damage. Also people fishing from the bank tend to leave more trash behind than boaters. This is an important issue for me because I now have to fish from the bank. I’m not very happy about the new regulations because one of the reasons I got my boat was to be able to dip-net my fish from a boat instead of fighting for a spot for my family on the bank. Also I can get more fish faster and move on to something else since I know I have fish to eat for the next year. Fishing from a boat results in a much cleaner fish. It is much faster and easier when it comes time for processing them. If any of you has dip-netted there you know you either have sand, if you are on the beach or silty mud if you are anyplace upriver from the mouth. Now I have to spend more time on the Kenai, resulting in more damage to the banks and this year I didn’t get my limit of fish. I would rather be fishing in the Matanuska and Susitna Valley streams where I live but the sockeye runs there aren’t even close to the amount of fish the Kenai River gets.
I have been thinking a lot about this issue since the rules changed in two thousand and eight. I will continue to think about it because unless I can borrow a Kenai River legal boat motor I’ll be back on the muddy bank again this year. I know the Department of Natural Resources and the Alaska Department of Fish and Game would not agree with me on this. I stand on the idea that they should return to unlimited horsepower and allow the older, non Direct Injected two strokes to be used below the Warren Ames Bridge. The Warren Ames Bridge is the upper boundary for dip netters. The rest of the river can keep the new regulations. I find it interesting that the entire Kenai commercial fishing fleet is anchored in the mouth of the Kenai River yet, I have not heard any restrictions pertaining to them and they certainly don’t have any horsepower restrictions. Is it fair? I think not. The older higher powered motors could be limited to dip-netters only. The dip net season is only two weeks long. I don’t believe that this would cause as much of an issue because the dip-netting all occurs in a stretch of the river that is entirely influenced by the tides of Cook Inlet. The dip netting area is also not an area for salmon fry rearing nor is bank erosion an issue except in the bluff area of the City of Kenai. That area of erosion is caused entirely by the river currents. I think that this would allow a greater number of Alaskans who really need those fish to be able to feed their families and be more efficient at it and also cause less damage to the river bank. I will also predict that there will be further restrictions put into place because of bank erosion to eventually cause the demise of dip-netting on the Kenai River. There are some people and organizations that are lobbying to make the entire Kenai River a drift boat only river. I’m all for protecting our environment but I don’t like it when the rules favor the elite few who can afford a new boat motor every time the regulations change. The ones who can are the fishing guides who aren’t dip-netting anyway, and a few others who can afford it, and some of those don’t even use the fish they catch.


Works Cited
Bartz, Krista K., et al. “Translating restoration scenarios into habitat conditions: an initial step in evaluating recovery strategies for Chinook salmon (Oncorhynchus tshawytscha).” Canadian Journal of Fisheries & Aquatic Sciences, 63.7 (Jul. 2006): 1578-1595. EBSCO. University of Alaska Consortium Library, Anchorage, AK. 8 April 2009

Dorava, J.M., and G.W. Moore. “Effects of boat wakes on stream bank erosion, Kenai River, Alaska” U.S. Geological Survey Water-Resources Investigations Report 97-4105 (1997): 6. 6 April 2009 <http://ak.water.usgs.gov>

Espinosa Jr., F. Al, Jon J. Rhodes, and Dale Al Mcullough. “The failure of existing plans to protect salmon habitat in the Clearwater National Forest in Idaho.” Journal of Environmental Management, 49.2 (Feb. 1997): 205-230. EBSCO. University of Alaska Consortium Library, Anchorage, AK. 29 Mar. 2009

Frates, Robert J. 2008 Kenai River Dip net Fishery. 7 Oct. 2008. 6 April 2009 <http://www.ci.kenai.ak.us/2008dipnetreport.pdf>

Holland, Larry, Adam Moles, Marie Larsen, Mark G. Carls, and Stanley D. Rice” Concentrations of polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons (PAHs), polychlorinated biphenyls (PCBs), and organochlorinated pesticides (OCPs) in the Kenai River, Alaska: 2001-2005: a data report /” Juneau, Alaska: Auke Bay Laboratory, Alaska Fisheries Science Center, National Marine Fisheries Service, National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (2006): AFSC processed report; 2006-08. ALNcat. University of Alaska Fairbanks Lib., Fairbanks, AK. 17 Feb 2009 .

“Hydrocarbon Research in the Kenai River” Kenai Watershed Forum 2009
28 Feb. 2009 <http://www.kenaiwatershed.org/hydrocarbon.html>

Landers, Jay. “Engineers and Biologists Create Model to Improve Salmon Habitat.” Civil Engineering, 75.8 (Aug. 2005): 21-22. EBSCO. University of Alaska Consortium Library, Anchorage, AK. 8 April 2009

Piehler, Michael F., Julie S. Maloney, and Hans W. Paerl. "Bacterioplanktonic abundance, productivity and petroleum hydrocarbon biodegradation in marinas and other coastal waters in North Carolina, USA." Marine Environmental Research 54.2 (Aug. 2002): 157. Academic Search Premier. EBSCO. University of Alaska Consortium Library, Anchorage, AK. 29 Mar. 2009

United States. Alaska Department of Fish and Game. Personal Use 28 Feb. 2009 <http://www.sf.adfg.state.ak.us/region2/personaluse/kenaipu.cfm>



United States. Environmental Protection Agency. EPA Watershed Initiative - Kenai River Watershed Nomination. 12 Jan. 2004. 28 Feb. 2009 <http://www.epa.gov/twg/2004/2004proposals/04kenai.pdf>

Essay #3 Final Draft

SHAMEFUL WASTE
Have you ever noticed how much garbage there is floating around in the wind? All that paper and plastic looks very unsightly in our beautiful state. Some communities are promoting more recycling, but it’s difficult to get the average person to support the program. Although the University of Alaska Anchorage encourages paper recycling, it should offer to recycle cardboard and metal because it would help the environment, save money, and decrease waste going to the land fill.
I attended a meeting on the twentieth of March about sustainability. The class was primarily for building managers for the University of Alaska Anchorage campus. Some managers from the University Center and the Matanuska and Susitna College attended as well. The meeting was very interesting in regards to recycling. The university has paper recycling cans at various locations around the campus. They have a team of mostly student workers who will pick it up. They will take cardboard on an on call basis; if it is broken down to lay flat.
As far as I know, the only departments that do anything with scrap metal are the Welding department and the Auto Diesel department, of which I am part of. I am the building manager and a Tool Room Technician there. Some of my duties include dismantling and scrapping vehicles when the department is finished with them. The auto and diesel department already has a scrap metal dumpster. The welding department has one as well.
The university has tried in the past to recycle plastics, but it was not successful due to the plastic bottles had to be clean or rinsed out prior to being deposited. Also there were a lot of people who either didn’t know or didn’t care and put regular trash in the plastic receptacle. This became such a problem that they dropped the plastic recycling.
I think the University of Alaska Anchorage is on the right track in holding these meetings and educating people on the recycling process. I know I learned a lot. The most important thing would be to get people excited about recycling. I really don’t know how to get people more interested in recycling. It’s not a very interesting subject. Most people are just too lazy to take the time.
What I would propose is that the University of Alaska Anchorage will continue its education program on recycling and that a few departments around the campus would volunteer their time to collect both cardboard and metal. The auto diesel department already has a scrap metal dumpster and a forklift to load it with. We also have a flatbed truck that we use to haul it to Alaska Metals Recycling. I would be willing to have a collection site for any metal object in our area. I could then incorporate that scrap metal into our dumpster and haul it off. Metal prices vary greatly so I will not quote any here. It also depends on what kind of metal it is. It is even different between types of steel. Aluminum is currently the most valuable. Copper is worth considerably more that steel. I have recently hauled off what is referred to as shredder material, which is the least valuable and it was worth about twenty six dollars a ton. It doesn’t sound like much, but it is better than putting it in the land fill. I’m sure the welding department would be able to assist in the scrap metal end of things as well. A flier with some contact information would be needed to get the word out. At least with the metal recycling, both the welding and auto diesel areas would be secure so trash shouldn’t be a problem.
The cardboard side of things could be a little trickier. We would probably need to get a couple of large cardboard recycling dumpsters to be placed in strategic places around the campus. The shop areas of auto diesel and facilities maintenance would be good places to start because of a high volume of supplies being shipped into them. One thing to think about when shopping, ask for paper bags instead of plastic. Paper bags are often already recycled and they can be recycled again. Plastic bags are usually not recycled and plastic requires petroleum products to make.

Week 11: Step 4 Rough Draft 2

The Polluted Kenai River

How can the Kenai River be famous for its fishing and be listed as impaired by the Environmental Protection Agency? The main issue is pollution on the Kenai River, especially in the month of July. July is the peak time for both red salmon and king salmon. It is also when thousands of dip netters descend on the river. Although the new boat and motor restrictions have shown to reduce hydrocarbon pollution, they create other problems because it does not improve bank erosion, trash pollution, or the cost and effort by the city of Kenai or the Kenai Borough for trash clean up following the dip netting season.

The new regulations for boats and motors as implemented by the Alaska Department of Fish and Game, and the Alaska Department of Natural Resources are as follows: no longer will older two stroke motors be allowed in the personal use dip net fishery. Only four stroke or direct injected two stroke motors will be allowed and they also have a fifty horsepower limit. Electric motors are also allowed. Boats cannot be more than twenty one feet long or one hundred and six inches wide (1). The old regulations allowed any size boat and unlimited horsepower below the Warren Ames Bridge. The Warren Ames Bridge is the upper boundary for dip netting. The remainder of the Kenai River had a thirty five horsepower limit but the type of motor was not regulated.

Bank erosion studies have shown that the most erosion occurs between river mile nine and river mile eighteen and between river mile thirty nine and river mile forty six. The study was conducted along a sixty seven mile long stretch of the river. The monitoring was conducted between late May and early August. The boat traffic peaked on weekend days in mid July. The most common boat was between sixteen and twenty feet long and carried four or five passengers. It was also noted that over fifty percent of all the boats observed by the Alaska Department of Fish and Game, the Alaska Department of Natural Resources and local observers were guide boats. (Dorava 1) It must also be noted that of all the boat caused bank erosion studies, none were conducted in the personal use dip netting area.

In a report by Robert J. Frates, Kenai Parks and Recreation director, the City of Kenai spent over one hundred and five thousand dollars during the two to three week long two thousand and eight dip net season(18-19). This cost is for trash removal, portable toilets, signage, and various other supplies used specifically for the cleanup during and after the dip net season. The City of Kenai also spent more than twenty eight thousand dollars for increased police patrols and extra personnel placed into service for the last three weeks of July.

According to the Alaska Department of Fish and Game, the boundaries of the dip net area extend from the mouth of the Kenai River up to the downstream side of the Warren Ames Bridge (4). It covers both sides of the river bank and up and down the beach in both directions approximately 1 mile from the mouth of the river.

According to the Environmental Protection Agency and the Kenai Watershed Forum the Kenai River has exceeded the Alaska state limits for hydrocarbon pollution consistently during the month of July for the last ten years(2). The current hydrocarbon limits are ten parts per billion. Once the river was labeled “impaired” by the Environmental Protection Agency and the new regulations were put into place, there was a very noticeable improvement in the amount of hydrocarbons in the river as measured at the same time and same place in both two thousand and seven and in two thousand and eight. The new regulations are not the only reason for the improvement. It was shown that the Kenai River’s flow was at least thirty percent greater in two thousand and eight than it was in two thousand and seven due to greater rainfall and runoff from snow(1). With that much more flow it causes more dilution of hydrocarbon pollution. Also it was recorded that there were fifteen percent fewer boats on the river on that same day as the year before. This would be a good indication of how many people could not afford the new boat motors. With fewer boats on the river there would be less sources of pollution. Another important factor in the reduction of pollution would be that there was a much greater tidal fluctuation in the lower river which would cause even further dilution of hydrocarbon pollution. In addition to the elimination of the non Direct Fuel Injected two stroke motors, all of these factors contributed to the measured reduction in gasoline pollution (Kenai Watershed Forum). In a study by Piehler, in the coastal waters and marinas in North Carolina, he used a type of plankton as an indicator species and found that their numbers, health, and reproduction were not affected by hydrocarbon pollution in and around the marinas(157). This is because of the great mixing and flushing action of the ocean.

Salmon need different types of water habitat throughout its life cycle. Adult salmon return from the ocean to inlets in groups. The adult salmon then travel upriver, to spawning areas. Spawning areas are often tributaries. The female salmon create a “nest” called a “redd”, where she lays her eggs. A male salmon fertilizes the eggs. The eggs hatch, and tiny salmon fry remain in the rearing area of the stream. According to Bartz, the rearing area of the stream needs edge habitat, off-channel habitat, habitat structures, various types of water and shade cover, a certain amount of sediment, and food and space capacity for the fry(1590). Once the fry grow into juvenile salmon, the juveniles leave the spawning area, making their way back to the ocean to form schools of salmon. The salmon then remain in the ocean 2-6 years before returning inland to spawn.

In a study of Atlantic salmon declines, Landers has found that although there was “many fry, or young fish, in the river, but few juveniles….and lack of suitable habitat is the blame.” According to Landers, habitat must include larger boulders and other materials in order to allow for higher survival rates of juveniles(22). In a study of Pacific Coast salmon declines, the Columbia River Watershed and salmon rearing habitat are both in crisis. Espinosa Jr., states that that Chinook salmon in the Snake River Basin were listed by the National Marine Fisheries Service under the Endangered Species Act in 1992. He also states that impacts are found in rivers, tributaries, and estuaries. The impacts are in the form of irrigation, tilled agriculture, hydroelectric development, logging, grazing and mining. “Available information clearly suggests that construction and operation of dams throughout the Columbia River Basin have been the single largest cause of declines in salmon populations(207).” The Kenai River system does not have these issues.
Studies have shown that bank erosion and hydrocarbon pollution can harm salmon fry because they spend the first year in shallow shoreline water. However, the designated dip netting area is not a salmon fry rearing area because of the tidal waters. The fry are much further upstream in clear water, not silty, brackish water. In two thousand and seven while dip netting from my boat my family and I caught numerous flounder as far as two miles upstream of the Kenai City dock. This should indicate how much the ocean salt water mixes with the river. The tide fluctuations affect the river as far as eight to ten miles upstream from the mouth.

The down side is more people, me included, now have to fish from the bank instead of my boat, which is causing a tremendous amount of bank erosion and damage. Also people fishing from the bank tend to leave more trash behind than boaters.

This is an important issue for me because I now have to fish from the bank. I’m not very happy about the new regulations because one of the reasons I got my boat was to be able to dip-net my fish from a boat instead of fighting for a spot for my family on the bank. Also I can get more fish faster and move on to something else since I know I have fish to eat for the next year. Fishing from a boat results in a much cleaner fish. It is much faster and easier when it comes time for processing them. If any of you has dip-netted there you know you either have sand, if you are on the beach or silty mud if you are anyplace upriver from the mouth. Now I have to spend more time on the Kenai, resulting in more damage to the banks and this year I didn’t get my limit of fish. I would rather be fishing in the Matanuska and Susitna Valley streams where I live but the sockeye runs there aren’t even close to the amount of fish the Kenai River gets.

I have been thinking a lot about this issue since the rules changed in two thousand and eight. I will continue to think about it because unless I can borrow a Kenai River legal boat motor I’ll be back on the muddy bank again this year. I know the Department of Natural Resources and the Alaska Department of Fish and Game would not agree with me on this.

I stand on the idea that they should return to unlimited horsepower and allow the older, non Direct Injected two strokes to be used below the Warren Ames Bridge. The Warren Ames Bridge is the upper boundary for dip netters. The rest of the river can keep the new regulations. I find it interesting that the entire Kenai commercial fishing fleet is anchored in the mouth of the Kenai River yet, I have not heard any restrictions pertaining to them and they certainly don’t have any horsepower restrictions. Is it fair? I think not. The older higher powered motors could be limited to dip-netters only. The dip net season is only two weeks long. I don’t believe that this would cause as much of an issue because the dip-netting all occurs in a stretch of the river that is entirely influenced by the tides of Cook Inlet. The dip netting area is also not an area for salmon fry rearing nor is bank erosion an issue except in the bluff area of the City of Kenai. That area of erosion is caused entirely by the river currents. I think that this would allow a greater number of Alaskans who really need those fish to be able to feed their families and be more efficient at it and also cause less damage to the river bank. I will also predict that there will be further restrictions put into place because of bank erosion to eventually cause the demise of dip-netting on the Kenai River. There are some people and organizations that are lobbying to make the entire Kenai River a drift boat only river. I’m all for protecting our environment but I don’t like it when the rules favor the elite few who can afford a new boat motor every time the regulations change. The ones who can are the fishing guides who aren’t dip-netting anyway, and a few others who can afford it, and some of those don’t even use the fish they catch.


Works Cited

Bartz, Krista K., et al. “Translating restoration scenarios into habitat conditions: an initial step in evaluating recovery strategies for Chinook salmon (Oncorhynchus tshawytscha).” Canadian Journal of Fisheries & Aquatic Sciences, 63.7 (Jul. 2006): 1578-1595. EBSCO. University of Alaska Consortium Library, Anchorage, AK. 8 April 2009

Dorava, J.M., and G.W. Moore, 1997, Effects of boat wakes on stream bank erosion, Kenai River, Alaska: U.S. Geological Survey Water-Resources Investigations Report 97-4105, 84 p. 6 April 2009 <http://ak.water.usgs.gov/>

Espinosa Jr., F. Al, Jon J. Rhodes, and Dale Al Mcullough. “The failure of existing plans to protect salmon habitat in the Clearwater National Forest in Idaho.” Journal of Environmental Management, 49.2 (Feb. 1997): 205-230. EBSCO. University of Alaska Consortium Library, Anchorage, AK. 29 Mar. 2009

Frates, Robert J. 2008 Kenai River Dip net Fishery. 7 Oct. 2008. 6 April 2009 <http://www.ci.kenai.ak.us/2008dipnetreport.pdf>

Holland, Larry, Adam Moles, Marie Larsen, Mark G. Carls, and Stanley D. Rice” Concentrations of polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons (PAHs), polychlorinated biphenyls (PCBs), and organochlorinated pesticides (OCPs) in the Kenai River, Alaska: 2001-2005: a data report /” Juneau, Alaska: Auke Bay Laboratory, Alaska Fisheries Science Center, National Marine Fisheries Service, National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (2006): AFSC processed report; 2006-08. ALNcat. University of Alaska Fairbanks Lib., Fairbanks, AK. 17 Feb 2009 .

“Hydrocarbon Research in the Kenai River” Kenai Watershed Forum 2009
28 Feb. 2009 <http://www.kenaiwatershed.org/hydrocarbon.html>

Landers, Jay. “Engineers and Biologists Create Model to Improve Salmon Habitat.” Civil Engineering, 75.8 (Aug. 2005): 21-22. EBSCO. University of Alaska Consortium Library, Anchorage, AK. 8 April 2009

Piehler, Michael F., Julie S. Maloney, and Hans W. Paerl. "Bacterioplanktonic abundance, productivity and petroleum hydrocarbon biodegradation in marinas and other coastal waters in North Carolina, USA." Marine Environmental Research 54.2 (Aug. 2002): 157. Academic Search Premier. EBSCO. University of Alaska Consortium Library, Anchorage, AK. 29 Mar. 2009

United States. Alaska Department of Fish and Game. Personal Use 28 Feb. 2009 <http://www.sf.adfg.state.ak.us/region2/personaluse/kenaipu.cfm>



United States. Environmental Protection Agency. EPA Watershed Initiative - Kenai River Watershed Nomination. 12 Jan. 2004. 28 Feb. 2009 <http://www.epa.gov/twg/2004/2004proposals/04kenai.pdf>

Workshop for Robert's Research Paper Step 3

Workshop for Part 3
Overall
1. What do you like best about the paper? Be specific.
Interesting information on genetically modified food. Makes you wonder what we’re eating.
2. Email the author and ask for one particular concern that s/he had about the draft. Examine that area and see if you can offer the author helpful suggestions.
Did that. Waiting for reply.
Thesis
3. Does the author clearly express his/her opinion of the topic in the thesis? What argument does the thesis make?
(A)Yes
(B)That there are potential risks with genetically modified food
4. What group of people agrees with the author? What group disagrees with the author?
(A)Everyone who eats modified food
(B)Scientist and the people who market it
5. Does the paper have an argumentative thesis statement using ALTHOUGH and BECAUSE?
Yes
Content
6. On a scale of 1 to 10, how interesting did you find this paper to read? Be brutally honest! (Friends don’t let friend turn in boring essays!)
6.5
7.Where can the author more fully develop ideas, either by providing examples or explaining/clarifying concepts for the reader? Be specific (e.g. “the 3rd is dullsville”; “the conclusion is really vague”).
Possibly some information on nutritional value on before and after modified.
8.What kinds of objections might someone who disagrees with the author’s point of view raise? If there are none, go back to #3.
The possibility of health issues, corporations with patents controlling the food supply and the quantity verses quality issue.
9.Has the author dealt with these objections?
Yes
10.Is the relationship between each paragraph and the thesis clear? If not, what suggestions do you have for the author to improve the connection?
Yes
Style
11. Are there easy transitions from one paragraph to the next, or does the author jump from topic to topic?
Seems to flow well. There are some abbreviations that I think should be spelled out.
12. Does the opening of the essay capture the reader’s attention? How so? If not, what suggestions can you make that might strengthen the opening?
(A)Yes
(B)Corn on the cob is my favorite!
13. Does the concluding paragraph serve to bring the discussion to an end that logically follows from the thesis and its direction?
Yes
Research
14. How many different sources are cited in the paper (don’t look at Works Cited; look at the parenthetical citations. The medium does not matter.)
4
15. Does the author rely heavily on just 1 or 2 sources, or does the author equally use all of the sources to support the paper’s thesis?
1 cite for each of the 4 sources
16. Does the author have more quotes in his/her paper than personal opinion?
About equal
17. Are there any sources listed on the Works Cited that are not cited within the body of the essay? (This is a no-no)
No
18. Is all the information retrieved from research, including opinion, ideas, paraphrases, quotes, and statistics, cited with in-text (parenthetical) citations? If not, list specifics of what needs to be cited (friends don’t let friends turn in plagiarized papers).
Yes
19. All quotes in research papers should be commented upon. Does the author comment after every quote? If not, help the author decide what the underlying reason behind putting the quote in the paper was.
Yes