-------
                   Figure 2 Water Quality Index Values for Principal Rivers
            100  --
            80
          Is)
          =>

          < 60
            40
            20   —
                                       RIVERS
          •  WORST 3 CONSECUTIVE MONTHS

          d ANmjAL AVERAGE WATER QUALITY

          »«« INSUFFICIENT DATA
             Note: Doe MI uno/fidem data, index mmfaen
             could- oot be calculated for some men. Thcae
             valves preteotcd are '"'rvlatfd from only one
                           each
monitoring station on
                               river.
There are  Isolated water quality  problems In several areas  of the State
associated with point source discharges of pollutants  from  facilities:

     . A significant and widspread  water quality problem is caused
       by  numerous placer mining  operations in interior Alaska.
       Inadequately controlled  placer mining operations can cause
       severe turbidity and sediment  conditions in water used for
       drinking water supplies  and  fish spawning.

     . In  several  areas of Alaska the discharge of seafood  wastes
       to  confined bays or estuaries  result in the accumulation of
       large  amounts of wastes  on the bottom.  This deposition of
       organic material smothers  bottom organisms and  can cause depressed
       dissolved oxygen and generation of hydrogen sulfide.  Such
       discharges  of seafood wastes are particularly  significant in
       the Dutch Harbor area.   However, DEC and EPA have been able
       to  collect  only limited  information on these conditions or
       their  effects.

-------
      .  The  discharge  of  pulp  mill  wastes  have  had  significant  impacts
        on water  quality  of  Ward  Cove  in  Ketchikan  and  Silver Bay
        in Sitka.   However,  with  the recent upgrading of wastewater
        treatment facilities at the Sitka  plant,  water  quality  conditions
        in Silver Bay  have been reported  by local citizens  to be improved.

     .  Inadequately treated domestic  sewage cause  depressed  dissolved
       oxygen levels and high fecal coliform counts in  the vicinity
       of outfalls.  These  conditions are  or have  occurred in  the
       lower Chena River and  Eagle  River.  Several problems
       are occurring in southeast Alaska  in the treatment of municipal
       sewage.  These problems are  produced by extensive rain  which
       causes flows of wastewater to  the  plants  in excess of what  the
       plant was designed for.  As  a  result treatment plant  performance
       is impaired and operating costs, of energy  required to  handle
       the sewage flows goes  up.'

     . The disposing of sol  id wastes  in open dumps has  created a
       number of water quality problems,  particularly in concentrated
       population centers and the high rainfall areas of southeast
       Alaska.  Rainfall and  groundwater  draining  a dump can carry
       chemicals and bacteria into  streams and groundwater locations.

Non-point sources of pollutants in  Alaska  are difficult  to quantify.
Timber harvesting, construction activities, urban  stormwater runoff,
agricultural runoff and the disposal  of sludge and waste oil have  at
times resulted in signficant  impacts  on water quality.   Timber harvesting
as a non-point source is on the rise  in southeast  Alaska and the logging
and road construction that  follows  could  deteriorate water quality.by
altering stream temperatures  and increasing sediment loads.  In  the
Anchorage area urban stormwater runoff causes periodic  water quality
standard violations in several streams.

The effect rapid land development is  having on the quality of  lakes in
the Mat-Su and Sitka areas  is a growing concern.   This  development
appears to be causing accelerated eutrophication in several  lakes.
Figure 3 presents information on recreational impairment and trophic
status of a number of recreational  lakes  in Alaska.

Perhaps the most significant water  related environmental problem in
Alaska results from construction and  development in sensitive  wetland
areas.  The importance of wetlands  from a  water quality, fisheries, and
wildlife standpoint are well  documented.   In the past year more  than 250
permits for activities in navigable waters and wetlands  have been
issued.  It is estimated that in the  past year alone at  least  1750 acres
of navigable waters and wetlands have been lost because  of development.

-------

              Figure 3 The Recreational Impairment and Trophic Status of the
                       Principal Recreational Lakes
              Lucille
              Campbell

              Wasilla
              Cottonwood

              Finger
              Harding
              Fielding

              Summit

              Paxson

              Bi«
              Kenai
              Skilak

              Fire
              Nancy

              Galbraixh

              Clark

              lllamna

              Minchumina
              Louise

              Schrader
              Tustumena
              Ward
              Blue
\\\\
      •*V<*'A
      *A>A
      •" /<•'A
              'N v
            x'/.i-'/x
            A>A
                  > /H"
                  \\N\\X
'V
     A'>AA
                                \ \ \\ \
                                v^
                            Swirn   Fish   Koa,t  Aesth,   Total  Tropic
                                                      Rating  Status
                                       TYPE OF USE
                 SIGNIFICANT IMPAIRMENT

                 MODERATE IMPAIRMENT

                 LITTLE OR NO IMPAIRMENT

              |3 NO MONITORING OR INSUFFICIENT DATA
Oil  and  hazardous substance spills can  have adverse and  even fatal
effects  on people's health and on the animals and plants  upon which
people depend.  In the  last year, there were two major oil  spills in
Alaska and one that was  barely averted.   The Ryuyo maru  spill at St.
Paul demonstrated the highly toxic nature of diesel fuels commonly used
in Alaska:  the beach at English Bay Lagoon was littered  with dead
animals  poisoned by the  oil; birds that ate the affected  animals also
died.  The Lee Wang Zin  spill, near Ketchikan showed how  widespread the
effect of a spill can be:   over 100,000 gallons were spilled affecting
more than 250 miles of coastline.  The  near grounding of  the Prince
William  Sound, carrying  35 million gallons of crude oil  points out the
need for safeguards to prevent future catastrophies.  Oil  spills particularly
in undeveloped areas, can  be devastating to humans, fish  and wildlife by
direct contact and by ingeston through  food chains.

-------
In the northern climates of Alaska the effects of oil and hazardous
substance spills can be particularly disasterious.  Low temperatures
limit evaporation, dispersement and biological break down of spilled
oil.  Effected areas recover more slowly.  Species habitat requirements,
limited accessability, bad weather and lack of effective cleanup technology
all necessitate rapid response; the longer a spill is left unattended,
the higher the price in cleanup dollars and environmental damage.
   *
A major spill in highly productive fishing areas could also have a
drastic economic effect on large portion of Alaska's fishing industry.
Oil spilled in recreation areas and sheens on the water detract significantly
from the pristine appearance so highly valued by Alaskans and attractive
to many tourists to the State.

Drinking Water

In general the quality of drinking water in Alaska is good and appears
to be improving.  Most larger systems (greater than 2000 persons served)
provide a high quality drinking water supply.  Nearly all these systems
are in compliance with monitoring and reporting requirements of the
drinking water program.  Non-compliance problems are usually associated
vith turbidity conditions for systems using surface water sources during
high runoff periods.  Smaller water supply systems suffer higher incidences
of drinking water problems, including chemical contamination, waterborne
diseases, and taste and odor conditions.  The severity of any such
problems are entirely source specific, but the most common poor drinking
water quality conditions occur in rural and bush communities.  Figure 4
summarizes information on the compliance of community water supply
systems with Primary Drinking Water Standards.

     .  Outbreaks of waterborne diseases such as dysentary and hepatitis
       and perhaps Giardia have occurred in Alaska.  Available information
       indicates that a rise in waterborne diseases has actually
       been experienced in Alaska since 1950, although no outbreaks
       have been confirmed in the past year.  Continued surveillance
       and investigation is necessary.

     .  Arsenic in individual ground water supply systems in the Juneau
       and Fairbanks areas have been documented.  This often makes
       the water unfit for human consumption.

     •  Taste and odor conditions may not cause human health problems,
       but render the water supply useless.

-------

        Figure 4 Compliance with Primary Drinking Water Standards
           100%
            75%
o
         y
         as
            50%
            25%
                       600
                      systems
                          400,000
                          people
                                     ,  .  INCOMPLIANCE WITH BACTERIOLOGICAL
                                     ' / A  CONTAMINANT LEVELS
                                                  MINOR (1 MONTH) VIOLATION OF
                                                  CONTAMINANT LEVEL

                                                  MAJOR (2 OR MORE MONTHS) VIOLATION
                                                  Of CONTAMINANT LEVEL
                                         SUFFICIENT DATA NOT AVAILABLE
                                         TO DETERMINE COMPLIANCE
Solid and  Hazardous Wastes

The disposal  of solid wastes in open  dumps in the past has  created many
environmental  problems.   Litter and solid  wastes are considered  by the
Alaskan public to be one of the most  important environmental  problems
currently.  Throughout Alaska solid waste  problems exist, including
solid wastes  remaining from past military  operations and Federal  Land,
the disposal  of septage and sewage sludges and the improper disposal  of
municipal  garbage.   11 out of 37 inventoried solid waste sites  in Alaska
fail to meet  federal criteria for acceptable waste disposal practices.

-------
As previously mentioned, the open dumps have caused water quality concerns.
In addition, the dumps can cause disease problems and nuisance conditions
from blowing debris and predators, such as bears.  The solid waste
problem in Alaska is compounded by special circumstances related to the
severe cold and permafrost, limited  land area available for acceptable
disposal sites, and remote community locations.

DEC is currently doing an inventory of the industrial sources of hazardous*
wastes.  The magnitude and seriousness of any hazardous waste generated,
transported, and disposed of within the State are not yet known.  It  is
known that PCS (toxic chemicals used primarily  in electric transformers)
are used and stored in Alaska, and it is possible that some problems  may
be occurring with disposal of PCB materials in  an acceptable manner.

Pesticides

Improper use of pesticides can be a direct hazard to human health.
Approximately 250 commercial applicators in Alaska (including farmers)
come into contact with concentrated solutions of pesticides several
times a year.   An estimated 100,000 people are  potentially exposed to
outdoor pesticide applications each year.  The  risks of this exposure to
the general population are not considered to be significant, although
some people have a greater sensitivity to pesticides.

Approximatley 25,000 acres, (primarily residential) are sprayed for
mosquitos at least once a year, and about 5000  acres of right-of-way  are
sprayed for vegetation control.  Another 12,000 acres of lakes and 8000
acres of agricultural land are treated annually.

Alaska encounters problems in regard to pesticides because of the climate
and other factors which often cause variations  in the effectiveness and
persistence of pesticides applied at normal rates.  Improper choice and
use of pesticides can cause adverse impacts on  humans and non-target
plants and animals, such as spray drifting beyond the target area and
killing honey bees.  Right-of-way spraying can  produce dead, brown areas
which are often perceived as a nuisance.

                  HIGHLIGHTS OF FY 1980 ACCOMPLISHMENTS

During 1980, EPA and the State of Alaska cooperated to complete or begin
work on several important tasks.  A few of these include the following:

1.   Staff transfers:  EPA more than fulfilled  a 1980 commitment of
     staff assistance to DEC.   EPA staff completed short-term assignments,
     assisting the State in the development of  an overall monitoring
     strategy and initiating a hazardous waste  inventory;

-------
2.   Training;  EPA assisted the State by conducting training sessions
     on sanitary surveys for public water supply systems, on compliance
     monitoring and hazardous waste;

3.   Legislation;  DEC supported to enactment by the Alaska Legislature
     new programs on oil spill prevention and clean-up, litter control
     and resource recovery, and solid waste construction grants;

4-   Energy:  EPA and the State of Alaska cooperated to successfully
     complete a unified EIS and permitting process  for the proposed
     ALPETCO refinery in Valdez;

5.   Permitting;  DEC and EPA worked as a team  to draft wastewater
     permits for the Alyeska Ballast Water facility in Valdez and the
     proposed Waterflood Project on the North Slope;

6»   Air Quality:  DEC completed the State Implementation Plan for Air
     Quality, and enacted new regulations which eliminate the need for
     individual permits for many facilities in Alaska.

               PRIORITY ENVIRONMENTAL GOALS AND OBJECTIVES
Based on the environmental problem assessment, DEC and  EPA  have  established
four major environmental goals to focus work efforts  in  FY  81.   These
goals are as follows:

     • Soal...#\ - Reduce the number of people known to be exposed
       to pollution-related health hazards.

     . Goal £2 - Reduce the known number of incidents of adverse
       impact on the productivity of plants and animals.

     . Goal 13 - Reduce the known number of pollution-related  nuisances.

     . Goal #4 - Prevent or reduce potential adverse effects (health,
       plant and animal, or nuisance-related) from development in
       Alaska's growth centers and from proposed new industrial
       facilities.

For each goal a number of objectives have been identified which  when
implemented will result in the environmental goal being  met.   The objectives
have been ranked to determine their relative order of importance in
achieving the goal.  The objectives to meet environmental goals  are
shown in Table 2 below.
                                       10

-------
                 Table 2 FY 81 Environmental Goals and Objectives.
   GOAL 1
PROTECT HUMAN
HEALTH
      GOAL  2
PRESERVE PRODUCTIVITY
OF PLANTS AND ANIMALS
    GOAL  3

 REDUCE
 ENVIRONMENTAL
 NUISANCES
     GOAL
OBTECT1VES
a. Assure public drinking
water supplies meet health-
related standards.
b. Assure the public is not
exposed to disease from
improper disposal of sewage
c.  Assure that air quality
meets health-related
standards;
d. Assure management of
solid waste facilities to meet
health-related standards
(including hazards to air-
craft from birds at dumps)


e. Assure prevention of
illness or injury from un-
permitted pesticide use
f. Assure public protection
from improper storage,
transportation and disposal
of hazardous wastes;

g. Assure prevention of
foodbome illness  acquired
in commercial food service
establishments or from
improper handling or
processing of meat and
seafood within Alaska.
 OBJECTIVES
 a. Assure protection of
 plants and animals from
 activities not meeting
 water quality standards;
 (point and non-point  :
 sources)

 b. Assure protection of
 plants and animals from
 oil spills;
 c.  Assure protection of
 critical or sensitive areas
 (including wetlands)
 from adverse impacts.  .
 d. Assure protection of
  plants and animals from
 unpermitted pesticide use
 e. Assure protection of
 bears and other wildlife
 from attraction to dumps;


 f. Assure prevention of
 damage to plants and
 animals from stationary
 sources of air pollution.
 OBJECTIVES
 a. Assure prevention
 or reduction of odors,
 dust and smoke irrita-
 tion from landfills,
marine vessels, and
 industrial facilities

 b. Assure prevention
 or reduction of nui- ,
 sances (odor, iron,
 curbidity, color) in
 public water supplies

 c. Assure reduction
 of litter related nui-
 sance and promis-
 cuous dumps
 d. Assure prevention
 or reduction of damage
 to docks, boats, nets
 and other equipment
 from uncontrolled oil
 spills.
OBTECTIVES
a. Prevent further
deterioration of the
environment in the
Anchorage area.
b. Assure decision
 on energy related
 projects are made
 promptly and with
proper consideration
of environmental issu
                                                                                               issues.
 c. Establish an
 adequate environ-
 mental data base
 considering factors
 unique to the Alaska
 environment.
                                              11

-------
r
                                        SOLUTIONS TO  ENVIRONMENTAL  PROBLEMS

                 This section of  the Executive Summary identifies  the  near  (one-year)  and
                 longer (5-year)  term  actions to  be taken  by DEC  and EPA to solve the
                 environmental  problems  described in  the previous  sections.   Table 3
                 concisely  presents the  highest priority work each agency will be carrying
                 out.   It is  not  intended to  describe the  entire  programs to be  conducted
                 by DEC and EPA.   Detailed  information on  the overall  DEC and EPA programs
                 is presented in  the body of  the  State/EPA Agreement which  is available
                 upon request.
                                           Table 3 Solutions to Environmental Problems
                     GOAL/OBJECTIVE

               l.a. Assure public drinking water
                   supplies meet health related
                   standards.
                l.b. Assure the public is not
                   exposed to disease from
                   improper disposal of sewage.
         SOLUTIONS

 i. Monitor water systems serving
   populations greater than 500.

 ii. Conduct 200 sanitary surveys.
iii Collect quarterly samples for
  Thhalomethane for systems serving
  more than 10,000.
 iv. Respond to reports of bacteriological
   or other contamination levels exceeding
   health-related standards immediately
   and obtain compliance.

 v. Develop capability to sample for
   Giardia cysts,
vi. Begin inventory of underground water
   sources (in cooperation with Alaska
   Department of Natural Resources).

 i. Investigate and abate failing septic
   systems.

 ii. Provide technical assistance to septic
   system installers.

iii. Simplify procedures and requirements
   for construction and renovation of water
   and sewer facilities in rural communities
   of 10,000 or less.
 iv. Implement the Municipal Management
   System to expedite construction of
   Municipal sewage treatment facilities.
 v. Encourage the  use of alternate and
   innovative technology.
 vi. Complete delegation of portions of the
   construction grants program to the
   State of Alaska.
vii. Develop alternative methods of on-site
   waste disposal.
viii. Cany out provisions of the Memorandum
   of Agreement between EPA and DEC on
   waiver of secondary sewage treatment
   for Coastal Alaska Native Villages.
AGENCY RESPONSIBLE
     DEC


     DEC
     DEC


     DEC




     DEC

     DEC/DNR



     EPA/DEC


     EPA/DEC


     EPA/DEC



     EPA/DEC



     EPA/DEC

     DEC/EPA


     DEC

     EPA/DEC
                                                            12

-------
I
I
I
i
i
i
i
i
i
i
i
i
i
i
i
i
i
i

                                                                                           Table 3 con't
     GOAL/OBJECTIVE
I.e. Assure chat air quality meets
   health-related standards.
l.d. Assure management of solid
    waste facilities to meet health
    realted standards (including
   hazards to aircraft from birds
   at dumps).
I.e. Prevent illness or injury from
    improper pesticide use.
l.f. Assure public protection from
    improper storage, transportation,
    and disposal of hazardous wastes
           SOLUTIONS-

 L Develop and implement CO control
   strategies in Anchorage and Fairbanks.
 ii. Obtain additional data to characterize
   and control cold temperature auto
   emission.
iii. Conduct anti-tampcring and fuel
   switching programs for selected targets
   in Anchorage.
 iv. Expand the voluntary auto emissions.
   inspection and public awareness program
   in Anchorage and Fairbanks

 L Compliance schedules are negotiated to
   clean up disposal sites classified as open
   dumps.
 ii. Issue grants for demonstration projects
   that encourage recovery of material or
  energy from solid wastes.
 iii. Complete inventory of disposal sites
   serving 500-1000 people, military, and
   industrial sites.
 iv. Complete the Solid Waste Management
   and adopt regulations to implement.
 v. Establish a program for the implement-
   ation of the State Litter Control and
   Resource Recovery BilL

 i. Maintain the low-level of injury and
   unpermitted pesticide use in Alaska
   through continued education, surveil-
   lance, and enforcement.

 i. Conduct Inventory of generators,
   transporters and disposer of Hazardous
   Wastes,
 ii. Hazardous waste management program
   operation
   'Administer the federal hazardous waste
    program in Alaska, as required by the
    Resource Conservation and Recovery '
    Act.
   'Carry out portions of the federal
    hazardous waste program as defined
    by Cooperative Agreement between
    EPA and DEC.
   * Evaluate and work toward development
    of an application for interim authoriza-
    tion for carrying out federal hazardous
    wastes requirements.
 iii. Complete investigations to determine
   status of potential abandoned or un-
   controlled hazardous waste sites.
 iv. Assure all PCS material are properly
   stored, and disposed of.
 v. Assure asbestos in schools is controlled
   in a manner to prevent health hazards.
AGENCY RESPONSIBLE
 •MOA/FNSB/DEC

  EPA/DEC


  MOA/DEC/EPA


  MOA/DEOFNSB



  DEC


  DEC


  DEC


  DEC

  DEC



  DEC




  EPA/DEC
                                                                                EPA



                                                                                DEC



                                                                                DEC




                                                                                EPA


                                                                                EPA/DEC

                                                                                DEC/EPA
                    *MOA-Municjpality of Anchorage
                     FNSB-Fairbanks North Star Borough
                                                                      13

-------
                                                                                                  Table 3 con't
        GOAL/OB[ECnyE
l.g. Assure protection of foodborne
    illness acquired in conunerciai
    food-service establishments or
    from improper handling or processing
    of meat and seafood within Alaska
2.2. Assure protection of plants and
    animals from activities not meeting
    Water Quality Standards (point and1
    nonpoint sources).
2.b. Respond to environmental emer-
    gencies including major spills of
    oil and hazardous materials.
          SOLUTIONS   .
 i. Continue prevention of illness from
  foodborne disease through inspection
  of commercial establishments and meat
  and seafood processing facilities within
  Alaska.
 i. Complete the water quality assessment
                     n
ii. Control placer mining discharges to meet
   Alaska water quality standards, including
   •Implement intcragency strategy to minimize
   mining impacts.
   'Implement a placer mining demonstration
   project.
   'Develop general permits for placer mining.
   •Establish effective procedures for monitoring
   and surveillance of placer mining operations.
iii. Control seafood processing waste discharges
   in an acceptable manner, including,
   'Develop general permits for remote seafood
   processors.
   •Identify areas adversely effected by seafood
   waste discharges.
   •Develop and implement a strategy to control
   seafood waste discharges.
   •Complete industrial sludge disposal alternative!
    study.

iv. Identify and control significant causes of non-
   point pollution sources.  •
   •Develop a water quality data management
   system.
   •Provide technical  guidelines for sludge disposal
   on-sire waste disposal, and public water supply
   watershed protection in Alaska.
   •Develop Best Management Practices (BMP's)
   and an associated plan for agricultural develop-
   mcnt in Alaska.
   •Provide forest practices training for field
   personnel
   •Facilitate the development and management
   of appropriate small village sanitation systems.
   * Develop model waste oil demonstration
    project in small community.
 i. Respond to major spills of oil and hazardous
   materials in accordance with Region X policy.
 ii. Develop Memorandum of Agreement to give
   DEC lead responsibility in oil and hazardous
   spill response for inland waters.
iii. Implement State Oil Spill Program as enacted
   by the Alaska Legislature.
iv. Update the Alaska Inland Pollution Contingency
   Plan.
 v. Develop a single contingency plan format that
   satisfies both State and federal requirements
   for oil and hazardous spill responses.
AGENCY RESPONSIBLE
   DEC
   DEC



   DEC/DFG/DNR/EPA

   DEC

   EPA/DEC
   DEC/EPA

   EPA/DEC

   EPA/DEC

   EPA/DEC

   EPA/DEC

   DEC




   DEC

   DEC


   DEC/SCS


   DEC/DNR/ADF&G

   DEC

   DEC


   EPA

   EPA/DEC



   DEC

   EPA

   DEC/EPA
                                                14

-------
I
I
I
i
i
i
i
i
i
i
i
i
i
i
i
i
i
i
i
                                                                                              Table 3 con't
       GOAL/OBJECTIVE
2.c. Assure protection of critical
    or sensitive areas (including
    wetlands from adverse impacts.
2.d. Assure protection of plants and
   animals from unpermitted
   pesticide use.
2.c. Assure protection of wildlife
   from attraction to dumps.
2.f. Assure stationary sources are
    controlled to protect air quality
    standards.
S.a. Prevent or reduce odor, dust
   and smoke nuisances

3.b. Prevent or reduce nuisances in
    public water supplies.
3.c. Prevent or reduce litter-related
    nuisances.

3.d. Prevent or reduce damaage to
    marine equipment and facili-
    ties from oil spills.
':           " SOLUTIONS
 i. Inventory the status of lakes in Alaska
   and identify control programs needed,
   including
   •Complete assessment of the water
    quality status of lakes in Alaska.
   * For lakes impacted develop a strategy
    with local governments for restoration.
   •Provide Clean Lake funds to local
    governments for restoration.

 ii. Minimize dredge and fill activities in
   sensitive wetland areas; including
   •Establish a working agreement for
    404 permit review and evaluate the
    benefit of program delegation to the
    State.
   •Assist in preparation of a  permit
    application assistance packet.
   'Increase compliance monitoring of
    constructed 404 projects.
   'Review all coastal zone management
    plans to assure consistency with the
    404 environmental guidelines.
   'Review ail major 404 projects in
    accordance with environmental guidelines.

 i. Maintain continued pesticide surveillance,
   enforcement and public education activities.


 i. Continue enforcement of State solid
   waste regulations.
 ii. Implement new solid waste construction
   grants program.

 i. Complete revisions to air quality regulations
   and stationary source portions of State Air
   Quality Control Plan, including assumption
   of the PSD program.

 ii. Continue to assure stationary source
   compliance with special emphasis on keeping
   sources with variances on schedule.
 iiL Complete development of source surveillance
   and inspection procedures.

 iv. Inspect all major stationary sources annually.
 i. Maintain surveillance and enforcement of
   areas and facilities and respond to complaints.

 i. Maintain existing sanitary surveys, enforce-
   ment and respond to complaints.

 i. Implement program to carry out State litter
   control and resource recovery program.

 i. Implement program to carry out State oil
   spill prevention  and control program.
                                                  15
AGENCYRESPONSIBLE
       DEC


       DEC

       DEC

       EPA




       EPA/DEC



       EPA/DEC

       EPA/DEC

       EPA/DEC


       EPA


       DEC



       DEC

       DEC

       DEC




       DEC/EPA


       DEC


       DEC
       DEC


       DEC

       DEC


       DEC

-------
        GOAL/OBJECTrVTT
4>.a. Prevent further deterioration of
    the environment in the Anchorage
    Area.
4.b. Assure decision on energy related
   projects are made promptly and
   with proper consideration.
4.c. Establish adequate environmental
    data base considering factors
    unique to Alaska environment.
            SOLUTIONS
 i. Complete stormwater runoff studies
   for selected basins.
 ii Upgrade Eagle River Sewage Treatment
   Plant.
iiL Inventory wetlands and establish: procedures
   for protecting critical areas.
iv. Complete study to determine adequacy of
   on-site sewage disposal in die Hillside area.
 v. Prepare an EIS for the Anchorage area in
  conjunction with the 201 Facility Plan.
 i. Participate as the lead 'or a cooperating
   agency on EIS's for major  energy related
   projects.
 ii. Issue the NPDES permit for the Waterflood
   Project within 30 days of publication of the
   Final EIS.
iii. Develop joint monitoring and surveillance
   procedures for the gas pipeline, and coordinate
   preconstruction review of  ail environmental
   aspects of the gas pipeline  design.
 iv. Participate in the Alaska Regional Technical
   Work Group on Outer Continental Shelf
   lease sales.
 v. Conduct an evaluation of the overall social
   and environmental consequences of •petro-
   chemical development in the State of Alaska.

 i. Begin monitoring in the Kenai area to determine
   potential for acid rain impacts.
 ii. Complete upgrading of air monitoring sites,
   equipment, and quality assurance procedures.
iii. Complete development of an overall State
   environmental monitoring strategy, including
   completion of an Annual Work Plan and 5-
   Year Strategy by 12/31/80.
 iv. Establish priorities for cold climate-environmental
   research.
AGENCY RESPONSIBLE
  MOA/DEC/EPA

  MOA/EP A/DEC

  MOA/EPA/DEC

  MOA/EP A/DEC

  EPA/MOA

  EPA


  EPA


  EPA/DEC



  EPA


  DEC



  DEC

  DEC

  DEC



  DEC/EPA
                                                16

-------
                                     INTEGRATION
The solution to a water pollution problem might  result  in a  new solid
waste or air pollution problem.  This  section  is a description of  programs
and geographic areas in which efforts  are being made to come up with
overall environmental solutions  rather than peicemeal approaches.

Anchorage Geographic Area

The maintenance of a desirable and healthy environment  in the Municipality
of Anchorage requires cooperation at all levels of government.  The
Municipality of Anchorage, EPA and DEC  are working together  to assure
environmental standards will meet statutory deadlines and to minimize
further degradation resulting from development ana uroanization in tne
Anchorage area.

To facilitate this working relationship with the Municipality of Anchorage
an EPA employee has been assigned to the Municipality's staff through
the Intergovernmental Personnel Act (called an IPA assignee).  The IPA
assignee works directly for the Municipality with the primary responsiblity
of bringing together different environmental activities going on under
various local government departments.

The various programs in Anchorage with  active EPA and ADEC involvement
include:

     201 - Construction Grants
           Facility plans
           Pretreatment program...
           Upgrade of Eagle River STP

     208 - Water Quality Management
           Hillside Study
           Wetlands Study
           Stormwater Runoff Study

     Air Quality

           Transportation Control Plan

     301(h) - Secondary treatment waiver

     Solid Waste Disposal

In the next year, an overall Environmental Impact Statement for the
Anchorage region will be developed, as  part of the sewage disposal
facility plan.   This Environmental Impact Statement will help identify
and combine the environmental programs  (local, State and federal) being
conducted in or proposed for the area.
                                     17

-------

AcidRain Identlflcation/Kenai Peninsula

Sulfur and nitrogen oxides emitted into the air from combustion processes
are becoming recognized in the United States and Canada as a major
source of water pollution.  The acid rain associated with these groups
of oxides has been responsible for the death of much aquatic life.  ADEC
intends to keep careful accounting of the potential for acid rain problems
hy instituting a monitoring system to detect these problems if they
occur.  A multiple year effort will be undertaken to determine:
     1)
          Current conditions

          a)   emission inventory summaries by geographic location,

          b)   ambient air concentrations of nitrogen oxides and sulfur
               oxide, and

          c)   conditions of lakes and streams now  (pH and reasons for
               high or low pH);
     2}
          Future Conditions

          a)   continued ambient air monitoring,

          b)   predictive modeling related to new development  (PSD)

          c)   continued surveillance of freshwaters of State.

During the first year, the study will concentrate on potential problems
on the Kenai Peninsula.  The SO  and NO  emissions from industrial
facilities in the Kenai Peninsula have created concerns and questions
pertaining to the long term impacts on vegetation, air and water quality
and fisheries resoruces on the Kenai National Moose Range and  Tuxedni
Wildlife Refuge.  The concerns relate to the potential for acid rain
from sulfuric and nitric acids formed from air emissions.  At  this time
acid rain in Alaska is not known to occur.

Glacial lakes appear to be the most vulnerable to acid rain.   Because
many lakes on the Kenai National Moose Range appear to fall into a
sensitive category and decomposition in these lakes is presumably controlled
by bacteria which are acid sensitive, DEC and EPA will begin to implement
a monitoring program to identify SO  and NO  air emissions and acidity
in the waters.

Consolidated Permitting

The amount of involvement in environmental activities by various agencies
has rapidly increased in the last few years.  Along with the heightened
concern of people for their environment have come many requirements from
agencies which are potentially conflicting.  Several permits are now
required for most activities.  While all of these permits serve to
protect the environment, there has been an increasing concern  from the
general public and within agencies about duplication of efforts.  In
response to these concerns, EPA has published consolidated permit regulations.
Both EPA and the State will review these regulations to determine how to
effectively implement these regulations in Alaska.
                                     18

-------
In response to the same public concerns,  the Governor of Alaska  has
directed the Alaska Department of  Law  to  work on permit reform.   Specifically,
the effort will produce:

1}   Comprehensive procedural regulations for issuing permits  from the
     Departments of Fish and Game, Natural Resources, Environmental
     Conservation, and the Office  of Coastal Management;

2)   Regulations for coordinated permit issuance to the seafood  processing,
     timber, oil and gas and mining industries; and

3)   A strategy for development and use of general permits.

ADEC will assist the Department of Law in this effort and will develop  a
strategy for implementing the regulations when they are developed.
Simultaneously, ADEC will consider each of the permits being issued and
will examine alternatives to issuing permits.

Cold Climate Environmental Research

Starting in FY 80 EPA funds have been  made available at a National level
for cold climate environmental research.  The initial funding  level
available was about $900,000.  Indications are that research funds in
this order of magnitude will be available in this and future years.

In order to make effective use of the  available funds a mechanism must
be established for identifying research needs in Alaska and for  placing
a priority on the problems.  DEC and EPA  will work together with other
State and Federal agencies in this next year to develop such a mechanism.
EPA, Region X will work with the Office of Research and Development to
assure these priority problem areas are considered for funding.

Alaska Natural Gas Transportation System  (ANGTS)

In FY 81 major design decisions will be made on the Alaska gas pipeline.
ADEC and EPA will continue to coordinate  pre-construction review of
activities related to the Alaska Natural  Gas Transportation System
through EPA's Agency Authorized Officer and ADEC's Pipeline Monitor. A
number of major project milestone have been met during the past  year and
Northwest Alaskan Pipeline Company, Agency and Operator for Northwest
Alaskan Transportation Company is proceeding with applying for all major
permits.

ADEC and EPA will coordinate their permit issuing strategies and initiate
development of procedures for.joint monitoring and surveillance.  ADEC
and EPA will continue to review the design of all environmental  aspects
of the project to minimize impacts to  the extent possible arid participate
in the Physical Program and the Environmental Engineering Program.

Alaska Environmental  Profiles

For the past several  years EPA, Region X  has prepared annual environmental
profile reports outlining the status and  trends on environmental quality
in Alaska.  Coordination will be established in FY 81 between DEC and
EPA to develop a process for joint preparation of future environmental
profiles that will serve the need.of the State as well as EPA programs.

                                     19

-------

In FY 81 it is the intent of EPA and DEC to prepare the environmental
profile in connection with the development of the State/EPA Agreement.
A draft joint environmental profile is scheduled to be available for
public review in the spring of 1981.

Environmental Monitoring Strategy

In the past year an effort was made by DEC in cooperation with EPA, to
pull together information on existing programs and projected data needs
to develop a comprehensive framework to optimize monitoring resources.
The result of this effort was the establishment of a DEC monitoring
strategy for all media covering the following elements:

     1.   Ambient fixed network monitoring
     2.   Special studies and intensive surveys
     3.   Compliance monitoring
     4.   Data systems
     5.   Monitoring and information management

DEC will be working to complete development of this monitoring strategy
during FY 81.  The general strategy is outlined in the SEA body.

                                RESOURCES

In FY 81 two State or local government agencies will directly receive
EPA grant funds for operation of environmental programs in Alaska,
namely the Alaska Department of Environmental Conservation and the
Municipality of Anchorage.  These agencies do not always utilize the
grant funds directly but may "pass through" certain funds to other local
or State entities or contract for completion of specific work elements.
For several program grants, DEC and Anchorage provide matching funds
ranging from one-quarter to one-third of the total.  In addition, DEC
and Anchorage fund a number of programs not associated with Federal
grants.  The funds for these programs come from State or local budgets.

Table 4 summarizes the State and Federal funds available for operation
of programs by the Alaska Department of Environmental Conservation
covered by this agreement.  The table shows the FY 81 Federal grant
funds available and requested, Federal funds carried over from previous
years, State and/or local funds for FY 81, and in-kind funds for State
assignees.  The total dollar amount available in Alaska for DEC to
operate environmental program is approximately $3.9 million.
                                     20

-------
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
Table 4 Federal and State Funding For the Alaska Department of Environmental Conservation
                                                     ^
                                                            <&/£
f/Jpf/f//'/?^ /•* /
/*// ££-/&?/* // / TOTAL
DRINKING WATER (PWSS)
UNDERGROUND INJECTION (UIC)
WATER QUALITY PLANNING (208)
WATER POLLUTION CONTROL (106)
WATER POLLUTION CONTROL (205g)
CONSTRUCTION-MANAGEMENT
ASSISTANCE (205g)
CLEAN LAKES
SOLID WASTES
HAZARDOUS WATES
PESTICIDES
AIR
571.5
62.9
350.0
148.0
225.0
854.2
700.0
40.0
2583
N/A
588.21
571.5
	
350.0
148.0
225.0
182.9
250.0
73.1.'
200.9
N/A
340.6
191.6
— -
307.0
25.5
49.04
	
54.4
22.2
N/A
	
254.4
	
117.J3
192.0
	
75.0
29.9
	
51.8
123.6
_--
-_-
	
---
	
	
	
30.0
_--
30.0 2
1017.5

774.5
365.5
225.0
231.9
325.0
157.4
253-1
51.8
494.2
                         •Unobligated fund* from the designated grant year. Unobligated funds are determined by a fiscal audit
                           required at the end of the grant period. Carryover funds can be awarded for the following year without
                           decreasing the present grant award

                         "Inland fund* are was held back by regional office to pay the costs of a "state assignee". State assignees
                            are people who work for the State but paid Federal salaries.


                         •  Total funds available for all of Alaska* including local agencies,

                          2 Money allocated front 1980 funds, not taken out of. the FY 81 allotment.

                          3 DEC staff only

                          4 Carryover from first CMA grant

                          5 Only $40.000 available
                                                                           21

-------
                         PUBLIC PARTICIPATION

FY 81 SEA Efforts

The public participation process for the FY 81 Alaska State/EPA Agreement
consisted of the following activities:

  -  An announcement of the start of the FY 81 SEA preparation in May
     1980 through the issuance of a press release.

  -  An article in the summer issue of the DEC quarterly newsletter,
     Alaska Environment describing the SEA process.

  -  The distribution of a questionnaire in July 1980 to determine what
     Alaskan's consider to be the most important environmental problems
     (The results of the questionnaire are summarized in the following
     section).

  -  An announcement in July 1980 of three public workshops to be held
     on the draft State/EPA Agreement.

  -  Public workshops conducted in August 1980 in Sitka, Anchorage and
     Fairbanks on the draft Agreement.

  -  Preparation of a Responsiveness Summary on public participation
     efforts and recommending improvements to the process for next year.
     (The responsiveness summary is in the SEA body).

Questionnaire Results

This summer DEC sent out a questionnaire to determine what Alaskans view
as the greatest environmental problems in their communities.  Results
came back from 292 people all over the State.  Results were tabulated by
four regions:  Anchorage (101 respondents), Fairbanks (29), Southeast
Alaska (66), and rural Alaska excluding Southeast (96).  The last category
was perhaps a misnomer since it is really all other areas and includes
the Kenai Peninsula, the Mat-Su Borough, Valdez, etc.  For the sake of
convenience it was called "rural Alaska."  This was not a random survey.
The questionnaires were sent to people on DEC'S mailing list, which
includes public officials and others who have stated an interest in
environmental'matters.  The results of the questionnaire were intended
for use by DEC and EPA personnel to incorporate environmental issues
into the State/EPA Agreement and to glean any trends, directions, or
enlightening information.

Litter was rated as the most critical environmental problem, with land
use planning, air quality, solid waste, and oil spills ranked close.
Table 5 below gives a regional breakdown of the responses in terms of
priority environmental problem area.
                                     22

-------
            Table 5 Ranking of Environmental Problems by Geographic Location
               Anchorage


               Fairbanks


               Southeast Alaska

               Rural Alaska
101
29
66
96
5
4
2
2
3
A
7
7
6
6
4
S
7
a
6
6
8
7
8
8
A
3
3
A
4
5
5
4
2
2
A
3
               1 i* designated u greatest problem
Table  6 below summarizes the results of questions relating  to environmental
problems in Alaska as  a whole.   It should be  noted that these 'results
are expressed as  percentages and  not always total 100% due  to unanswered
questions and sometimes double  responses.
        Table 6 Percentage of Responses Which Designated Environmental Concerns as a
               Problem or Not a Problem
                          PROBLEM
NOT A PROBLEM
COMMENTS
DRINKING WATER
Community System
Other
WATER QUALITY
SEWER SYSTEM
On-Siic
City Sewer
Other
AIR POLLUTION
SOLID WASTE
City Dump
Other
MTTF.B
fMOISE
OIL POLLUTION
15%
9%
29%
3% '
11%
4%
35%
40%
6%
78*.
38%
53%
45%
27%
70%
31%
. 34%
3%
59%
26%
7%
16%
50%
39%
•Chemical tastes
•High iron witent
-Suspended solid*

prgoiem peeausc or :*w»g«.
InaustrUi, garbage, or stormwater



uust 3AQ auto statvo as inain
causa
disposal method
disposal m«thod
prootom In the community?
. 37wi«n«a tney naa recourse
to th« noise orooiem
^iMsrion was aoaressea as iHroax
to your community
                                       23

-------

A number of comments were received about what more the State  should be
doing to solve environmental problems in Alaska,  These comments were in
the following general categories:

     Reduce regulations:  switch to performance standards, common  sense
     regulations, self-regulations

     More public education

     Assistance in handling solid waste problems - dumps, junk  cars,
     recycling, cleanup & litter barrels needed, use  1st offenders to
     pick up litter.

     Do more with air quality - more mass  transit, dial-a-ride.

     More emphasis on oil spill cleanup.

     Better coordination of efforts.

     Give more attention to areas of high  development.

     Take a strong stand on wetlands.


FY 82 Public Participation Plans

The public participation activities for development of the FY 82 SEA
will start in January 1981 by initiating a  public awareness survey.  The
survey will be conducted by an independent  contractor and will  depend
upon EPA funding.  The survey will determine in a statistically valid
manner the attitude of Alaskans on various  environmental  issues.

In the spring of 1981 joint DEC/EPA public  workshops  will be  held  in
various geographic locations on a draft Alaska environmental  profile.
In the summer of 1981 a draft Executive Summary of the FY 82  Agreement
will be made available and public workshops will be publicized  and held.
The locations for the public workshops will be based  on the findings of
the public awareness survey.  A Responsiveness Summary and the  Executive
Summary of the Agreement will be prepared  and provided to all people
attending the workshops or commenting on the Agreement.

News Release Coordination

Problems have occurred in the past when either DEC or EPA issued a
statement to the media on issues which generate signficant interest.
This practice leads to conflicts between Agency staffs that must respond
to these relative crises without advance warning.  Sometime the information
released prior to consultation is misleading or incorrect.

EPA therefore agrees to review proposed press releases with the Commissioner's
Office or the appropriate Division Director of DEC prior  to release.
When DEC intends to issue a press release,  the Director of EPA's Alaska
Operations Office, or his acting designee  will be notified.
                                     24

-------
                        PERFORMANCE  EVALUATION

FY 81 Review

The performance of the State and  EPA  in carrying out the  commitments  in
the SEA will be routinely monitored.

On a frequent basis, varying from weekly  to monthly depending  on  need,
informal discussions on current problems  and  issues will  be  held  between
EPA and DEC. . These discussions and  information exchanges will  normally
be between DEC and the EPA, Alaska Operations Office and  as  appropriate
will include EPA Regional Program offices.  Information or assistance
requests and reviews not otherwise provided for in this agreement will
be kept to a minimum and coordinated  through  the EPA, Alaska Operations
Office.

On a quarterly basis DEC and EPA, Alaska  Operations Office will conduct
brief program reviews.  The Director  of the EPA, Alaska Operations
Office will prepare brief status  reports  on these reviews to the  Commissioner,
ADEC identifying any items needing action and recommending changes or
modifications to the SEA.

At or near mid-fiscal year a comprehensive review will be conducted to
evaluate the DEC and EPA success  in meeting SEA commitments.   To  prepare
for this mid-year review each DEC program covered in the  SEA will prepare
and provide to EPA a summary report highlighting accomplishments.  EPA
will prepare and provide a similar report to  DEC for commitments  made in
the SEA.  The program summary report  will serve as the basis for  DEC  and
EPA staff level reviews of each program.  Problem areas or outstanding
issues identified at the staff meetings will  be elevated  to  the Commissioner
and Regional Administrator for resolution.

At the end of fiscal year a program review between EPA, AOO  and DEC will
also be conducted to evaluate SEA commitments and to determine if any
sanctions or incentives are appropriate.

The schedule for reviewing the FY 81  is summarized as follows:

1.   First quarter review-mid January, 1981.

2.   Mid-year review of SEA commitments.

          Summary reports by DEC and  EPA  program offices  -early April,
          1981.

          Staff level program review  meetings - mid to late  April, 1981.

          Commissioner/Regional Administrator meeting - late April,
          1981.

          Summary report of review by the Regional Administrator  provided
          to Commissioner - early May, 1981.

3.   Third quarter review - mid July, 1981.

4.   End-of-year review - mid October, 1981.


                                      25

-------
FY 82 SEA Schedule

For the FY 82 SEA it is the intent of EPA and DEC to factor  the Alaska
environmental profile into the SEA preparation and to phase  the agreement
schedule with the development of the State operating budget.  These
changes will make the agreement more meaningful as a management tool and
directly correlate program activities with environmental results.  The
events and scheduled dates for developing the FY 82 SEA are  as follows:
     1.   EPA and DEC participate in a Regional SEA Workshop      11/80
          to review the FY 81 SEA process and outline approaches
          for the FY 82 SEA.

     2.   Agreement reached between DEC and EPA on preparing      12/80
          environmental profiles for the FY 82 SEA.

     3.   DEC and EPA start preparing the Alaska environmental     1/81
          profile to be in the FY 82 SEA.

     4.   Detailed Public Participation Work Plan for FY 82        1/81
          SEA prepared by DEC and EPA.

     5.   Draft Alaska environmental profile prepared for all      2/81
          media to be covered in the SEA.

     6.   EPA, Headquarters FY 82 Operating Year Guidance          3/81
          received and distributed to DEC.

     7.   EPA regional SEA guidance developed and distributed      3/81
          to DEC.

     8.   DEC and EPA key program staff meet to define specific    3/81
          issues and approaches for FY 82 SEA and to make work
          assignments.

     9.   Joint DEC/EPA public workshops held in various          4/81
          geographic areas on the Alaska environmental profile.

     10.  Work assignments for SEA development made and pre-       4/81
          paration begins.

     11.  DEC and EPA complete first draft of FY 82 SEA.           5/81

     12.  Joint DEC/EPA workshops held in various geographic    7-8/81
          areas to receive input on the draft FY 82 SEA.

     13.  Final draft of FY 82 SEA prepared which includes         8/81
          the Alaska environmental profile.

     14.  EPA, Regional Administrator and Commissioner, DEC        9/81
          meet to resolve any outstanding issues, identify
          appropriate performance standards and to sign the
          FY 82 SEA.
                                     26

-------
     15.  EPA makes program grant awards to DEC based on signed
          FY 82 SEA.

Performance Assurance
                                                            9/81
Under general grant regulations {40 CFR Part 30) EPA has the authority
to withhold grant funds, to terminate grants or to take appropriate
action for unsatisfactory performance of commitments contained in this
Agreement.  It is the intent of the Alaska Department of Environmental
Conservation and the Environmental Protection Agency to devote every
effort to accomplish these commitments and to avoid imposition of any
grnat sanctions.  EPA is also making certain commitments in the Agreement
directly impacting State performance.  To the extent EPA fails to perform
its commitments any grant action would be adjusted accordingly.  It is
further recognized that at this time no grant incentive is available to
recognize superior performance.  EPA will attempt to establish in the
future a system to more closely relate grant funds to performance.

It is further agreed that certain specific commitment's are critical to
EPA and DEC'S performance under this Agreement.  If one Agency fails to
perform commitments identified below as critical, there will be a specified
compensating action to assure that the Agency adversely affected will be
able to overcome the others failure to perform.
DEC
DEC
     Program

Air-Prevention
of Significant
Deterioration
Air-State
Implementation
Plan
Commitment

Assumption of
the PSD Program
by 6/30/81.
SIP submitted that
is approvable by
EPA by 11/30/80.
DEC
DEC
RCRA-Hazardous      RCRA Cooperative
Wastes (Subtitle C) Agreement nego-
                    tiated and signed.
RCRA-Solid          Complete the Solid
Wastes (Subtitle D) Waste Management
                    Plan including
                    adoption of
                    regulations to
                    implement by
                    1/31/81.
Specified Action

Reduction in the FY 81
105 grant by $35,000
to support EPA PSD
expenses.

a. Reduction in FY 81
105 grant by $40,000.
b. Promulgation of
SIP by EPA.

No FY 81 Subtitle C
expenditures
authorized after
11/19/80 until
Cooperative Agreement
signed.

No FY 82 Subtitle D
grant will be awarded
by EPA.
                                     27

-------
DEC
Water-NPDES
EPA
EPA
EPA
Drinking Water




Drinking Water



Air Quality
EPA
EPA
Water Quality
Planning "208"
Water Pollution
control-general
permits
Conduct 20
compliance
and 10 compliance
sampling
inspections.
Provide follow-up
to sanitary survey
training session
held in FY 1980.

Develop capacity
to sample qiardia
cyst- in water.

Expedite review
& provide changes
needed in the
State air quality
program within
30 days.

Provide monthly
profile on. 208
projects.

Draft general
permits for placer
mining, seafood
processors and
oil & gas
development.
FY 82 106 grant reduce
by $500 for each
compliance evaluation
inspections and $1000
for each compliance
sampling inspection
not performed.

1 man-month staff
transfer for training.
Contract to private
laboratory.
2 man-week technical
assistance to DEC.
Reduced oversight
(eliminate quarterly
review).

2 man-month staff
transfer.
                                     28

-------

-------

-------
I
I
I
                                          INTRODUCTION
                                            SEA BODY

             The body of the SEA is intended to be the working Section for the Federal
             and State personnel.  The SEA body is divided into subsections by pro-
             grams in which each program's narrative, grant application, annual work
             plan, and multi-year strategies are contained.

                  - The narrative contains a more detailed description of the environ-
                    ment, a summary of last fiscal year's accomplishments and current
                    year's priorities, and the environmental  results anticipated.

                  - The grant application provides the budget information for each
                    program supported by Federal grant funds.

                  - The Annual Work Plans are in tabular form and are a more detailed
                    description of the actual work to be performed, the resources
                    allotted to perform the work, and the outputs or results expected.

                  - The Multi-year Work Plans are intended to briefly highlight program
                    direction and help in determining resources needed for future  years.

             Also included in the body is an integration section and responsiveness
             summary.  The integration section identifies areas and/or activities  that
             require personnel and monetary resources from various programs.  The.
             responsiveness summary is intended to give a detailed account of public
             comments and involvement.
                                                  29

-------

-------
I
I
                                   WATER QUALITY PROGRAM
                   NARRATIVE
•                      FY 80 ACCOMPLISHMENTS	  33
^                      FY 81 PRIORITIES 	  37

                   •GRANT
                         WATER POLLUTION (106)	  41
                         MANAGEMENT ASSISTANCE (205(g))	  49
•                      CLEAN LAKES (314)	  61

                   ANNUAL WORK PLAN
•                         POINT SOURCE (106) 	  89
                         WATER QUALITY PLANNING (208) 	 103
                         DREDGE AND FILL (404)	 108
•                      CONSTRUCTION GRANTS (205(g)) 	 112
™                      EMERGENCY RESPONSE	117

                   MULTI-YEAR WORK PLAN
                         POINT SOURCE (106) 	'	120
                         WATER QUALITY PLANNING (208) 	 123
                         DREDGE AND FILL (404)	 126
                         CONSTRUCTION GRANTS (205(g))	 127
—                      CLEAN LAKES (314) 	 128
I
I
I
I
                                             31

-------
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I

-------
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
                         STATE/EPA AGREEMENT
                                FY 81
                        WATER QUALITY PROGRAM
                              NARRATIVE
Introduction
To handle the water quality problems, several programs are now in operation
by the State and EPA.

- NPDES - National Pollution Discharge Elimination System - the program
  1ssues permits which limit wastewater discharges from point sources
  and establish schedules for meeting these limitations.

- 208 - The 208 program is under the Clean Water Act and handles the
  problems associated with non-point sources on an areawide and Statewide
  basis.

- Construction grants - Grants funds for the building of sewage treatment
  facilities.

- Emergency Response - Handles surveillance and response activities in
  the oil and hazardous material emergencies.

- 404 - Handles dredge and fill permitting activities in wetlands.

The five programs have been created to handle the diversity of problems
associated with water quality.  Each program does not stand alone in
solving water quality problems but contributes to the cummulative effort
needed to solve the environmental problems.

Grants funds are provided through the 201, 205(g), 106, and 208 programs
for financial support to solve water quality problems in Alaska identi-
fied in the Executive Summary.  The following sections highlight FY 80
accomplishments, FY 81 priorities and the environmental results expected
by these actions.  A detailed annual work pi an-and multi-year strategy,
as appropriate are also presented.


FY 80 WaterQuality Accomplishments

     NPDES

EPA has begun establishing procedures for issuance of general  permits.
Because of the recent implementation of a joint placer mining strategy
and technology transfer program by EPA, ADEC, and Alaska Department of
Fish and Game, small placer mining operations will most likely be the
first category to be covered.


                                  33

-------
Three major energy related permits were prepared this year:  ALPETCO-
Valdez, Alyeska Ballast Treatment Plant - Valdez, and Water-flood
Project-Prudhoe Bay.  These permits involved close coordination between
EPA and ADEC to.evaluate technology and water quality considerations.

In implementing the NPDES program in Alaska in a cooperative manner,
EPA conducted a training session for ADEC staff on NPDES compliance
inspections.  Also, ADEC Regional Offices have assumed the responsibility
for most NPDES permit review and associated field activities.  This
decentralization has increased ADEC's involvement with permittees.

Although no final determination has been made, EPA has begun implementation
of its review process of Section 301(h) (secondary treatment waiver} appli-
cants.  A break through did occur on December 17, 1979 in which EPA and
ADEC signed an agreement by which Alaska Native Villages with ocean dis-
charges could provide treatment levels less than secondary if established
water quality criteria were met.

A major water quality accomplishment has resulted after approximately
three years of legal actions in trying to get the College Utilities Corp.
to divert its discharge from the Chena River to the Fairbanks areawide
treatment system.  This is the last major discharge to heavily impact
the Chena River.

     208

In FY 80 the Alaska Statewide Water Quality Management Plan for controlling
non-point pollution sources was completed and conditionally approved by
EPA.   This plan provides a basis for continued development of a control
program for non-point sources in Alaska.  The major elements addressed and
accomplishments are as follows:

     Waste Oil - A study of alternatives for waste oil utilization and
     disposal was completed and report and informational brochure are
     available.

     Timber Harvesting - Best Management Practices (BMP's) for Timber
     harvesting have been developed.

     Transportation Corridors - BMP's for controlling deposition of
     sediment from roads and pipelines have been prepared.

     Placer Mining - BMP's for the control of non-point discharges from
     placer mining operation have been completed and an interagency
     strategy to minimize adverse impacts from mining has been developed
     by the Alaska Department of Conservation.(DEC), Alaska Department
     of Fish and Game (DFG), and Department of Natural Resources (DNR).
                                  34

-------
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
Efforts continued in FY 8Q on 208 projects for NPDES program delegation,
and assessment of water quality problems in Alaska, developing on-site
disposal alternatives, and reviewing DEC's data management needs.
Several projects are essentually complete and final work products will
soon be available.  New 208 projects underway in FY 80 include:

     - A study of industrial sludge disposal alternatives

     - A placer raining demonstration project

     -A study to develop BMP's for agricultural activities

     Construction Grants

In FY 80, the Construction Grants program increased the number of projects
under construction by 10 and also, reviewed and approved the Facility
Plans for Dillingham, Kodiak Island Borough, Naknek, Fairbanks {sludge
disposal) and Kenai's amendment.  Several critical problems arose in the
area of municipal wastewater treatment this year.  The problems were
concentrated in Southeast where huge amounts of rainfall and the soring
cost of energy have compounded wastewater treatement facility problems.
Through an increased level of attention EPA and DEC worked with Kodiak
to retain an engineering consultant to investigate deficiencies in the
plant, Wrangell to under take a study to determine the cause of excessive
infiltration/inflow and Petersburg to continue operation of their plant
and retain an engineer to perform an independent study.

This was the first year of which implementation plan to delegate the
authority and responsibility in the Construction Grants program to the
State.  The delegation has resulted in the avoidance of duplication,
increased efficiency by placing project management closer to projects,
facilitated communication between grantee and monitoring agency, and
allowing the program to be managed in accordance with local conditions
and needs.  The net result is better responsiveness to program requirements.

     Emergency Response

Response to spills of.oil and hazardous substances in Alaska requires close
coordination between Federal, State, and local governments.  EPA, DEC and the
U. S. Coast Guard have jointly participated in several spills including the
Ryuyo Manu, Leg; Wang Zin^ and the Atigun pass spills.

New State legislation considerably enhances the State's ability to supple-
ment and support Federal spill cleanup responses and cleanup.  With addi-
tional personnel, DEC will be able to assume much of the responsibility for
on-scene investigations, monitoring and enforcement for oil spills.

Work has begun oh a memorandum of agreement between EPA and DEC to establish
a more coordinated response to oil and hazardous substance spills, and will
be completed in early FY 81.  The responsibilities of each agency will be
                                  35

-------
                     	                                     I


                                                                                  I


In addition in FY 81 DEC will complete an assessment of water quality in          I
Alaskan lakes and work with local government to develop Clean Lake pro-           •
jects in areas experiencing problems.


     Construction Grants

In FY 81, the State of Alaska will complete assumption of the major role          I
in review and approval of the Construction Grants program with EPA
having the responsibility to monitor the overall State performance.
Alaska's sparsely populated and isolated communities have created enormous        •
problems in their treatment of wastewater and this year particular                •
emphasis will be given by EPA and DEC to encourage the use of alternative
and innovative funds under the Construction Grants Program.  At the               •
same time EPA will begin to develop and implement the President's Rural           |
Initiative Program which will simplify procedures and requirements for
construction or renovation of water and sewer facilities in rural commun-         _
ities of 10,000 or less.  Also, EPA and DEC will be developing the tasks          •
necessary to implement the Municipal Strategy for public owned treatment          •
works.  Approximately $26 million dollars will be granted this year in
Alaska for wastewater construction projects.                                      •


     Emergency Response                                                           •

The emergency response program monitored by EPA and DEC will continue
with current activities of responding to all oil and hazardous material
spills and preventing oil spills from reaching navigable waters of the            I
U.S. and adjoining shores.  EPA will republicize who is required to meet          •
the Spill Prevention Control and Counter-measure (SPCC) plan and keep a
log of spill plans needed for sufamittal from the spills that had resulted.        •

In FY 81, the State will begin to implement the oil bill that passed
in FY 80 and DEC will work with EPA to interpret the requirements under
the law.  Also, to increase the State cooperation in the area of oil              •
spills, EPA and DEC will finalize a memorandum of agreement on cooper-            •
ative surveillance and response activities in oil and hazardous emergencies.

     404                                                                          I

DEC and EPA will begin developing a working agreement for improving 404           .
program coordination.  Program coordination will be increased through    •         I
other tasks as well as the working agreement, such as:                            *

     - assisting the Corps of Engineers in preparing a permit application         •
       assistance packet.                                                         I

     - improving the level of permit monitoring to assure compliance              •
       with 404 permit conditions.
                                  36
I

I

-------
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
i
i
spelled out to avoid unnecessary duplication and confusion at the spill
site.  As a primary member of the Regional Response Team DEC will also
particpate in spill planning and response at that level.

Prevention of spills is much less costly in environmental damage and in
cleanup dollars so EPA and DEC will continue to work together on spill
prevention.  By combining State and Federal responsibilities, coordinating
facility inspections and contingency plan reviews, a more effective spill
prevention program will result.


     404

In FY 80, EPA and DEC increased their activities in the review of dredge
and fill permits issued by the Corps of Engineers under Section 404 of
the Clean Water Act.  EPA and DEC participated in the gas pipeline pre-
application review and we are participating in development of the EIS for
the Waterflood Project.  EPA and DEC also participated.in the 404 over-
sight hearings in Washington, D.C.  The hearings called attention to.the
program and provided a forum for agencies involved in the permitting action
to talk further about the steps needed to streamline dredge and fill pro-
cess in Alaska.
FY 81 Water Quality Priorities

     NPDES - Point Source                .

In FY 81, EPA will increase their effectiveness in managing the NPOES
program through simplication of the permit process.  This will occur
through the issuance of general permits and developing a strategy for
implementing the consolidated permits program.  DEC and EPA will develop
a municipal strategy to coordinate NPDES program with construction grants
and also develop a strategy for control of placer mining and seafood
processing waste discharges.  As in FY 80, EPA will continue to expe-
dite energy related NPDES permits.  DEC will begin a phase approach for
upgrading the State water pollution control program and EPA and DEC will
improve mutual administration of the NPDES program in Alaska.  EPA and
DEC will continue compliance sampling and evaluation inspections and
develop and maintain a tracking system for review of major discharge
monitoring report discrepancies and non-submittals and follow up to all
major permittees with significant one time violations or multiple minor
violations.  A major permit is determined by a point evaluation system
of the discharge.  The amount of points given to a source discharge
determines whether it has the potential to have an adverse environmental
impact and whether a permit will need to be issued.  A new list for is-
suing major discharge permits will be completed in conjunction with EPA's
Headquarters in FY 81.
                                  37

-------
     208 - Non-Point Source

Top priority will be given in FY 81 to management and completion of
on-going 208 projects.  DEC will also expand their involvement in the
Anchorage 208 program.  An implementation review program will also be
established to assure progress is being made in controlling non-point
source pollution.

The State of Alaska is proposing the three additional projects described
below to be funded with 208 monies during FY 81.  These proposed projects
are consistent with EPA's priorities and areas targeted by. the Water
Resources Board, serving as the State Policy Advisory Committee.
          Wetlands Best Management Practices.  Alaska has enormous
     areas of wetlands throughout the State.  Many crucial wetlands
     are being developed or have development potential.  The wetlands
     permitting process has been viewed as causing construction delays,
     hindering development projects and has resulted in the potential
     circumventing of the process by developers.  This project will
     produce a BMP wetlands manual which will clearly explain the per-
     mitting process and the correct management practices to be incor-
     porated in development plans.
          Placer Mining Surveillance and Enforcement Program.  The rapid
     expansion of gold placer mining threatens water quality throughout
     the mineralized areas of Alaska.  The lack of enforcement personnel
     necessitates the development of a cost effective procedure for pro-
     tecting water quality.  This project will examine the various sur-
     veillance techniques and choose the most effective and efficient
     approach.  This approach will be incorporated into an AOEC Placer
     Mining Enforcement Program.

          Village Small Waste Systems.  Community economics and funding
     agency priorities have created a unique water quality problem for
     rural Alaska villages.  Frequently, small waste systems (and
     various other utility systems) are constructed by government agencies
     in rural communities with the operational and maintenance costs to
     be covered by the community.  A lack of community revenue results in
     the collapse of such systems and the communities revert to unsanitary
     means of handling waste.  The project will on a sub regional basis
     assure the construction of acceptable small waste systems, assure
     the maintenance of ADEC Water Quality Standards and provide an in-
     stitutional mechanism to coordinate the development of rural commun-
     ities utilities.
                                   38
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I

-------
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
     - preparing a program submittal for 404 delegation to the State for
       Phase II and Phase III water.

To provide for the protection of wetlands in FY 81, EPA and DEC
will review and provide comments on major and important applications,
review Federal projects and NEPA EIS's and conduct site inspections  .
of major permit applications.  All coastal zone management plans will
be reviewed to assure consistency with 404 environmental guidelines.
Five Year Water Quality Strategies

     NPDES

DEC and EPA will continue to work together to upgrade the State's capa-
bility in the NPDES program.  During the next five years, DEC and EPA
will be working together to assure all industrial sources compliance
with requiements for meeting Best Available Technology Economically
Achievable Pollutant Control Technology and all municipal sources meet
secondary treatment (unless a waiver is granted).  Also through better
cooperative efforts resulting from the municipal strategy development,
EPA and DEC will insure the implementation of pretreatment programs for
all municipalities receiving wastes.

     Emergency Response

The Alask Sub-region response plan will incorporate an oil spill damage
assessment program.  Under the new 311 regulations, the capability to
respond to spills of hazardous, materials will be developed.

     Construction Grants

By 1986 the major construction of wastewater facilities will have been
initiated and near completion throughout the State.  The grants funds
to be awarded in the preceeding years are approximately $18 million in
FY 82, $30 million in FY 83, and $19 million in FY 84.

     208

Over the next five years EPA 208 funds available will be phased down.
The State and local governments must develop an adequate financial base
to continue to carry out projects to control non-point pollution.

     404

The 5-year strategy in the 404 program is to expand local government in-
volvement and recognition in the 404 process and increase the public's
awareness of the permit process and the natural value of wetlands.  With-
in this 5-year period DEC will be expected to assume operation of the
404 program for Phase II and III waters, if it is determined to be in
the public interest.


                                   39

-------
Environmental Results

The following water quality results are expected from controlling point
and non-point pollution discharges to rivers, lake, and marine environ-
ments in Alaska:

     - isolated water quality problems from point source discharges of
       pollutants will be eliminated in the areas of industrial and
       municipal wastewater discharges

     - turbidity and sediment problems arising from placer mining and
       timber harvesting will decrease through the implementation of
       BMP' s

     - solids accumulation and the resulting depression of oxygen and
       production of hydrogen sulfide associated with discharge of seafood
       wastes will be minimized.

     - municipal wastewater discharges will be in compliance with effluent
       regulations

     - all new major sources of pollution will be adequately regulated
       prior to commencement of operations.

     - sensitive wetland areas in Alaska will be identified and adequately
       protected
                                   40
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I

-------
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
 I
 I
 I
 I
 I
 I
 I
 I
                                                           Mrs. Hjumom. GOVERNOR
DEPT. OF ENVIRONMENTAL CONSERVATION

                                          465-2660
                                                     POUCH 0 - JUMUUiUII


                                                     September 3,  1980
    Mr. Jim Sweeney
    Director
    Environmental Protection Agency
    Alaska Operations Office
    Federal Building, 701 C Street
    Box 19
    Anchorage/ Alaska  99513


    Dear Mr. Sweeney:


    Enclosed is an application for a grant of Section 106 funds in the
    amount of $148,000 for this Department's water pollution control  pro-
    gram.   The application forms are attached.  In support of this applica-
    tion we are submitting a draft copy of the Department's water pollution
    control work plan which is now in final draft form.  The final work plan
    will be included in the FFY 81 State-EPA agreement.


    It is anticipated that this grant will be used over a one year period,
    FFY 81.  We would appreciate your rapid approval of this grant applica-
    tion.
                                             • Mueller
                                     Commissioner
    Enclosures


    cc:  J. Underwood, EPA Region X
        Jackie Dailey, EPA Region X
        -Roy Ellerman, EPA Region X
        Dale Wallington
                                                         RECEIVE
r
                                      41
                                                            SE?
                                                      ALASKA

-------
      FEDERAL  ASSISTANCE
  1. TYPE
    OF
    ACTION
   (Murk ap-
          Q P?£IPPUCAT10N
          [g APPIICATION
          Q NOTIFICATION OF INTENT tOpt)
             REPORT OF FEDERAL ACTION
 APPLI-
 CANTS
 APPLI-
 CATION
                                                       1. NUMBER
           b. DATE
                 y*gp TTionlh . fiUMBER
b. DATE
  ASSIGNED
                                                                                                      Year  month  day
                                                         19
                                          Lean
 4. LEGAL APPLICANT/RECIPIENT
 b. Orjiniutltm Unit
 c. Stn*M».0. 8«
 t. Ct*
 I. SUU
 t. Caotid P«no»
                      State  of  Alaska
                      Dept.  of  Environmental Conservation
                      Pouch  0
                      Juneau            «• c*"* -•
                      Alaska            «• ZIPO*.:  99311
                        Bob Martin
                                            (907)   465-2643
 7. TITLE AND DESCRIPTION OF APPLICANTS PROJECT
               Water  Pollution  Control Program
 10. AREA OF PROJECT IMPACT  Warn., o/ ciiiti, countwi.
                           Stain, «ft.)

          Statewide
                                                     11. ESTIMATED NUM.
                                                        BER OF PERSONS
                                                        BENEFITING
                                                        450,000
 13.
       PROPOSED FUNDING"
                                14. CONGRESSIONAL DISTRICTS OF:
 i. FEDERAL
 b. APPLICANT
                148.OOP-  -00
                            .00
                1O4.300
                            .00
{•i.
                            .00
 I. OTrcS
                            .00
 t.   T3TH.
                752.300
                               i. APPLICANT

                                   Alaska
                               16. PROJECT START
                                   DATE  Ytar mmvlA day
                                     19  80^0  01
           b. PROJECT

               WPC
           17. PROJECT
              DURATION
                   12
                               IB. ESTIMATED DATE TO
                                  BE SUBMITTED TO
                                  FEDERAL AGENCY >
                                                          Year  month
                                                        19
                                                                          5. FEDERAL EMPLOYER  IDENTIFICATION NO.
                               PRO-
                               GRAM
                                (Frim
                               Futtroi
                               Catalog}
                                          «. HUHBER
                                                         1
                                          Water Pollution  Control
                                          Program Grant Sec-106,
                                          CWA
                                                                         8. TYPE OF APPLICANT/RECIPIENT
                                                                         A~Stit>           H-Communitf Action Aftnqr
                                                                         B-lntinUU        I- Hijh«f Eauntioni! Institution
                                                                         C-Subst»»»-        J-lBBiin Trib«
                                                                           District         K-Ot!i«c
                                                                          E-Cily
                                                                          F- School DliUie*
                                                                            Dutfict
                                                                                                  •  twt ol my kno»l«j(k ind btttit,
           diti In thlt prwp^i eation/i ppiication in
           In* ind  nrnct,  tilt  dKummt tut b*«t
           duly mthOfizid by  U» t«rMnlnf t-xtr ef
           Ui. ipelicMt in4 tin i;«llant will cofnpjy
           wlUl Ik* itdehfd HWMiiOi* It tt« tolH-
           •nc* li ipprvnd.
b. If naiiirri by OMB Clroibr A-3S Uili ssolitiiion wll sutunittnl. punujn
  ttnidloni thtniit, to ippfo^fijU c[M;injSouiw ind all rwpoiuM tit i
                                                                                            21. REMARKS ADDED

                                                                                                  Y«»  Q No
                                                                                              nt In In-
           i. TYPED KAME AND TITLE
           Ernst W.  Mueller,  Commissioneri
           of  Environmental  Conservation
0)  Prelirainary__drJaf±__to__Clearinghouse
CO     in  AugTlstSO.        "
            V  ^- -- -
 24. AGENCY NAME
                    S.  Environmental Protection Agency
 25. ORGANIZATIONAL UNIT
    	    Region X
                                                      27. ADMINISTRATIVE OFFICE
 23. ADORES3
                1200  6th Avenue  Seattle,  Washington 98101
 31. ACTION TAKEN
 Q a. AWARDED

 Q i. X£J£CIS>

 Q e. KTUJUIIO rO»
      AUEMOHEflT

 Q C D1FIBKD
 Q ». WITHDJUWI
 ii
 FEDERAL AGENCY
 A-9S ACTION
                  32.
                                FUNDING
                 .. FEDERAL
                 b. APPUCAXT
                 c. STATE
                 i. LOCAL
                 •. OTHEft
                  f.   TOTM.
                                                .00
                                                .00
      .CO
      .00
                                                .00
                                                                                aumt\
                                                     33. ACTION DATE >>
          33. CONTACT  FOR  ADDITIONAL  INFORMJV
              TION  (Wa»M onJ
                       H MV? f
                 It ko bw« or b bcini
                                             rao«h»d fro* tiMrintVwiM wtn CM-
                                                   * put 1. 0*3 QmtM ,V3S,
                                                                                                     Nore-
                                                                                                     »po«.«
                                                                                                      D
                                                                   Rei-poni*
                                                                   ettoehtd
                                                                     a
                                                                     a
                                                                     a
                                                                                              DATE SIGHED
                                                                     a
                                                                                                       No
                                                                          k. FEDERAL AGEHCf
                                                                                             OFFICIAL
EPA Fo»m 5700-J3 (R»». 7-76)
                                         PAGE I OF 12
                                                  I
                                                  =ife"
                                                  JHi
                                                   fe
I
I
I
I
I
                                                             42

-------
 I
 I
 I
 I
 i
                                                       u.-.-n 1 o n .-.if.!
                                                   .VMIW; At  r^OlECllON' AGtNCv~
                                              .  AESURAr.'CC  Of CO.V.r'UAf.'CE
                                                             FOR
                                      -  TITLF V)  OF THE CIVIL RIGHTS ACT OF 1954
                                                             AND
                                     rECTIOM 13  OF THE FV.'PCA AMENDMENTS OF  1972
ML AND ADDRESS Of APPUCANT/HeCICIENT (Heicir.ttit,
r completed by EPAl
                                                                                              GRAW1 AMOUNT
                                                                                              RE-OUcSTED

                                                                                              5   148,000
                                                            TYPE OF GRANT

                                                               ODEMOrvS~r HA7 I
                                                                                      D"E.SEABCH
                                                                                          Pollution Control  Program
                                                               CHfcCK ONE:
I  HEREBY AGREES THAT IT^will comply with Tills V] of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 (P.L. SS-352) and al) requirements of the
  L'.S  Enviionrm-maJ Protection Agency (hereinafter called "EPA ") issued pursuant lo that title, to thr end that in accordance with
  •:Tni£ V]  of that  Act, no person in  the  United Stales shalj, on the ground of race,  color,  or  national  origin be  excluded Horn
  Ipy'.icipaiion in. be denied the benefits of, or be otherwise subjected to discrimination under any program or activiiy for.which the
  Assuror receives  financial assistance  from EPA and hereby gives assurance that it will now and hereafter lake aJl necessary measuies
  J:o effectuate thjs agreement.              '  •   ' •'•     ••    - '•  •-.:;.'-•• •>=, 'f_'f.  •••  •  •:'..••     -.'....  .
.              ..--,    ,      •    ,    •••"\/-£-  :v:,v^..::;.;;;    .  >;-..     •-  ••.-•-.•       •
JHEREBY AGREES THAT-IT «-'iJ! comply v.-iih aJl applicable requirements of Section  13 of the FederaJ Water Pollution Connol
  I Act Amendments of 1972 (P.L. 92-500) and al! lequiicments of EPA issued pursuant to ihai section, to the end  that in accordance
  (with thai section of that Act, no person in  the United Stales shau, on the yiound of ssx be excluded fiom participation in, be
  denied the benefits of, 01 be otherwise subjected to discrimination unckr any proi^m or activity undsi the said Federal \V..:--
  !Pol!u;ion Control Act Amwdmcnts  foi  which the Assuror receives financial assistance fiom EPA and hereby gives assurance th=: ',-.
I
   -ill no-*- and hereafter tais aJl necessarv measures to efftctnaie thjs asreemsnl.
             properly  or structure  thereon is provided or improved  with the aid "of financial assistance extended 10 the Assuror by
_?.PA, this Assurance obligates the Assuror, or, in the case of any  transfer of such  properly, any transferee  for the period outing
•-.vhjch the rea] properly or structure is used for a purpose involving the provisions of similar services or benefits. !f any psisonal
  properly j$ so provided, this Assurance obligates the Assuror for (he period during which it retains ownership or possession of the
  property. In aU other cases, this Assurance obligates the Assuror for the period during which the financial assistance is extended to
•:; by EPA.                   .                                  '      '  .   .  '.~

  THE ASSURANCE is given in  consideration of ajid  for  the purpose  of obtaining any and a]J' Federal grants, loans, contracts,
  Ipioperty discounts or other financial assistance  extended  after  the date hereof  to the ASSUIOI by  EPA  including instalment
  •.•>ivrnents after such  date on account of arrangements for Federal  financiaj assistance which  we;e approved  before such date. Tne
  -'-.isuior  recognizes and agrees  that  such FederaJ financial  assistance will be extended in  reliance on the fcpresenisiior.s and
  |.:y »emenis made  in this Assurance and that the United States shall reserve the right to }.eek judicial enforcrment of this Assurance.
  This Assurance is  binding on the Assuror, its successors, transferees,  and  assignees, and the person  or persons whose signature
 ' Appear bt)ow are authorized to sign this Assurance on bshalf of the  Assuror.
I
I
I
I
I
  Trie obligations assumed by the  Assuror hereunder are in addition to any obligations which msy be imposed on the Assuior by any
  Applicable regulation now  outstanding or whJch may hereafter be adopted by EPA to effectuate any provision or goal of the said
  Tills VI  and  all applicabJ«~TeSITiicrnentToT 1 he-said S:ction 13: and no part of this Assurance  shall be read so as to in  any way
                     ify any.oblica
icuaci from or modify any .obligation which may be !*npo«d on the Assuror by any such regulation standing
   i G N' *• 7 U » C
                                                 OF PO^RD Of? COMpiRiSUt AUTKO3IZ£O
                                                                                                DAT £
                                                                                                 SEP    4  m
                                                              43

-------
                                                        PART II

                                         PROJECT APPROVAL  INFORMATION
                                                  Form Approved
                                             QMS No.  158-RQ11Q
 Item 1.
 Does this assistance request State, local, regional, or other priority
 rating?
         Name of Governing Body
         Priority Rating	
                                         _Yes
.No
 Item 2.
 Does this assistance request require State, or local advisory, educa-
 tional or health clearances?
         Name of Agency or
           Board	
                                         .Yes
.No
(Attach Documentation}
 It am 3.
 Does  this assistance request require clearinghouse  review in accord-
 ance with OMB Circular A-95?
                                          Yes
                                                      .No
         (Attach Comments)  Draft  work plan will be submitted
          to Clearing  House  in  near  future.  Comments  fro
          Clearing  House  will be forwarded to EPA  upon
          roeoipfc.	
 lt«m 4.
 Does  this assistance request require State, local, regional or other
 planning approval?
         Name of Approving Agency.
                                         .Yes      V   No
 Item 5.
 Is the proposed project  covered by an approved  comprehensive
 plan?
                                         Yes
                                                     .No
         Check one:  State    O
                    Local    D
                    Regional O
         Location of Plan	
 Itam 6.
 Will the  assistance requested serve a federal installation?

                                   X     Yes
                                                      No
         Name of Federal initiation    All  federal  agencies
         Federal Population benefiting from Project ^^^^^^_^^^^^__
 Item 7.
 Will the  assistance requested be on Federal land or installation?


                                    X    Ye;  	No
Name of Federal Installation _
Location of Federal Land __	
Percent of Project     progg>n-My  ahoii-t-
                                             federal agencies
                                       Alaska
 item 8.
 Will  the  assistance requested- have  an impact  or  effect  on the
 environment?
                                        .Yes
.No
         See instructions for additional information to be provided.
         Beneficial  effect  because of  reduced
         water pollution
Item 9.
Has  the  project  for which assistance is  requested  caused,  since
January  1, 1971, or will it cause, the displacement of any individual,
family, business, or farm?
         Number of:
          Individuals,
          Families	
          Businesses _
          Farms
                                        -Yes
.No
hem 10.
Is there other related assistance on this project.previous, pending,
or anticipated?
                                        .Yes
.No
         See instructions for additional information to be provided.
          (see  supplementary  sheet)
li«m 11.
Is project in a Designated Flood Hazard Area?
                                        .Yes
                                                     .No
EPA Form 5700-33 (R.r. 7-74}
                                                                                                          PAGE S OF 12
                                                                44
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
 I
 I
 I
 I
 I

-------
1
1
1
1
1



I
1

1
•

1
1

1

1

1
•
1
1
1
1

1
-•

Supplementary Sheet
Part II Item 10

Is there other related assistance on this project previous, pending
or anticipated?
Alaska Department of Environmental Conservation has received and is






, receiving financial assistance from EPA for the Water Pollution Control
Program.
Section 106 Program Grants
FFY 80 grant is $148,000. Anticipated FFY 81 grant is $148,000.

• Secion 205 State Management Assistance Grant (SMAG)




In FFY 80, the Department applied for and received $289,600. This included
the remaining $154,651. of the FFY 78 205 (g) Grant and $134,949 from the
FFY 79 allocation. The Department anticipates the SFY 81 205 (g) grant
plication to include $96,000, the remaining amount of the FFY 79 grant
$129,000 from the FFY 80 Grant, or a total of $225,000.
Section 208 Water puality Management and Planning Grant

Previous 208 grants have been $596,000. in May, 1976, $220,000, in
May, 1978, $79,000. in March 1979, $430,000. in June 1979, $570,000.
in August 1979. The 1980 Grant was $442,655. and the, 1981 grant ap-
plication is for $725,000.

Construction Grants, Section 205 (g)
The SFY 1980 grant was $245,349. The grant application for SFY 81 is
for $231.835.

-

•
45

ap-
and