-------
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