United States
Environmental Protection
Agency
Region 10
1200 Sixth Avenue
Seattle WA 98101
Alaska
Environmental Quality
Profile
1978
•
-------
PREFACE
This is a report for the people of the State of Alaska. It provides environmental
information gathered from a variety of sources—State environmental agencies, local
government, and the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency and other Federal agencies.
The purpose of the report is to describe the State of Alaska’s progress in restoring and
safeguarding an environment that is the envy of the Nation.
As the report shows, much has been accomplished in recent years but much remains to
be done. As the larger sources of pollution are cleaned up, a greater proportion of the
remaining problems are attributable to the way we manage our resources, to our
practices in agriculture and forestry, to future urban and suburban water planning, and
to the use of automobiles.
New Federal environmental laws reaffirm the primary responsibilities of the states for
solving these problems in ways which are in consonance with local needs. In addition, to
keep the faith with the businesses, industries and municipalities that have already
voluntarily met their environmental responsibilities, a continuing vigorous enforcement
effort must be maintained against those polluters that profit unfairly by avoiding their
responsibilities.
Looking ahead, it is clear that the Northwest must accommodate a growing population
and that this must be accomplished while maintaining a reasonable balance between
economic benefits and the need for healthful air, clean water, and the other unique
qualities of life that characterize the Northwest.
The technical data behind this report is available from the Region 10 office of the U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency. This data is available to all persons who may wish to
investigate a particular topic in greater depth or who may need greater detail for
planning or management purposes. The Region 10 office of EPA intends to issue future
reports with improvements and expansions in the information as appropriate. Comments
and suggestions are welcome.
Donald P. Dubois
Regional Administrator, Region 10
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Seattle, Washington
December, 1978
-------
ALASKA ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY PROFILE
CONTENTS
AIR QUALITY PROFILE 2
WATER QUALITY PROFILE 12
Rivers and Streams ~
Drinking Water
Lakes
Marine Water
19
20
24
NOISE PROFILE 26
SOLID WASTE PROFILE 27
HAZARDOUS SUBSTANCES 28
SUMMARY 29
Exhibits
Health Effects of Air Quality Standards
Violations (Table!) 2
Air Quality Status Map - by Election District
(Figure 1) 4
Annual Average Number of Days Health Standard
Exceeded - by Pollutant (Figure 2) 5
Annual Average Number of Days Health Standard
Exceeded-by Severity (Figure 3) 5
Percent of Total Air Quality Violation Days
Attributable to Auto Emissions (Table 2) 6
Air Quality Status in Selected Urban Areas (Table 3) 7
Air Quality Status and Trends (Figure 4) 8
Point and Area Sources - Paniculate Emissions (Figure 5) 9
Point and Area Sources - Carbon Monoxide Emissions (Figure 6) 10
Criteria/Parameter Groups For the Water Quality Index
(Table 4) 12
Water Quality Status Map of Principal Rivers in Alaska
(Figure?) 13
Water Quality Status of Principal Rivers in Alaska (Figure 8) 14
Principal Rivers in Alaska - Average Water Quality Index
(Figure 9) 15
Trends of Federal Criteria Violations (Figure 10) 15
Principal Region 10 River Basins - Average Water Quality
per River Mile (Figure 11) 17
Page Exhibits
Page
Water Quality Status of Principal Region 10 River Basins
(Figure 12) 17
Water Quality Status Map of Principal Region 10 River Basins
(Figure 13) 18
Water Quality Trends - Region 10 (Figure 14) 18
Trophic Status of Major Recreational Lakes (Figure 15) 20
Impairment Status of Recreational Lakes (Figure 16) 20
Criteria for Evaluating Impairment of Lakes (Table 5) 21
Trophic Status of Natural Freshwater Lakes in Alaska
(At Least 10 Square Miles in Area) (Table 6) 22
Principal Alaska Lakes: Impairment of Highest Beneficial
Uses (Table 7) 23
Marine Waters of Alaska: Status of Classified Shellfish
Growing Areas (Figure 17) 25
Marine Waters of Region 10: Status of Classified Shellfish
Growing Areas (Figure 18) 25
Region 10 Population Covered by Noise Ordinances
(Figure 19) 26
Percent of Population Served by State-Approved Solid
Waste Disposal Facilities (Figure 20) 27
Status of Resource Recovery Projects and Hazardous
Waste Disposal Sites in Region 10 (Figure21) 28
-------
AIR QUALITY
AIR QUALITY
Improving air quality in the Northwest has been a cooperative effort
among Federal, State and local environmental agencies, industry,
and a concerned and informed public. Since the 1970 Clean Air Act
Amendments, there has been a considerable expenditure of time and
money to find solutions to the most pressing air pollution problems.
National air quality standards have been established to ensure that
the goal of a clean and healthful environment is attained. The States,
with Federal assistance, have developed a variety of regulatory,
enforcement, and administrative programs in an attempt to reduce
pollutants to such a level that these air quality standards would be
attained and maintained. State efforts have been augmented by
Federal regulation of pollutants from stationary sources such as
power plants and factories and by the Federal program to reduce air
pollution emissions from motor vehicles.
Throughout the Northwest, State, Federal and local environmental
quality control agencies maintain monitoring networks to scientifically
measure air quality. The Seattle Regional Office of the Environmental
Protection Agency annually evaluates data submitted by these air
pollution control agencies. This analysis allows an assessment of the
degree to which the air quality of the Northwest has been changing
and the degree to which air quality standards are being achieved.
Overall, air quality in Alaska, as well as the other states in Region 10,
has improved during the past five years.
TABLE 1
Air Quality Standards
The Clean Air Act of 1970 directed EPA to establish ambient air
quality standards for the principal and most widespread classes of air
pollutants as shown in Table 1. The standards are divided into two
categories: primary standards which are set at levels required to
protect the public health; and more stringent secondary standards
which are set at levels which would reduce other undesirable effects
of air pollution. The primary standards were established by evaluating
medical data and are designed to reduce adverse health effects from
particulate matter, sulfur oxides, hydrocarbons, carbon monoxide,
photochemical oxidants, and nitrogen oxides. The health effects of
hydrocarbons are not listed in Table 1 because hydrocarbons, in
themselves, do not pose a direct health problem. Rather, they react
in sunlight to form oxidants. For this reason, the standards for
hydrocarbons serve as a way of controlling oxidants and for attaining
the oxidant standard.
Carbon Monoxide
(CO)
Photochemical Oxidants
(03)
Oxides of Nitrogen
(NOx)
Interference with mental and
physical activity, reduced capacity
in persons suffering from heart and
other circulatory disorders;
Aggravation of asthma and chronic
lung disease, irritation of the eye
and of the respiratory tract,
decreased vision, reduced heart and
lung capacity;
Increased chronic bronchitis.
Some pollutants exhibit both chronic and acute effects depending on
the duration of exposure and the concentration of the pollutant. For
this reason, the standards for some pollutants require the
concentration of the pollutant in the air to be averaged over various
lengths of time.
HEALTH EFFECTS OF AIR QUALITY
STANDARDS VIOLATIONS
Health Effect at Concentrations
Pollutant above the Primary Standard
Total Suspended
Particulates
(TSP)
Sulfur Dioxide
(S 02)
Aggravation of asthma and chronic
lung diseases, increased cough,
chest discomfort, restricted activity,
aggravation of heart and lung
disease symptoms in the elderly,
increased death rate;
Aggravation of asthma, aggravation
of heart and lung disease symptoms
in the elderly, increased lung illness,
increased death rate;
2
-------
AIR QUALITY
Measuring Air Quality
The average number of days per year in which the primary air quality
standards were exceeded in the period 1974 to 1976 has been used in
this report to characterize air quality. A three-year running average is
used to project trends because it minimizes year-to-year deviations
due to weather and climate.
For various reasons, including sampling frequency requirements and
the cost of collecting air quality samples, data is not collected for all
days of the year, at all monitoring stations, and for all pollutants.
However, there is sufficient data to make reliable estimates of the
total days of standards violations for most types of pollutants.
Monitoring stations selected in each Election District for the three-
year average are those showing the greatest number of days
exceeding the standard. Accordingly, the figures are not
representative of the entire Election District in which the station is
located. Attainment of the secondary standards were not addressed
in this report since the major emphasis in most areas of the
Northwest is still on attainment of the primary health standards.
ALASKA AIR QUALITY
Figures 1, 2, and 3 on the next pages show various aspects of Alaska
air quality.
In Figure 1, all the Election Districts of the State have been color
coded according to the degree to which standards are being violated
in at least one monitoring site within the Election District. Election
Districts shaded yellow are exceeding one or more of the primary
standards, while the Election Districts shaded blue are attaining all
standards.
Figure 2 shows in more detail where, and how often, the primary
standards were exceeded in monitored Election Districts. During the
three-year period ending in 1976, eight of Alaska’s 28 Election
Districts recorded concentrations of pollutants that exceeded primary
air quality standards. Particulate matter (TSP) was the most
widespread cause of an exceeded standard. Concentrations above
the primary particulate standard occurred in every Election District in
which the standards were not met. The carbon monoxide (CO)
standard was exceeded in Fairbanks approximately one day in every
four, and in Anchorage one day in 14.
Figure 3 shows the severity of violations for these same Election
Districts. The degree of risk from exposure to pollution varies
according to both the concentration and the length of exposure time.
As the concentration increases above the primary standard, it
eventually reaches what is called the “alert” level, at which there is a
significantly higher health risk.
Figure 3 indicates that approximately one-third of all instances in
which health standards were exceeded in Alaska involved
concentrations at or above the alert level. Almost half of those more
serious conditions occurred in the more populated or industrialized
Election Districts of Anchorage, Fairbanks, and Juneau.
3
-------
AIR QUALITY
FIGURE 1
AIR QUALITY STATUS MAP — BY ELECTION DISTRICT
_______ DISTRICTS MEETING PRIMARY
AMBIENT AIR QUALITY STANDARDS
DISTRICTS NOT MEETING PRIMARY
AMBIENT AIR QUALITY STANDARDS
_______ DISTRICTS WITHOUT CURRENT
MONITORING DATA
FAIRBANKS
SOUTHEAST
FAIRBANKS
SKAGWAY-
KUTAT
(EXCERPTED FOR CLARITY)
‘OUTER KETCHIKAN
4
-------
FIGURE 2
ANNUAL AVERAGE NUMBER OF DAYS HEALTH STANDARD
EXCEEDED — BY POLLUTANT
U
AIR QUALITY
100 -
75 -
50 -
25 -
‘U
0.
C l )
4
(p
I
ELECTION DISTRICTS
ANNUAL AVERAGE NUMBER
EXCEEDED — BY SEVERITY
125
100
75
50
25
4
‘ U
‘ U
0.
C l)
4
0
4,
I
NOT MEETING AMBIENT AIR QUALITY STANDARDS
FIGURE 3
OF DAYS HEALTH STANDARD
I,
4.
TSP Co
EXCEEDS PRIMARY
N N EXCEEDS ALERT
11
‘‘SI
4.
ELECTION DISTRICTS NOT MEETING AMBIENT AIR QUALITY STANDARDS
-------
AIR QUALITY
A REGIONAL OVERVIEW TABLE 2
As shown in Table 3 on the facing page, air quality violations occur PERCENT OF TOTAL AIR QUALITY
in every State in Region 10. Standards for four of the major
pollutants were exceeded in the State of Washington for the three- VIOLATION DAYS ATTRIBUTABLE
year period ending in 1976. Idaho and Oregon exceeded standards for AUTO EMISSIONS *
three of the major pollutants and Alaska exceeded standards for two.
Region 10 has relatively few heavily populated urban centers. There
are only 6.5 million total residents in the four states combined. 1a!ka 50%
Where there are major urban centers, air pollution problems exist. Anchorage 68%
Violations in the 14 Region 10 communities shown in Table 3 Fairbanks 88%
accounted for 79 percent of all violation-days and 74 percent of all
alert level violation-days in the Region. While pollution is not
confined to urban areas, it is most severe where human activity is
heavily concentrated. lc!!!1o 23 /o
Boise 96%
Much of Region 10’s air pollution can be attributed directly to
automobile exhaust as shown in Table 2 on this page. Eighty percent
of standards violations in Oregon, 62 percent in Washington, 23 o ! 80%
percent in Idaho and 50 percent in Alaska were due to carbon Portland 96%
monoxide and/or photochemical oxidants in urban areas. In turn,
80% to 90% of these pollutants can be traced to automobile Salem 100%
exhausts. Because over half of the Region’s population lives in or Medford 77%
near the cities shown in Table 2, automobile exhaust must be viewed
as a signficiant public health problem in the Pacific Northwest and
Alaska. EPA is working closely with the States of Alaska, Idaho, Washington 65%
Washington and Oregon to reduce both emissions from vehicles and eattle 99%
the number of vehicle miles traveled in urban centers having high Spokane 80%
carbon monoxide pollution levels.
Tacoma 55%
Both western Oregon and Washington have oxidant concentrations Yakima 75%
over the health standard. Control efforts in this area are just
beginning, because the creation of oxidants is an extremely complex
phenomena, involving reactions of hydrocarbons and other chemicals Region 10 54%
to sunlight.
The suspended particulate problem is widespread and results from
both industrial and non-industrial sources such as dust from roads *assumes all CO and Ox violation days result from
and streets, and home oil heating. Controls for suspended automobile-related emissions but excludes auto
particulates have been installed on many industrial plants, and some related particulates
plants are scheduled to reduce emissions in the near future. When
new facilities are constructed, the best available pollution controls are
required. Many localities need to reduce particulates from non-
industrial sources, but in some cases, solutions are technically or
economically difficult to achieve. Examples include grass burning in
western Oregon and eastern Washington, wind-blown dust, dust
from dirt roads, and the re-suspension of dust from paved roads. The
automobile is a significant, indirect contributor to some of these
problems.
In communities such as Tacoma, Washington, and Kellogg, Idaho,
air pollution is largely attributable to industry. Heavy metals and
particulate emissions from smelters have long been problems in these
areas.
Sulfur dioxide (SO 2 ) pollution is primarily caused by emissions from
large stationary sources, and controls are being installed as required
by law.
6
-------
TABLE 3
AIR QUALITY
AIR QUALITY STATUS IN SELECTED URBAN AREAS
Pollutants Exceeding Standards
Total Violation Days
S
.
S S
Urban Areas
Carbon
Photo
Suspended
Sulfur
Primary
Alert
Monoxide
Oxidants
Particulates
Dioxide
Standard
Level
Alaska
.
‘
240
69
Anchorage
•
•
37
6
Fairbanks
‘
.
108
28
Sitka
•
24
10
Idaho
•
•
•
467
143
Boise
•
•
112
23
Kellogg
•
133
17
Pocatello
•
•
83
50
Soda Springs
•
65
32
Twin Falls
•
29
7
Oregon
•
•
•
169
43
Eugene
•
•
•
18
3
Medford
•
•
•
57
26
Portland
•
•
•
55
8
Washington
•
•
•
•
Seattle
Spokane
Tacoma
98
131
22
8
19
2
7
-------
AIR QUALITY
AIR QUALITY TRENDS IN ALASKA
The trend in air quality is an important indication of whether the air
pollution control activities have been effective in curbing adverse
health effects. Figure 4 shows trends in each Election District based
on the air monitoring records for the period 1974 through 1976.
Because many of the areas either lack ambient data or lack sufficient
historical data, the trend in only a few areas can be shown. An
upward arrow indicates that measured concentrations of the specified
pollutant appear to be increasing. A downward arrow indicates that
concentrations appear to be decreasing. A horizontal arrow depicts
an apparent unchanging level in the ambient concentration.
Overall, Alaska’s air quality improved between 1974 and 1976. Of
those Election Districts exhibiting a trend, all but one is either
improving or remaining the same.
Figure 4 also shows the status of air quality in all the Election
Districts in the State. Blue boxes indicate that there is no evidence
that the specified air quality standard has been exceeded. Yellow
boxes indicate that a standard has been exceeded without
concentrations reaching the alert level; and red boxes flag areas
exceeding the alert levels. Where circles occur within the box, there
is a presumed compliance with standards derived from a knowledge
of pollutant sources, rather than actual measurements.
This does not add any more Election Districts to those eight already
shown in a non-attainment status due to recorded values, but it does
cause one more pollutant to be listed as exceeding the standard. This
addition is SO 2 in Valdez and is based on modeling work done by
Alaska on the SO 2 emissions which will come from the oil tankers
while they are in port.
FIGURE 4
AIR QUALITY STATUS AND TRENDS
LEGEND
______ NO EVIDENCE PRIMARY
STANDARD EXCEEDED
T J EXCEEDS PRIMARY LEVEL
EXCEEDS ALERT LEVEL
O DESIGNATION BASED
______ ON JUDGMENT
I J DECREASING STANDARDS
I VIOLATIONS
F LEVEL OR NO
______ APPARENT TREND
O INCREASING STANDARDS
_______ VIOLATIONS
INSUFFICIENT DATA
TO DETERMINE TRENDS
j
ELECTION
DISTRICT
o
0
CJ49 * 1 0%
-------
AIR QUALITY
SOURCES OF AIR POLLUTION IN ALASKA
The previous charts have expressed air quality in terms of the days of
standards violations. Another way of describing the problem is in
terms of the amount of pollution being put into the air and from
where it is coming.
Figures 5 and 6 show emissions in those Alaska Election Districts
which exceed standards. The emission totals are based on the latest
emission inventory information including 1976 data where available.
In preparing these charts, emissions from some sources had to be
estimated and some of the smaller sources have not been included.
Also, emissions attributed to a particular Election District may affect
air quality in an adjoining Election District because the source is
located close to the Election District boundary. Overall, however, the
charts provide good perspective as to the extent, location, and
sources of air pollution.
Suspended Particulates
Sources of particulate emissions can be grouped into two major
categories: point sources, which are large stationary sources such
as factories and power plants; and area sources, such as from the
heating of homes and buildings, from transportation, and from wind-
blown dust. To date, particulate emissions have been addressed
mainly by installing control equipment on industrial plants, reducing
the burning of the higher ash-content fuels and paving roads to
reduce exceptional dust problems.
Figure 5 indicates the estimated distribution of particulate matter
emissions by source category in those Election Districts in which a
primary air quality standard was exceeded. Point sources accounted
for about 19,000 tons of the more than 28,000 tons of particulate
matter produced.
FIGURE 5
POINT AND AREA SOURCES — PARTICULATE EMISSIONS
uJ
>.
‘U
0.
C l)
z
0
I-
4,000
14,000
1 POINT SOURCES
I (Top Figure)
_____ AREA SOURCES
(Bottom Figure)
3,440
4,261
NOTE:
Fugitive dust emissions
not included
2,000
1592
262
/ /
ELECTION DISTRICTS NOT MEETING AMBIENT AIR QUALITY STANDARDS
9
-------
AIR QUALITY
Area sources were responsible for less than 9,000 tons of particulate
matter. A large portion of the particulate emissions to the
atmosphere stems from a group of area sources referred to as
“fugitive dust sources.” Fugitive dust includes such things as wind-
blown dust, dust from dirt roads and re-suspended dirt from paved
roads. The Alaska Department of Environmental Conservation
believes that many of the violation days in Alaska are a result of
wind-blown or natural fugitive dust. Future profiles will be better able
to put these emissions into perspective in relation to the rest of the
sources.
Sulfur Dioxide
Sulfur dioxide emissions are not a significant problem in Alaska.
Nationally, the principal sources of sulfur dioxide emissions are from
the combustion of sulfur-containing fuel and large industrial sources
POINT AND
90,00c -
80,0 i !
50,000
40,000 -
0.
C l )
z
30,000
20,000
10,000
,4.
F
o .
such as pulp mills. Sulfur dioxide emissions have declined nationally
due to the substitution of lower sulfur fuels and the installation of
control equipment on industrial sources.
Photochemical Oxidants and Hydrocarbons
Major sources of hydrocarbon emissions are escaping gasoline and
cleaning solvent vapors. Nationally, hydrocarbon emissions have
gone down only slightly. Significant reductions have been obtained
from highway vehicles as a result of the Federal emission standards.
These reductions have been partially offset by increases in industrial
process emissions and losses of gasoline and other hydrocarbon
vapors from evaporation at filling stations and other points in the
marketing chain, and from the use of various solvents. The increases
reflect a general increase in the consumption of these products.
FIGURE 6
AREA SOURCES — CARBON MONOXIDE EMISSIONS
s ,b4 ,
£
o
,0
POINT SOURCES
______ (Top Figure)
AREA SOURCES
(Bottom Figure)
0
3347
4 ’ C J
648
18.848
543
5,1s1
ELECTION DISTRICTS NOT MEETING AMBIENT AIR QUALITY STANDARDS
-------
AIR QUALITY
Carbon Monoxide
Nationally, some three-fourths of the carbon monoxide emissions
come from transportation sources, but as in many other urban areas,
transportation is responsible for almost all of the emissions in
Anchorage and Fairbanks. Carbon monoxide emissions have
decreased mostly because of the Federal emission standards on
motor vehicles and because of less burning of solid waste. Some
industrial emissions also have been reduced because of decreases in
production, and the phasing-out of some obsolete processes.
Figure 6 shows the carbon monoxide emission inventory. Over 98%
of the CO emissions in Fairbanks and Anchorage stem from area
sources, and the vast majority of these are automobiles.
NItrogen OxIdes
Nationally, nitrogen oxides emissions have increased mainly because
of increased emissions from electric utility plants and increased
industrial power generation. Emissions from electric utilities and
industrial sources have risen because of increased power demands
and little equipment has been installed on these sources specifically
to control nitrogen oxides. Emissions of nitrogen oxides from vehicles
have been essentially constant since 1972 because control devices
have counterbalanced the increase in total miles traveled.
AIR QUALITY OUTLOOK FOR ALASKA
For many of Alaska’s Election Districts, the health-related ambient air
quality standards are met. However, in the more densely populated
areas of the State, air pollution levels frequently exceed the air
quality standards. About 60 percent of Alaska’s population lives in
Anchorage and Fairbanks where not only the primary standards but
also the more severe alert air quality levels are exceeded. Although
eight Election Districts have recorded concentrations in excess of the
health standard, the trend is favorable.
The outlook for control of pollutants in areas exceeding the ambient
air standards is as follows:
Particulates. Point sources of particulates may be controlled with
reliable, relatively inexpensive technology. However, fugitive dust is
responsible for a large share of Alaska’s particulate air pollution.
Thus, even though control of point sources may reduce the
frequency or severity of excursions above the standards, violations
will occur until area and fugitive dust sources are also controlled.
Sulfur Dioxide. Application of currently available control technology
for sulfur dioxide could result in additional reductions in the volume
of pollutant emissions. The best available control technology on new
sources, especially those associated with energy production and the
production and transportation of the North Slope energy resources,
will ensure that the SO 2 standard is met.
Carbon MonoxIde. Control will rely on both the Federal Motor
Vehicle Control Program to reduce auto emissions and upon those
activities taken at the local level to abate the localized problem in the
city center and near commuter corridors. The local actions needed,
and the time required for phase-in of new automobiles with better
controls, will result in a gradual rather than an immediate reduction
in carbon monoxide levels. Because of the extremely cold winter
temperatures in Fairbanks, a very large portion of the total CO
emissions from automobiles occurs within the first few minutes after
start up. Consequently, the Fairbanks North Star Borough, with the
assistance of the State and EPA, is currently evaluating the
effectiveness of engine pre-heat devices.
11
-------
RIVER WATER QUALITY
RIVER WATER QUALITY
In 1972, the United States Congress enacted amendments to the
“Federal Water Pollution Control Act” which stimulated new
cooperative Federal, State and local water quality improvement
programs. Since 1972, various regulatory, enforcement, grant, and
administrative programs have been developed to reduce pollutants
entering the Nation’s waters. This section of the report provides
information on the current status and trends in water quality in the
State of Alaska.
Ways of Measuring River Water Quality
Under the Federal Water Pollution Control Act, the states established
water quality standards to protect the public water supply and the
quality of water for wildlife, recreation, navigation, agriculture,
industry, and the propagation of fish and shellfish. The Alaska Water
Quality Standards, like those of the other states in Region 10, specify
levels of parameters such as temperature, dissolved oxygen, bacteria
and turbidity in river water.
In order to provide a means for reliably measuring and comparing
water quality in the Northwest, a standardized set of parameters and
associated criteria has been selected. These criteria, termed “Federal
water quality goals” in the following discussion, are a synthesis of
the state standards, national criteria, information in the technical
literature, and professional judgment. The eleven parameters used to
measure river water quality in this report are listed and explained in
Table 4 below.
While water quality can be discussed in terms of the degree to which
each of these eleven parameters deviate from the selected criteria, it
is helpful to be able to express the quality of a stream or river by
means of a single, overall measure. In order to accomplish this, a
“water quality index” (WQI) has also been formulated. This index is
simply a weighted aggregation of the eleven parameters shown in
Table 4 and provides index numbers ranging from 0 to 110. The way
the WOl is calculated is described in the insert on page 14. An index
number from 0 to 4 means the river water essentially meets Federal
water quality goals. A number between 4 and 11 means the river
provisionally meets goals, while a number above 11 means the water
fails to meet goals. In the graphs shown in this section of the report,
these index number ranges are colored blue, yellow and red
respectively.
TABLE 4
CRITERIA/PARAMETER GROUPS 1 FOR THE WATER QUALITY INDEX
Criteria!
Parameter Group
Temperature
Dissolved Oxygen
pH
Bacteria
Trophic
Explanation
Temperature of water influences
both the nature of life forms and the
rate of chemical reactions. Ex-
cessively high temperature is
detrimental to cold water fish.
Oxygen dissolved in water is
essential to the life of aquatic
organisms including fish. Low levels
of oxygen can be detrimental to
these organisms.
Measure of acidity or alkalinity of
water. Extreme levels of either can
imperil fish life and speed corrosion.
Bacteria indicate probable presence
of disease-related organisms and
viruses not natural to water.
Indication of the level of algal activ-
ity in water. Excessive activity is
characterized by very murky, turbid
water and nuisance-levels of algae
which impair recreational uses of
water. Algal decomposition process
can adversely affect dissolved
oxygen levels in water bodies.
Criteria!
Parameter Group
Aesthetics
Solids
Total Dissolved Gas
Radioactivity
Organic Toxicity
Inorganic Toxicity
Explanation
Refers to detectable oil, grease and
turbidity which is visually unpleas-
ant.
Dissolved and suspended material in
water. Excess dissolved solids
adversely affect water taste, in-
dustrial and domestic use. Excess
suspended solids adversely affect
fish feeding and spawning habits.
Measure of concentration of gases
in water. Can affect the metabolism
of aquatic life forms.
May be in water resulting from
radioactive waste discharges or
fallout. Excess levels could result in
a direct threat to aquatic and other
life forms.
Includes pesticides and other
poisons that have the same effects
and persistence as pesticides.
Heavy metals and other elements.
Excess concentrations are
poisonous to aquatic and other life
forms.
1 A total of 80 criteria/parameters were evaluated and condensed to the eleven shown here. More detailed information wilt be provided as requested.
-------
RIVER WATER QUALITY
THE QUALITY OF ALASKA’S PRINCIPAL
RIVERS
The following report on Alaska’s water quality status is incomplete
due to the scarcity of data. Future reports should contain more
complete and specific status information.
The majority of rivers within Alaska are relatively unpolluted. The
Susitna, Kuskokwim, Chena, and Sagavanirktok Rivers are shown to
be unpolluted by the Water Quality Index (Figure 9). However, the
lower portion of the Chena River is in an unknown status, even
though in the past it has had water quality problems from its
confluence with the Little Chena River to its mouth. This river flows
through the metropolitan area of Fairbanks and has been impacted
by inadequately treated domestic sewage and urban runoff.
Most of the remaining rivers can be assumed to meet Federal goals
because they are located in remote, sparsely populated areas of the
state. Possible exceptions are in the lower reach of the Tanana River
which is affected by more urban activities, and some segments in the
Fortymile and Porcupine Rivers that may be adversely affected by
placer mining operations. In the next few years, additional data on
these rivers should help clarify the water quality picture.
RIVER WATER QUALITY TRENDS
Figure 10 provides details for eleven broad parameter classes
described in Table 4. The blue color indicates that measurements for
the indicated parameter produced no evidence of a violation of
Federal criteria for water suitable for fish, wildlife, and recreation.
Yellow and red indicate minor and major violations of the criteria.
The green indicates that there was inadequate information for making
a judgment. An upward-pointing arrow within a box indicates that
the concentrations of the contaminant are rising, or that the
frequency of violations is increasing. A downward-pointing arrow
indicates declining problems and a horizontal arrow indicates that no
significant change has occurred over the five-year period. The trends
represent the average condition of the river evaluated.
FIGURE 7
WATER QUALITY STATUS OF PRINCIPAL RIVERS
2c. Koyukuk R. 7. Kobuk R.
2d. Innoko R. 8. Kuzitrin R.
10. Nushagak R.
11. Naknek R.
4. Saga vanirkiok R.
5. Colville R.
• SELECTED STREAM REACH LIMITS
13. Kenai R.
14.
15. ProIr4ctien Aga c
16. G pey , L.
200 S W 35th Street
Ccuv i s. Ov.jon 97 3O
IN ALASKA
MEETS FEDERAL QUALITY GOALS
QUALITY UNKNOWN; PRESUMED TO
MAJOR SURFACE WATERS
FEDERAL GOALS
1. UPPER YUKON RIVER
2b. Chena R. 6. Noatak R.
la Fortymile (r.
lb. Porcupine R.
2. LOWER YUKON RIVER
2a. Tanana R.
3. Canning R.
12. Karluk R.
9. Kuskokwim R.
13
-------
RIVER WATER QUALITY
The Water Quality Index (WQIJ
The WQI compares measured water quality during the last five years
with the recommended Federal criteria. The data used to make this
comparison come from various Federal, State, and local agencies and
are stored in EPA ’s computer systems. A number is calculated for
every water quality sampling station with sufficient data. Seventy-
nine Alaska stations were used in this evaluation. Seasonal and other
temporal data biases are significantly reduced by time-weighting the
WQI calculation for each station. The final index number for each
station is a summation of standard violations for each criteria!
parameter group which are also weighted by the severity of the
violation. The station WQI number spans a scale that may run from
0.0 (no measured evidence of pollution) to a theoretical maximum
level of 110.0 (severe pollution in all eleven criteria/parameter groups
at all times). Individual reaches of most Northwest rivers fall below a
WQI of 30, and the average WOl for entire rivers is still lower.
Based on professional judgment as to the significance of the values
and the known water quality status of regional streams, the entire
scale of 0 to 110 is divided into several ranges. An index number
greater than 11.0 (shown as red in the Figures) is considered to be
characteristic of streams that do not meet the goals of the Federal
Water Pollution Control Act. An index number less than 4.0 (blue) is
considered to be equivalent to natural or minimally impaired
conditions (meets goals of the Act). An index number between 4.0
and 11.0 (yellow) is indicative of streams which provisionally meet
the goals of the Act. The color green is used in the charts when the
water quality status is unknown due to an inadequate data base.
FIGURE 8
WATER QUALITY STATUS OF PRINCIPAL RIVERS IN ALASKA
Cl)
w
-J
U i
>
0
DOES NOT MEET
FEDERAL QUALITY GOALS
PROVISIONALLY MEETS
FEDERAL QUALITY GOALS
MEETS FEDERAL
QUALITY GOALS
SEE NOTE 2
NOTES:
1) Except where IndIcated, the river
mIles shown are for the malnstem
of each stream, only.
2) The color green represents
Inadequate, or no water qualIty
data. It can be assumed however,
that the vast majority of stream
mIles IdentIfied on this chart
meet Federal qualIty goals.
hi
-------
RIVER WATER QUALITY
FIGURE 9
PRINCIPAL RIVERS IN ALASKA—AVERAGE WATER QUALITY INDEX
- NOTE: DOES NOT MEET FEDERAL
_J QUALITY GOALS
1) The Water Quality Index (WQI) is an
average value over a stream length, PROVISIONALLY MEETS
— - calculated only from those stream FEDERAL QUALITY GOALS
o portIons where data is available.
2) Only mainstem stream portions are utilized MEETS FEDERAL QUALITY GOALS
- for the WOl calculations.
S INSUFFICIENT DATA, HOWEVER
PRESUMED MEETING FED. QUALITY GOALS
f!osi••s••, • •s o
FIGURE 10
TRENDS OF FEDERAL CRITERIA VIOLATIONS
/ 4.
m -
RIVER 4 ) RIVER
KUSKOKWIM
LEGEND
MEETS FEDERAL
QUALITY GOALS
PROVISIONALLY MEETS
FEDERAL QUALITY GOALS
DOES NOT MEET FEDERAL
QUALITY GOALS
UNKNOWN DUE TO
INSUFFICIENT DATA
NUMBER OF VIOLATIONS
INCREASING
Q NUMBER OF VIOLATIONS
DECREASING
CONDITION STABLE
KOYUKUK
INNOKO
KOBUK
KUZITRIN
NOATAK
NUSHAGAK
NAKNEK
COLVILLE
CANNING
SAGAVANIRKTOI
KARLUK
. O 0 .
;. iliiiiiii i
IllIuuIlIn
IF L:; .
I A A,
12.0
1O.0
8.0
6.0
4.0
2.0-
SUSITNA
CHENA
L. YUKON
U. YUKON
TANANA
I
I I
!1 I L
hUh
“uIhr
Ih hllilhlL
PORCUPINE
FORTYMILE
COPPER
GULKANA
KENAI
15
-------
RIVER WATER QUALITY
Of the 22 rivers reviewed, water quality data has been collected on
only 13. The lack of water quality data is not as alarming as it may
appear because the majority of these rivers are in remote areas of the
State where extensive water quality monitoring programs would not
be necessary or practical. In these areas, most Federal criteria
violations would arise from natural conditions.
Some non-natural violations of Federal criteria are expected to occur.
High concentrations of heavy metals currently exist in the Susitna
River. In the future, violations of dissolved oxygen, aesthetics,
organic toxicity and inorganic toxicity criteria can be anticipated in
streams near urban centers where waste discharge and urban run-off
programs have not been fully implemented. High unnatural
suspended solids and turbidity are now present, but unmeasured, in
streams where placer mining activities are ongoing.
A REGIONAL OVERVIEW
The Water Quality Index (WQII is used in Figure 11 to compare 25
major Pacific Northwest River Basins within Alaska, Idaho, Oregon,
and Washington.
Figure 12 depicts the water quality by river mile for each river basin
and Figure 13 shows similar information on a regional map.
As Figure 12 indicates, portions of approximately one-third or nine of
the river basins do not meet Federal water quaiity goals and another
four only provisionally meet them. Most streams in Alaska fall into
the unknown category. However, many of these waterways are
located in remote areas unaffected by man. Future reports will show
the results of water quality monitoring programs now in progress in
Alaska.
Regional water quality appears to be worse in the more arid and
agriculturally oriented parts of the Region. Of the nine rivers which
do not meet Federal water quality goals (Klamath, Bear, Spokane,
Yakima, Lower Columbia, Willamette, and the three Snake Basins)
only the Spokane and Willamette Basins owe their high rating to
industrial activities. In the Spokane Basin, water quality is affected by
intense mining and smelting in the Coeur d’Alene, Idaho area and a
municipal discharge in the Spokane, Washington vicinity. Water
quality in the Willamette River Basin is affected by municipal and
industrial discharges in the small Tualatin River tributary; however, its
average WQI rating is so close to 4.0 that the Basin is considered to
be meeting Federal water quality goals. Major coastal and Puget
Sound rivers and the northeast river basins, Upper Columbia, Clark
Fork! Pend Oreille, and Kootenai have relatively good water quality,
with a few exceptions.
Although it is known that some streams in Alaska have localized
water quality problems near major population centers and in the more
remote areas where placer mining activities are occurring, data for
most areas is non-existent. The WOl, therefore, is somewhat
conservative for the State since the calculations do not include these
localized pollutants. The vast majority of fresh water in Alaska is
considered to be of good quality.
The most prevalent criteria violations in Region 10 are: excessive
concentrations of phosphorus and nitrogen, high nutrient levels
resulting in eutrophication; suspended solids; temperature; and low
dissolved oxygen levels associated with agricultural activities within
the Region. High suspended solid levels from natural origins such as
glaciers, mostly in Washington and Alaska, add to the difficulty in
determining the actual causes of violations. High bacteria levels and
pollutants that affect aesthetics (oil, grease and turbidity) account for
most violations in the vicinity of large population areas.
Inorganic toxicants in the form of heavy metals are extremely high in
the Spokane River Basin and are also present in moderate amounts
in the Upper Snake Basin tributaries. Supersaturation of dissolved
gas periodically occurs in the Lower Snake and Columbia Rivers from
high river flows passing over dams. Because of reduced river flow,
this problem has been less severe in the last few years.
An overall review of water quality trends in Region 10, shown in
Figure 14, indicates some improvements in streams that provisionally
met Federal goals between the years 1972 and 1976, and minimal
improvements in streams identified as not meeting the goals. Alaska
rivers are pot included in the trend evaluation since adequate water
quality data does not exist at this time.
Changes in Regional water quality over the last five years indicate
that programs to control municipal and industrial waste discharges
have reduced the level of bacteria and oxygen degrading materials.
However, dissolved gas saturation, suspended solids, temperature,
nutrients, organic and inorganic toxicants which make up the
majority of the problems, are relatively unaffected by these programs.
Programs to identify and control non-point sources within the Region
must be implemented before further significant improvements in
Regional water quality can be expected.
ALASKA WATER QUALITY OUTLOOK
The challenge for the future in Alaska will be to preserve the present
overall high level of environmental quality. Greater utilization of the
vast natural resources of the State and increased population could
result in significant deterioration of water quality.
The most serious threat will be to the marine waters. Oil terminal
facilities, tanker traffic, and off-shore petroleum production generate
potentials for large oil spills. In 1976, the State Legislature enacted
legislation which includes a comprehensive oil spill prevention
program. Timely implementation of this program, together with the
contingency plan which has recently been developed to deal with oil
spills, will help the State address problems associated with petroleum
industries. There will also be increasing environmental pressures in
marine areas due to the expanding commercial fishing industry.
Alaska’s waste water treatment program for municipal and industrial
discharges is well advanced, but not yet complete. Continued
emphasis on this program will be necessary to maintain water quality.
Untreated domestic sewage discharges have been reduced in areas
such as the Chena River near Fairbanks; however, many other
interior and coastal communities still have inadequate sewage
treatment facilities. Most seafood processors and pulp mills are
presently increasing their treatment levels. As additional industrial
treatment needs are met, water quality in localized areas should
improve.
Urban center growth, resulting in increased discharges and urban
runoff as well as increased recreational pressures on lakes and
streams, will continue to cause problems in large communities such
as Anchorage, Fairbanks and Juneau. Various State and local
management agencies are presently identifying urban problems and
developing prevention programs.
In the relatively unpopulated interior of Alaska, water quality
degradation in clear water streams resulting from placer mining
activities will be difficult to control. Because of the remoteness of
these areas, technical evaluation of mining effects and control
programs have not advanced. It is doubtful that mitigation of the
effects of placer mining will be possible in the next few years.
Recognizing the conflict between resource development and water
quality maintenance, the preservation of Alaska’s high water quality
will require considerable attention. Implementation of environmental
programs which are being developed at the State and local level will
be necessary in the next few years to prevent a gradual decrease in
the quality of lakes, rivers and marine waters in Alaska.
-------
FIGURE 11
PRINCIPAL REGION 10 RIVER BASINS—
AVERAGE WATER QUALITY PER RIVER MILE
w
-I
4
>
0
RIVER WATER QUALITY
WATER QUALITY
RIVER BASINS
U)
LU
. .1
LU
I
STATUS OF PRINCIPAL REGION 10
1’
12.0
10.0
8.0-
6.0
NOTE:
The Water Quality Index (WQI) Is an
average value over a stream length,
calculated only from those stream
portIons where data Is available
.
DOES NOT MEET FEDERAL
QUALITY GOALS
0
2.0
PROVISIONALLY MEETS FEDERAL
OUALITY GOALS
MEETS FEDERAL QUALITY GOALS
. INSUFFICIENT DATA, HOWEVER PRE-
SUMED MEETING FED. QUALITY GOALS
FIGURE 12
1
1
4
C,
17
-------
RIVER WATER QUALITY
FIGURE 13
MAJOR SURFACE WATERS
AND DRAINAGE AREAS
1. ARCTIC SLOPE DRAINAGE
2. NORTHWEST ALASKA DRAINAGE
3. UPPER YUKON RIVER
4. TANANA R.
5. LOWER YUKON R.
6. KUSKOKWIM R.
7. BRISTOL BAY DRAINAGE
8. KENAI-KNIK DRAINAGE
MAJOR SURFACE WATERS
1. KLAMATH R.
2. BEAR R.
3. UPPER SNAKE R.
4. PORTNEUF R.
5. MIDDLE SNAKE R.
6. BOISE R.
7. OWYHEE R.
8. MALHEUR R.
9. PAYETTE R.
10. LOWER SNAKE R.
11. SALMON R.
12. GRANDE RONDE R.
13. CLEAR WATER R.
14. UPPER COLUMBIA R.
15. ST JOE R.
16. COEUR D’ALENE R.
17. SPOKANE R.
18. YAKIMA R.
19. LOWER COLUMBIA R.
20. UMATILLA R.
21. JOHN DAY R.
22. DESCHUTES R.
23. WILLAMETTE R.
24. SANTL4M K
U)
z
0
I-
I-
U)
I L
0
I-
z
uJ
C.)
‘L i
0.
9. SUSITNA R.
10. COPPER R.
WATER QUALITY STATUS OF PRINCIPAL
REGION 10 RIVER BASINS
DOES NOT MEET
FEDERAL QUALITY
GOALS
PROVISIONALLY
I MEETS FEDERAL
I QUALITY GOALS
MEETS FEDERAL
QUALITY GOALS
Data based upon •valuatlon
of 84 monItorIng stations
wIthIn RegIon 10 (excludIng
A laska).
NOTE: Stat, of Alaska is r.pres.nted at approximately 30% of In ,. scale
DOES NOT MEET FEDERAL QUALITY GOALS
PROVISIONALLY MEETS FEDERAL QUALITY GOALS
- m MEETS FEDERAL QUALITY GOALS
UNKNOWN. DUE TO INSUFFICIENT DATA
25. COWLI72 R.
26. ROGUER.
27. UMPQUA R.
28, WILL1PA R.
29. CHEHALIS R.
30. SNOHOMISH R.
31. GREEN/DUWAMISH R.
32. SKAGIT R.
33. NOOKS4CK R.
• SELECTED STREAM REACH UNITS
FIGURE 14
WATER QUALITY TRENDS -REGION 10
100
90
80
70
60
50
40
30
20
10
NOTE:
YEAR
-------
DRINKING WATER QUALITY
DRINKING WATER
Public Water System Program
The drinking water coming into most homes in the Northwest and
Alaska today is generally considered safe, mainly because of the high
standards set by public water supply systems. However, potential
contamination of drinking water supplies by the careless use of
chemical compounds and the unsafe disposal of toxic wastes requires
vigilance.
In 1974, the United States Congress enacted the Safe Drinking Water
Act. This Act gives EPA the primary responsibility for establishing
national drinking water quality standards, but it is intended that
individual states assume responsibility for implementing p ograms to
ensure the standards are met. The State of Alaska assumed this
responsibility in September 1978. State personnel have been added
to help implement the State’s regulations and provide technical
assistance to operators of the State’s approximately 1,200 public
water systems which come under jurisdiction of the Safe Drinking
Water Act.
The national drinking water standards Contain maximum allowable
levels for various contaminants and require water systems to monitor
(sample and analyze) their water on a periodic basis for determining
compliance with these contaminants.
Alaska State drinking water regulations consistent with the national
regulations first went into effect in April 1978; therefore, complete
data to evaluate the ability of the State’s public water systems to
meet national standards is not yet available. The State’s first annual
report will be compiled by January 1979 and this report will become a
baseline against which improvements in the State’s drinking water
quality can be measured.
Groundwater Protection Program
The Safe Drinking Water Act has also established a program for
protecting underground sources of drinking water. States with a
significant number of injection wells having a high potential for
groundwater contamination will be required to regulate such wells.
None of the four states in Region 10 have, as yet, been designated
to run an underground injection control program.
An additional major effort to study the potential of surface
impoundments to contaminate groundwater was initiated in March
1978. The states, through an EPA grant, will locate surface
impoundments such as pits, ponds, and lagoons, and assess their
impact on groundwater quality. The Surface Impoundment
Assessment Study will be completed in December 1979, and will
provide the first nationwide evaluation of surface impoundments.
19
-------
FIGURE 15
TROPHIC STATUS OF MAJOR RECREATIONAL LAKES
50.0
a
U)
I I .
0
(I )
LU
z
I
z
4
LU
4
LU
4
-J
6.0
4.0
2.0
ALASKA IDAHO OREGON WASHINGTON
FIGURE 16
IMPAIRMENT STATUS OF RECREATIONAL LAKES
0
LU
4
a.
U)
LU
La.
0
LU
z
1
4
I-
0
I-
L a.
0
I-
z
LU
C)
LU
a.
18.0
16.0
14.0
12.0
10.0
8.0
LAKE WATER QUALITY
ALASKA IDAHO OREGON WASHINGTON
20
-------
LAKE WATER QUALITY
LAKE WATER QUALITY
Lakes in Alaska will undoubtedly play a major role in the State’s
water quality picture in the future due to increased development and
associated population growth. Lake uses for fishing, boating, and
water supply will increase with this growth.
Measuring Lake Water Quality
Although a numerical “water quality index” has not been developed
for lakes as for rivers, lake quality can be characterized in two ways:
trophic status and the degree of impairment of beneficial use.
While eutrophication, the process of aging, occurs naturally in lakes
and impoundments, man’s activities may accelerate this process,
resulting in “cultural eutrophication”. Highly eutrophic bodies of
water are characterized by dense algal blooms, floating mats of
vegetation, and a murky appearance. Algae are naturally found in
every body of water; however, when stimulated by abundant
nutrients, sunlight, and warm temperatures, they multiply rapidly to
become a nuisance to recreational users and seriously affect water
quality for other uses.
Plant nuisances may directly curtail or eliminate water recreation
activities such as swimming, boatiqg, and fishing; impart tastes and
odors to water supplies; and hamper industrial and municipal water
treatment. These nuisance growths can also cause toxic conditions
which adversely affect other aquatic life in the lakes. Possibly the
greatest effect of eutrophication on water quality is the consumption
of dissolved oxygen when algae die, sink to the bottom of the lake
and are decomposed by bacteria. This process reduces dissolved
oxygen levels and can adversely affect fish and other aquatic
inhabitants.
Water bodies with very little algae are said to be oligotrophic (often
called pristine). Lakes are said to be mesotrophic if they have
moderate algae productivity and meso-eutrophic if they are
approaching fully eutrophic conditions.
In the case of use impairment, swimming, fishing, boating and
aesthetics may be considered. An evaluation system which yields an
impairment score is shown in Table 5.
In this report, lake water quality has been assessed by totaling the
individual use ratings shown in Table 5. The rating for each factor for
minimum or no impairment is one, and the most severe impairment is
rated three. Final ratings range from a low of four (minimum or no
impairment), to a high of twelve (significant impairment).
Professional judgment was used to determine the degree of
impairment where data were not available.
TABLE 5
CRITERIA FOR EVALUATING IMPAIRMENT OF LAKES
Degree of Imoairment
Use Criteria
None
Score Criteria
Moderate
Score Criteria
Significant
Score
Swimming
Very low bacteria
levels (Fecal coIl-
forms geometric mean
less than 50 per
100 ml)
Moderate bacteria
levels (Fecal coli-
forms 50 to 200 per
100 ml)
2 Unhealthy bacteria
levels (Fecal coli-
forms greater than
200 per 100 ml)
3
Fishing
No adverse condi-
tions. Healthy
fish population.
Boating Less than 10% of
surface area affected
by aquatic weeds
1 Slightly adverse
conditions. Slight
reduction in fish
population.
1 10% to 30% affected
2 Adverse conditions.
Significant reduction
in fish population.
2 More than 30%
affected
3
3
Objects visible in
water to depth of
10 feet or more and
low phosphorus
(Secchi Disc at 10
feet; total phosphorus
of less than 10 ug/l)
Objects visible from
1.5 to 10 feet and
moderate phosphorus
level (Secchi Disc
at 1.5 to 10 feet;
total phosphorus
10 to 20 ug/ I)
2 Objects not visible
beyond 1.5 feet or
high phosphorus level
(Secchi Disc at less
than 1.5 feet; total
phosphorus greater
than 20 ug/ I)
SCORE
9-12
(All uses significantly
impaired)
Aesthetics
3
4
(No uses impaired)
5-8
(All uses moderately
impaired)
21
-------
LAKE WATER DUALITY
TABLE 6
TROPHIC STATUS OF NATURAL FRESHWATER LAKES IN ALASKA
(AT LEAST 10 SQUARE MILES IN AREA)
Surface Trophic Status 1
Area in
Square Meso- Oligo-
Lake Mile. Latitude Longitude Eutrophic trophic trophic Unknown
iliamna 1000 59035 155°00
Becharof 458 57°50 156°25
Teshekpuk 315 70°35 153°30 •
Naknek 242 58°35 156°00
Tustumena 117 60°25 150°20
Clark 110 60°10 154°00 •
Dali 100 60°15 163°45
lnland 95 66°3 0 159°50
imuruk Basin* 80 65°05 165°40
Upper Ugashik 75 57°50 156°25
Kukak lek 72 59°35 155°00
Lower Ugashik 72 57030 156°55
Nerka 69 59°20 158°45
Nuyakuk 64 59°50 158°50 •
Aropuk 57 61°10 163°45
Taziina 57 61°50 146°30
Nunavakpak 53 59045 162°40
Kaghasuk* 52 6 0° s5 163°40
Skilak 38 60025 150°20
Chauekuktuii 34 590 )5 158°50
Chikuminuk 34 60°15 158°55
Beverley 33 59°40 158°45
Whitefish 33 61°20 160°00
Aleknagik 31 59°2 0 158°45
Brooks 31 58°30 155°55 •
Kgun 31 61°35 163°50
Nanwhyenuk or
Nonvianuk 31 58° 0 0 155°30
Takslesluk 31 61°05 162°55 a
George 29 61°15 148°35
NunavakAnuksiak 29 61°05 162°30
Unnamed 28 60°55 164°00
Mother Goose 12 57°10 157°20
Unnamed 12 60025 164°10
Unnamed 12 59°50 163°25 •
Unnamed 12 62°15 162°20
Unnamed 12 70°50 153°30
ColvilIe 11 58°45 155°40
Harlequin 11 59°25 138°55 a
Unnamed 11 6 0°25 164°10
Unnamed 11 60025 162°20
Bear 10 56°00 160°15
Chignik 10 59°15 158°50
Ewan 10 62°25 145°50
Kontrashibuna 10 60°10 154°00
Kukaklik 10 61°40 160°30
Kulik 10 58°55 155°00
Kulik 10 61°45 160°40 a
Miles 10 60°40 144°45
Susitna 10 5 025 146°40 a
Unnamed 10 60°20 162°00 a
Unnamed 10 60°25 162°00
Unnamed 10 60°55 162°10
Unnamed 10 59055 163°15
Unnamed 10 62°00 162°00
1 Source of Data:
Alaska Department of Environmental Conservation. Environmental Protection Agency Alaska Operations Office
May be saltwater
-------
LAKE WATER QUALITY
TROPHIC CONDITIONS AND USE
IMPAIRMENT
Of the 97 lakes in Alaska which have at least 10 square miles of
surface area (6,400 acres) none are eutrophic, only five lakes are
classified as mesotrophic (moderate algal productivity), and nine are
oligotrophic (relatively pristine). Trophic status for the majority of
Alaska’s lakes (83) is unknown but is expected to be either
oligotrophic or mesotrophic. Since there is relatively little effect by
man upon most lakes in the State, these lakes represent the natural
trophic status. Table 6 shows the trophic status of some of the
natural freshwater lakes in Alaska.
In addition to excessive algae, other forms of pollutants such as
bacteria, turbidity, and oil also impair the beneficial uses of lakes and
reservoirs. Table 7 depicts the degree of impairment of recreation
lakes in Alaska. Of the 18 most-used Alaska recreation lakes, only
enough information is available to classify seven (by measurements
or professional judgment). None of these seven have any significant
degree of impairment.
Even though there is no apparent impairment of recreational values in
Alaska lakes at this time, continued development and residential
growth in the vicinity of many of these lakes is to be expected.
Therefore, care must be taken in future planning and development so
that these bodies of water will retain their high water quality.
A REGIONAL OVERVIEW
There are 145 lakes and reservoirs within Region 10 that equal or
exceed 10 square miles in surface area and thousands of other
smaller lakes and reservoirs. Each plays an important role in the
ecosystem of the Pacific Northwest and Alaska.
Many Regional lakes and reservoirs are at or approaching a level of
eutrophication unsuitable for their intended uses. Exceptions are the
Alaska lakes, most of which are in remote areas.
Figure 15 presents a summary of trophic status of the Regional lakes
by state.
Alaska, the least populated state, has the largest percentage of non-
eutrophic (oligotrophic) lakes and even the moderately eutrophic
lakes are probably the result of natural causes. About one-third of
Idaho’s lakes and reservoirs are still non-eutrophic; however, the
remaining lakes are either moderately eutrophic or eutrophic because
of intense land and water use in the more populated and
agriculturally oriented portions of the state. Oregon and Washington,
the most populated states in Region 10, have the lowest percentage
of the non-eutrophic lakes and reservoirs. Even though the eutrophic
condition of some of these bodies of water may result from natural
causes; intense recreational use, residential development, and
agricultural use east of the Cascade Mountains, has accelerated the
eutrophication process.
A review of the 120 lakes within Region 10 that have the highest
recreational use in each state, indicates that most have only limited
recreational impairment. Figure 16 shows the impairment breakdown
by state. The water quality of only two lakes in the State of
Washington is considered to be significantly impaired with seventy-
five percent showing little or no impairment.
In Idaho 30 percent, and in Oregon 12 percent of the lakes show
moderate impairment of the highest beneficial uses. Most of the
impaired Oregon lakes and reservoirs are in the semi-arid portion of
the State. Those in Idaho are in the southern portion of the State.
In almost every case, moderate or significant impairment is the result
of intense recreational use of lakes which are near populated areas.
The more pristine lakes and reservoirs are situated away from these
areas, many times in the higher elevations. The challenge for the
future will be to maintain the existing good quality lakes while
upgrading the poorer quality ones.
TABLE 7
PRINCIPAL ALASKA LAKES
Impairment of Highest Beneficial Use
Surface
Area
(Acres)
Final
Boating Aesthetics Rating
1 Numbers in columns represent the degree of recreational impairment for each lake—minimum impairment per category is 1 and highest is 3; therefore,
final rating ranges from 4 for little or no impairment to 12 for maximum impairment of all recreation categories.
Name
Swimming
RecreatIonal Use Impaired 1
Fishing
Harding
1
1
1
1
4
Fielding
1
1
1
1
4
Summit
1
1
1
1
4
Paron
1
1
1
1
4
Big
Kenai
19
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
4
4
Skilak
38
1
1
1
1
4
Fire
Status
Unknown
Nancy
Status
Unknown
Galbraith
Status
Unknown
Clark
110
Status
Unknown
Iliamna
1000
Status
Unknown
Minchumina
23
Status
Unknown
Louise
23
Status
Unknown
Schader
Status
Unknown
Tustumena
117
Status
Unknown
Ward
Status
Unknown
Blue
Status
Unknown
23
-------
MARINE WATER QUALITY
MARINE WATER QUALITY
Alaska has more coastal and estuarine water than any other state in
the United States and relies upon these waters for the majority of its
economic life. Coastal areas support importing, exporting,
transportation, shellfish production, commercial fishing, and
recreation. They are also used for oil production and transportation,
seafood processing, logging and pulp and paper activities. The
majority of the State’s urban centers and associated industrial
development are in or near marine water areas, It is therefore
important that the health of these waters be maintained at a high
quality to support all of the uses.
Measuring Marine Water Quality
Marine water quality determinations are based upon specific
microbiological, chemical and toxicological criteria established by the
U.S. Food and Drug Administration for the National Shellfish
Sanitation Program. Waters free of fecal contamination, industrial
waste, radionuclides, and biotoxins are considered safe for edible
shellfish production, and are classified as “Approved for Commercial
Shellfish Harvesting.” Waters which generally meet the criteria but
are subject to occasional closure resulting from seasonal increases in
population, freshwater runoff, or temporary malfunctioning of waste
treatment facilities are classified as “Conditionally Approved.” Waters
found to be contaminated, or suspected of being contaminated,
which would produce shellfish unsafe for human consumption are
classified as “Closed to Commercial Shellfish Harvesting.”
Assessing water quality in marine water is a difficult, time-consuming
and expensive task due to the complexities of tidal variations,
fluctuating currents and unpredictable mixing patterns. However, the
condition of shellfish such as oysters, clams, and mussels can be
used to assess marine water quality. Shellfish concentrate disease-
causing bacteria and viruses as well as toxic chemicals, radionuclides,
and biotoxins from the waters in which they live. Since shellfish
reflect concentrations of domestic, industrial, and agricultural wastes,
they can be used as practical long-term indicators of water quality
and the effectiveness of pollution control efforts at specific locations.
ALASKA’S MARINE WATERS
Approximately 92,400 acres of commercial shellfish growing waters
(for razor clams only) have been classified by the Alaska Department
of Health and Social Services (Figure 17). Most of the “Approved for
Commercial Shellfish Harvesting” waters are in the vicinity of
Cordova with smaller acreages located near Swikshak on the Alaska
Peninsula and Polly Creek on Cook Inlet. The balance of Alaska’s
extensive, but uncharted, shellfish growing waters are technically
classified as closed. This classification is required, not because of
known pollution problems, but because these waters have not been
subjected to sanitary surveys or monitored for the presence of
paralytic shellfish poison (PSP). Funds for such studies are severely
limited so that most areas in the State have never been classified.
Paralytic shellfish poison is a naturally occurring biotoxin produced
on the West Coast by the microscopic marine alga, Gonyaulax
catenella, and taken up by filter-feeding molluscs such as clams. A
number of illnesses, including some fatalities, have occurred in
Alaska and other coastal regions as a result of people unknowingly
eating shellfish containing high levels of PSP. The prevention of
paralytic shellfish poisoning in humans depends heavily on the
identification of toxic shellfish by laboratory testing.
Some improvement in the quality of marine water has occurred over
the last five years. Pulp mills in Silver Bay and Ward Cove have
upgraded their treatment levels and as a result the water quality
degradation has been reduced. Further treatment will improve water
quality even more in the future. Similar improvements can be
expected in the Kodiak area as the result of a reduction in seafood
waste discharges.
It is inevitable that the demand for Alaska clams will grow as shellfish
reserves dwindle elsewhere. In the past, man’s activities have had
only a limited impact on the classification of Alaska’s shellfish
growing areas. However, consideration of the human health effects
of pollutants near populated areas will undoubtedly play a greater
role in the classification process as the demand for approved shellfish
growing waters increases.
THE REGIONAL OVERVIEW
A total of 349,300 acres of commercial shellfish growing area (Figure
18) has been classified by agencies in Oregon, Washington, and
Alaska. This represents approximately two percent of the classified
growing waters in the nation. Seventy-three percent of the regional
growing area (254,100 acres) is classified as approved; nine percent
(32,900 acres) conditionally approved; and 18 percent (62,300 acres)
closed.
Most of the closed growing areas are due to fecal contamination or
the great potential for such contamination resulting from nearness to
municipal sewage treatment facilities serving populated areas. The
conditionally approved areas are primarily characterized by excessive
fecal contamination occurring as a result of seasonal increases in
freshwater runoff from agricultural and logging activities, as well as
the occasional malfunctioning or bypassing of sewage treatment
plants.
Population growth and associated sewage wastes appear to pose the
greatest threat to approved shellfish growing areas in Region 10.
Because of the small size of Oregon’s shellfish industry and the
generally undeveloped nature of Alaska’s clam resources, changes in
Washington State’s shellfish growing area classification would
probably have the greatest regional economic impact. The effect of
reductions in the size of Washington’s approved growing area may
be mitigated by the industry’s ability to maintain current production
levels on somewhat less acreage. Nevertheless, the closure of key
growing areas in southern Puget Sound or Willapa Bay would have
an immediate adverse impact.
24
-------
FIGURE 17
MARINE WATERS OF ALASKA
STATUS OF CLASSIFIED SHELLFISH GROWING AREAS
60
MARINE WATER QUALITY
50 —
40 —
30-
20 -
10 -
CORDOVA
SECTOR IV
MARINE WATERS OF REGION 10
FIGURE 18
— APPROVED FOR COMMERCIAL
SHELLFISH HARVESTING
Areas d.pIct.d r.pr.s.nt only those portions
of th. total sstuarlns and coastal areas
that have been classified by the Alaska
Stats D.partm.nt of Health and
Social ServIces.
SWIKSHAK POLP.Y
CREEK
STATUS OF CLASSIFIED SHELLFISH GROWING AREAS
C l)
uJ
C.)
4
i i-
0
U)
0
z
4
C l)
0
I
I-
240
220
200
180
180
140
120
100
80
60
40
20 -
C l)
w
0
4
U-
0
(I)
0
z
4
Cl)
0
I
I-
CORDOVA
SECTOR I
APPROVED FOR COMMERCIAL
SHELLFISH HARVESTING
I I CONDITIONALLY APPROVED FOR
‘I COMMERCIAL SHELLFISH
HARVESTING
CLOSED TO COMMERCIAL
SHELLFISH HARVESTING
Areas depicted represent only
those portions of th. total
estuarln. and coastal areas
that have been classlfi.d by
the state shellfish control
agencies.
WASHINGTON ALASKA OREGON
25
-------
NOISE
NOISE FIGURE 19
d I f h REGION 10 POPULATION COVERED
disagreeable proportions within our environment today that it is a INANCES
very real threat to health. The problem is not limited to occupational POPULATION 6,515000
noise and hearing loss, but also includes community noise, which 100
affects us physiologically and psychologically by causing nervousness
and tension. 90
In view of these facts, Congress passed the Noise Control Act of 80
1972 which gives EPA authority to set standards on new products z
that are major sources of noise (cars, trucks, etc.) and existing noise
sources which need national uniformity of treatment (interstate I— 70
railroads, trucks and aircraft). However, the primary responsibility for
control of noise rests with state and local governments. 60
0
Technical assistance is available from EPA in areas such as: 50
developing model legislation; reviewing proposed legislation and
regulations; and training of State and local officials in writing laws i 40
and ordinances and in noise enforcement measurement techniques.
EPA has thus far provided assistance to Oregon and Washington in
developing noise regulations, assistance to the cities of Anchorage, 30
Seattle and Portland in developing noise control ordinances, and in a.
the monitoring of noise levels from railroad locomotives, ferries and 20
auto and motorcycle racetracks.
10
Despite a growing population, Alaska does not presently have
legislation limiting environmental or transportational noise. Little 0
progress has been made to date to initiate a statewide noise control
program.
Of the major cities in Alaska, Anchorage has enacted an ordinance
prescribing noise levels for land use, motor vehicles and recreational
vehicles. Other noise sources controlled by the Anchorage ordinances
include: motorboats, aircraft, home power tools, horns, alarms,
refuse collection vehicles, snow removal vehicles and construction
activities.
Figure 19 indicates the percent of the population in Region 10
covered by noise ordinances. This exhibit does not reflect the
effectiveness with which the ordinances are implemented or
enforced.
-------
SOLID WASTE
SOLID WASTE
Waste management deals with problems ranging from health and
environmental hazards to the efficiency of collection operations. The
diverse nature of wastes (dead animals, mercury-rich industrial
sludges, dredge spoils, abandoned cars, septic tank pumpings,
residential solid waste, infectious hospital wastes, demolition, debris,
feedlot wastes, etc.) makes the challenge of waste management as
complex as its sources.
Improper disposal methods can pollute the land, air or water. For
example, burning dumps contribute to air pollution and some
disposal sites, especially west of the Cascade Mountains, are so
situated that leachate and drainage waters aggravate the pollution of
rivers and streams.
The long-term solution to solid waste management problems lies in
the development of systems that will wisely control the quantity and
characteristics of wastes. This can be done by efficient collection,
creative recycling, recovering energy and other resources, and
properly disposing of wastes that have no further use. In the near
term, the development of environmentally acceptable methods of
disposal on land is stipulated by Federal law as a National goal.
Alaska has most of the solid waste management problems found in
the other states except no large quantities of industrial and farm
wastes are currently generated. In addition, Alaska has many
problems that few other states have experienced. They are climatic,
geologic and demographic in nature; and include problems such as
permafrost, Arctic deserts, coastal rain forests, vast regions of
unsuitable soils, mountainous terrain, lack of surface transportation
systems, and hundreds of isolated villages.
The relative status of solid waste management in Alaska is difficult to
define. One method of measuring the status and progress is to
determine the number of people served by approved, State-permitted
disposal facilities. Approximately 67 percent of Alaska’s population
was served by sites managed in accordance with permits issued by
the State at the end of 1976, about 24 percent more than in 1974, as
shown in Figure 20.
Resource recovery has been contemplated by several communities,
but only the Municipality of Anchorage and the City and Borough of
Sitka have taken serious steps toward implementation. Resource
recovery will be limited for some time because of small quantities of
waste generated and the high cost of transportation to recovered
material markets.
Hazardous wastes are a small, but growing, problem in Alaska. No
State-approved hazardous waste disposal facilities exist. Present
policies call for rendering the waste harmless before disposal or
transporting it out-of-state to facilities that can properly process it.
Figure 21 shows the location of resource recovery and hazardous
waste disposal sites throughout the Region.
FIGURE 20
PERCENT OF POPULATION SERVED BY STATE APPROVED
SOLID WASTE DISPOSAL FACILITIES
z
0
I- .
0 .
0
0.
LI-
0
I-
z
I L ’
C.)
LU
0.
1972 1973 1974 1975
YEAR
1976
LI
-------
HAZARDOUS SUBSTANCES
RESOURCE RECOVERY PROJECTS
PLANNING
UNDER CONSTRUCTION
HAZARDOUS WASTE DISPOSAL SITES
0 EXISTING
A PLANNED
coos
HAZARDOUS SUBSTANCES
are pervasive in our environment. They are in our food,
air. While chemicals are beneficial, some may produce
adverse effects if allowed to enter the environment
Recent Federal legislation has addressed the hazardous substances
problem. The Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA) provides for
controlling the manufacture, processing, distribution, use and
disposal of chemicals. The Resources Conservation and Recovery Act
provides for proper disposal of hazardous waste. These laws,
combined with other EPA legislative responsibilities, should reduce
the potential for future adverse impacts.
EPA is developing a strategic plan which will focus the Region’s
attention on high priority chemicals. Following the identification of
chemicals manufactured and used in the Region, impacts and
Chemicals
water and
long term,
improperly.
methods of control will be assessed. The strategy will utilize Federal,
state and local control measures.
This report has addressed environmental quality along media
lines—air, water, noise and solid waste. Increasingly, actions taken in
each of these areas must consider the impacts of hazardous
materials. For example, higher levels of treatment of air and water
waste discharges generate increased volumes of sludges and other
solid wastes for disposal on land. These sludges contain toxic and
hazardous materials as a result of new discharge restrictions and
pretreatment requirements for industries discharging to municipal
wastewater treatment systems.
Data to define the nature and extent of environmental problems in
the Northwest resulting from toxic and hazardous chemicals are
lacking; however, EPA is currently gathering data to depict the
extent of the problem.
FIGURE 21
STATUS OF RESOURCE RECOVERY PROJECTS AND
HAZARDOUS WASTE DISPOSAL SITES IN REGION 10
NOTE: Stot. of Alaska Ii rspr.s.ntsd at opproxlmot.ly 30% of try. scal.
-------
SUMMARY
SUMMARY
Air Quality: For many of Alaska’s Election Districts, health-related
air quality standards are met. However, in the more densely
populated areas of the State, air pollution levels frequently exceed
the standards. About 60 percent of Alaska’s population lives in
Anchorage and Fairbanks where not only the primary standards but
also the more severe alert air quality levels are exceeded.
Nevertheless, the long-term trend is favorable.
The outlook for controlling the main air quality pollutants in Alaska is
as follows:
Industrial sources of particulates may be controlled with reliable,
relatively inexpensive technology. However, fugitive dust is
responsible for a large share of Alaska’s particulate air pollution.
Thus, even through control of point sources may reduce the
frequency or severity of violations, problems will still occur until area
and fugitive dust sources are also controlled.
Application of currently available control technology for sulfur
dioxide could result in additional reductions in the volume of
pollutant emissions. The best available control technology on new
sources, especially those associated with energy production and the
production and transportation of the North Slope energy resources
will ensure that the SO 2 standard i met.
For carbon monoxide, control will rely on both the Federal Motor
Vehicle Control Program to reduce auto emissions and upon those
activities taken at the local level to abate problems in the city center
and near commuter corridors. The local actions needed, and the time
required for phase-in of new automobiles with better controls, will
result in a gradual rather than an immediate reduction in carbon
monoxide levels. Because of the extremely cold winter temperatures
in Fairbanks, a very large portion of the total CO emissions from
automobiles occurs within the first few minutes after start up.
Consequently, the Fairbanks North Star Borough, with the assistance
of the State and EPA, is currently evaluating the effectiveness of
engine pre-heat devices.
River, Lake and Marine Water Quality: The challenge in Alaska is
to preserve the present overall high level of water quality. Greater
Utilization of the vast natural resources of the state and increased
Population could result in significant deterioration of this quality.
The most serious threat will be to the marine waters. Oil terminal
facilities, tanker traffic, and off-shore petroleum production generate
Potentials for large oil spills. In 1976, the State Legislature enacted
legislation which includes a comprehensive oil spill prevention
program. Timely implementation of this program, together with the
contingency plan which has recently been developed to deal with oil
spills is important.
Alaska’s waste water treatment program for municipal and industrial
discharges is well advanced, but not yet complete. Emphasis on this
program will be necessary to maintain water quality. Untreated
domestic sewage discharges have been reduced in areas such as the
Chena River near Fairbanks; however, other interior and coastal
communities still have inadequate sewage treatment facilities. Most
seafood processors and pulp mills are presently improving their
treatment levels.
In the relatively unpopulated interior of Alaska, water quality
degradation in clear water streams resulting from placer mining
activities will be difficult to control. It is doubtful that mitigation of
the impacts of placer mining will be possible in the next few years.
Recognizing the conflict between resource development and water
quality maintenance, the preservation of Alaska’s high water quality
will require considerable attention. Implementation of environmental
programs which are being developed at the State and local level will
be necessary in the next few years to prevent a gradual decrease in
the quality of lakes, rivers and marine waters in Alaska.
DrInking Water QualIty: In September 1978 Alaska assumed the
responsibility for implementing the Safe Drinking Water Act. In
accordance with this Act the State is requiring water systems to
thoroughly monitor the quality of water they serve. Because
regulations became effective only recently, complete information to
evaluate the quality of Alaska’s drinking water is not yet available.
NoIse: Approximately 45 percent of Alaska’s population is covered
by noise regulation ordinances which are based on objective
standards of sound intensity.
Solid Waste: Areas of Alaska face some of the most difficult solid
waste disposal problems in the Nation. Nevertheless, currently about
70 percent of the State population is served by solid waste disposal
methods which are non-polluting.
Hazardous Substances: Nearly every area of environmental quality
just summarized is impacted by the use of chemicals. New laws and
regulations have resulted from public concern over the adverse health
and environmental effects of hazardous substances; however, it is an
area in need of better data, research and integrated control efforts.
------- |