Fact Sheet
NPDES Permit Number: AK-005342-2
Date: April 28, 2005
Contact: Cindi Godsey
Alaska Operations Office/Anchorage
(907) 271-6561 or (800) 781-0983 (in Alaska only)
godsey.cindi@epa.gov
The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA)
Plans To Issue A Wastewater Discharge Permit To:
Concha Holdings, Ltd.
200 W. 34th Avenue #1183
Anchorage, Alaska 99503
This will also serve as a notice of the
STATE of ALASKA'S draft
§ 401 CERTIFICATION
and
a consistency determination on water quality for the
Alaska Coastal Management Program (ACMP).
EPA Proposes NPDES Permit Issuance.
EPA proposes to issue a National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) Permit to
Concha Holdings, Ltd. for a gold dredging operation in Nome, Alaska. The draft permit sets
conditions on the discharge - or release - of pollutants from the operation into Norton Sound.
This Fact Sheet includes:
information on public comment, public hearing, and appeal procedures
a description of the facility, its history and current discharge and treatment system
a description of proposed effluent limitations , monitoring requirements, and other
conditions
a map and description of the discharges
-------
The State of Alaska proposes certification.
The Alaska Department of Environmental Conservation (ADEC) proposes to certify the
NPDES permit for this operation under section 401 of the Clean Water Act. A draft §
401 Certification is included in this Fact Sheet as Appendix D.
Consistency Determination under the Alaska Coastal Management Program.
On July 29, 2004, the Alaska Department of Natural Resources/Office of Project
Management and Permitting (ADNR/OPMP) concurred with the consistency
determination provided by the applicant. According to the letter, ADEC must make the
determination on water quality for the project. Appendix D contains information
regarding this issue. For further information on the ADNR/OPMP action, please contact
Amanda Henry at (907) 269-7468
EPA invites comments on the proposed permit.
EPA will consider all substantive comments before issuing a final permit. Those wishing
to comment on the proposed permit may do so in writing by the expiration date of the
Public Notice. After the Public Notice expires, and all comments have been considered,
EPA's regional Office of Water & Watersheds Director will make a final decision
regarding permit issuance.
Persons wishing to comment on the State Certification or the water quality portion of the
consistency review should submit written comments by the public notice expiration date
to the Alaska Department of Environmental Conservation, 610 University Avenue,
Fairbanks, Alaska 99709.
If no substantive comments are received, the tentative conditions in the proposed permit
will become final, and the permit will become effective upon issuance. If significant
comments are received, the EPA will address the comments and reissue the permit along
with a response to comments. The permit will become effective 30 days after the
issuance date, unless the permit is appealed to the Environmental Appeals Board (EAB)
within 30 days.
Documents are available for review.
The draft NPDES permit and related documents can be reviewed at EPA's Regional Office in
Seattle between 8:30 a.m. and 4:00 p.m., Monday through Friday. This material is also available
for inspection and copying at the following places in Alaska:
USEPA Alaska Operations Office USEPA Alaska Operations Office
Federal Building, Room 537 709 W. 9th Street, Room 223
222 West 7th Avenue PO Box 20370
Anchorage, Alaska 99513-7588 Juneau, Alaska 99802
Telephone: (800) 781-0983 (Within Alaska) Telephone: (907)586-7619
ADEC, Water Division, 610 University Avenue, Fairbanks, AK 99709 Telephone: (907) 451-2142
-2-
-------
TABLE OF CONTENTS
I. APPLICANT -4-
II. FACILITY ACTIVITY -4-
III. RECEIVING WATER -4-
IV. EFFLUENT LIMITATIONS -4-
A. Statutory Basis for Permit Conditions -4-
B. Specific Permit Conditions -5-
V. BEST MANAGEMENT PRACTICES -6-
VI. OTHER PERMIT CONDITIONS -7-
Endangered Species Act -7-
Essential Fish Habitat (EFH) -7-
State Certification -8-
Permit Expiration -8-
APPENDK A -- LIST OF ACRONYMS -9-
APPENDIX B - PROJECT AREA MAP -10-
APPENDIX C - BASIS FOR EFFLUENT LIMITATIONS -11-
APPENDIX D - DRAFT 401 CERTIFICATION -12-
APPENDIX E - REFERENCES -23-
-3-
-------
I. APPLICANT
NPDES Permit No.: AK-005342-2 Offshore Dredge
Mailing Address: Facility Location:
200 W. 34th Avenue #1183 offshore of Nome, Alaska
Anchorage, Alaska 99503
Facility contact: Jim Halloran, Agent
II. FACILITY ACTIVITY
The project is the operation of a floating suction dredge in the waters of Norton Sound off
the coast of Nome, Alaska. The dredge will be equipped with a 24 inch diameter suction
tube necked down to a 20 inch nozzle. The permit application states that the facility will
process up to 48,000 cubic yards of material per day. The discharge will occur by funneling
the effluent down a six foot diameter collapsible tube to the seafioor.
III. RECEIVING WATER
The receiving water is the marine water of Norton Sound which is classified in 18 AAC 70
as Classes (2)(A), (B), (C), and (D) for use in aquaculture, seafood processing, and
industrial water supply; contact and secondary recreation; growth and propagation of fish,
shellfish, other aquatic life, and wildlife; and harvesting for consumption of raw mollusks
or other raw aquatic life.
IV. EFFLUENT LIMITATIONS
A. Statutory Basis for Permit Conditions
1. Technology-based Limitations
Pursuant to the Act Section 402(a)(2) [40 CFR 122.44(k)(3)], Best Management
Practices (BMPs) are being proposed in the draft permit. These practices are
reasonably necessary either to achieve effluent limitations or to carry out the
Act's goals of eliminating the discharge of pollutants as much as practicable and
to maintain water quality.
2. Water Quality-based Limitations
Section 301(b)(l) of the Act requires the establishment of limitations in permits
necessary to meet water quality standards by July 1, 1977. All discharges to state
waters must comply with state and local coastal management plans as well as
with state water quality standards, including the state's antidegradation policy.
Discharges to state waters must also comply with limitations imposed by the state
-4-
-------
as part of its coastal management program consistency determination and of its
certification of NPDES permits under section 401 of the Act.
The NPDES regulations at 40 CFR 122.44(d)(l) require that permits include
water quality-based limits which "Achieve water quality standards established
under section 303 of the CWA, including State narrative criteria for water
quality."
3. Section 308 of the Clean Water Act
Under Section 308 of the Act and 40 CFR § 122.44(1), the Director must require
a discharger to conduct monitoring to determine compliance with effluent
limitations and to assist in the development of effluent limitations. 40 CFR §
122.44(i)(2) allows flexibility in determining the frequency of reporting.
B. Specific Permit Conditions
"Permit writers must consider the impact of every proposed surface water discharge on
the quality of the receiving water. Water quality goals for a water body are defined by
State water quality standards. A permit writer may find, by analyzing the effect of a
discharge on the receiving water, that technology-based permit limits are not
sufficiently stringent to meet these water quality standards. In such cases, the Clean
Water Act and EPA regulations require development of more stringent, water quality-
based effluent limits designed to ensure that water quality standards are met." (1996,
U.S. EPA NPDES Permit Writer's Manual, p87.)
This suction dredge's unique method of intake and displacement present unusual
permitting issues. By discharging at the bottom through the six foot tube, it is likely
that any turbidity caused by the discharge would not be visible beyond the designated
mixing zone. For these reasons EPA has determined that numeric effluent limitations
are not necessary. Instead, the BMPs in Permit Part n. have been developed. These
BMPs, which are supplemented by required turbidity monitoring designed to ensure
that the BMPs are being implemented properly, are, in this circumstance, sufficient to
implement the requirements of the Act. That is, these practices would ensure that the
beneficial uses designated by the State are adequately protected and justify the absence
of more stringent technology and water quality-based effluent limitations.
Section 308 of the Clean Water Act and the federal regulations at 40 CFR § 122.44(1)
require that permits include monitoring to determine compliance with effluent
limitations. Monitoring may also be required to gather data for future effluent
limitations or to monitor effluent impacts on receiving water quality. Concha
Holdings, Ltd., is responsible for conducting the monitoring and for reporting results
to EPA.
The permit requires a daily visual inspection for turbidity of the area within a 500
meter radius of the suction dredge during operation. This also includes any turbidity
-5-
-------
that may result from any other part of the operation in Norton Sound. If turbidity is
observed beyond 500 meters, the permittee would be required to modify the operation
to meet the permit limitation. If the operation could not be modified to meet the limit,
the operation would not be authorized. In most cases, water quality recovers rapidly.
The daily inspection during operation, combined with the BMPs in Permit Part II.
should assure that the water quality standards are met.
The reporting requirement is based on 40 CFR § 122.48 which is specified in the
permit as a submission of an annual report by November 30th of each year.
V. BEST MANAGEMENT PRACTICES
Best management practices (BMPs) are measures that are intended to prevent or minimize
the generation and the potential for the release of pollutants from industrial facilities to the
waters of the United States through normal operations and ancillary activities.
Pursuant to Section 402(a)(l) of the Clean Water Act, development and implementation of
Best Management Practices (BMP) Plans may be included as a condition in NPDES
permits. Section 402(a)(l) authorized EPA to include miscellaneous requirements in
permits on a case-by-case basis which are deemed necessary to carry out the provision of
the Act. BMPs, in addition to numerical effluent limitations, are required to control or
abate the discharge of pollutants in accordance with 40 CFR § 122.44(k).
The proposed permit requires compliance with the following BMPs.
A. Dredging, which results in undercutting, littoral channeling, or otherwise results in
beach erosion, is prohibited.
This practice will ensure that beach erosion does not occur and that the
finer sediments that may be found in these areas do not cause turbidity
problems in the receiving waters.
B. Motorized winches or other motorized equipment shall not be used to move boulders,
logs, or other natural obstructions.
This practice should ensure that habitat in these areas will not be
destroyed.
C. Suction dredges shall not operate within 650 meters of another dredging operation
occurring simultaneously.
This practice should ensure that the mixing zone of this facility does not
overlap with that of another since 650 meters is the distance of a 500 meter
radial mixing zone for this operation and a designated 500 foot
(approximately 150 meters) mixing zone authorized by the general permit
for suction dredges.
-6-
-------
D. Dredging of concentrated silt and clay is prohibited.
This practice will decrease the amount of fine material that will be released
into the water that could cause turbidity plumes in excess of the permitted
distance.
E. Care shall be taken by the operator during refueling of the dredge to prevent
spillage into surface waters or to groundwater. Any spills shall be cleaned up
using materials such as sorbent pads and booms. All spills shall be reported
to DEC by calling 1-800-478-9300.
This practice will decrease the amount of spillage during refueling.
VI. OTHER PERMIT CONDITIONS
Endangered Species Act (ESA)
The Endangered Species Act requires federal agencies to consult with the National Marine
Fisheries Service (NMFS) and the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) if their actions
could beneficially or adversely affect any threatened or endangered species. EPA sent
letters to the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service and to the National Marine Fisheries Service on
January 27, 2005, requesting a species list for the area of the facility. In a letter dated
February 15, 2005, the USFWS determined that the project is not likely to adversely impact
listed species so further consultation under Section 7 of ESA is not necessary.
In a letter dated February 23, 2005, the NMFS provided a list of ESA Species in marine
waters. The Endangered list includes: blue whale, bowhead whale, fin wahle, humpback
wahle, Northern right whale, Sei whale, sperm whale, and Steller sea lion (Western stock).
Threatened marine mammals include the Steller sea lion (Eastern stock). NMFS provided
an internet reference to the 2003 Stock Assessment Report for information
(www.nmfs.noaa.gov/prot_res/readingrm/MMSARS/sar2003akfinal.pdf) on the geographic
range. Norton Sound is not listed as an important waterbody for any of the above listed
species. This information leads EPA to determine that the issuance of this permit is not
likely to affect ESA species.
Essential Fish Habitat (EFH)
The 1996 amendments to the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Management and Conservation
Act set forth a number of new mandates for NMFS, regional fishery managment councils
and other federal agencies to identify and protect important marine and anadromous fish
habitat. Federal action agencies that may adversely impact EFH are required to consult with
NMFS regarding the potential effects of their action on EFH. NMFS has previously
expressed concern about the reproductive associations of the red king crab. Since activities
under this permit are not likely to occur from February through May because open water is
necessary for a successful operation and timing restrictions imposed by the US Army Corps,
-7-
-------
EPA has determined that no adverse effect to EFH would result from the issuance of this
permit.
State Certification
Section 401 of the Clean Water Act requires EPA to seek certification from the State that
the permit is adequate to meet State water quality standards before issuing a final permit.
The regulations allow for the State to stipulate more stringent conditions in the permit, if the
certification cites the Clean Water Act or State law references upon which that condition is
based. In addition, the regulations require a certification to include statements of the extent
to which each condition of the permit can be made less stringent without violating the
requirements of State law.
Part of the State's certification is authorization of a mixing zone. A draft state certification
is included in Appendix D.
The draft permit has been sent to the State to begin the final certification process. If the
state authorizes a different mixing zone in its final certification, EPA will change the permit
based on the final mixing zone. If the State does not certify the mixing zone, EPA will deny
the permit unless the applicant can show that a turbidity discharge limitation of 25 NTUs,
the state's water quality standard, can be met at the discharge point.
Permit Expiration
This permit will expire five years from the effective date of the permit, but maybe
administratively extended if the conditions of 40 CFR §122.6(a) are met.
-8-
-------
APPENDIX A - LIST OF ACRONYMS
AAC Alaska Administrative Code
ADEC Alaska Department of Environmental Conservation
ADGC Alaska Division of Governmental Coordination
AWQS Alaska Water Quality Standard
BMP Best Management Practices
CFR Code of Federal Regulations
cfs Cubic feet per second
CWA Clean Water Act
DMR Discharge Monitoring Report
EPA Environmental Protection Agency
FR Federal Register
gpm gallons per minute
NPDES National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System
NTU Nephelometric Turbidity Unit
TSD Technical Support Document for Water Quality-based Toxics Control
USC United States Code
USGS United States Geological Survey
-9-
-------
APPENDIX B - PROJECT AREA MAP
-10-
-------
APPENDIX C - BASIS FOR EFFLUENT LIMITATIONS
Technology-based Limitations
Pursuant to the Act Section 402(a)(2) [40 CFR 122.44(k)(3)], Best Management Practices
(BMPs) are being proposed in the draft permit. These practices are reasonably necessary either
to achieve effluent limitations or to carry out the Act's goals of eliminating the discharge of
pollutants as much as practicable and to maintain water quality.
Water Quality-based Limitations
Section 301(b)(l) of the Act requires the establishment of limitations in permits necessary
to meet water quality standards by July 1, 1977. All discharges to state waters must
comply with state and local coastal management plans as well as with state water quality
standards, including the state's antidegradation policy. Discharges to state waters must
also comply with limitations imposed by the state as part of its coastal management
program consistency determination and of its certification of NPDES permits under
section 401 of the Act.
The NPDES regulations at 40 CFR 122.44(d)(l) require that permits include water
quality-based limits which "Achieve water quality standards established under section
303 of the CWA, including State narrative criteria for water quality."
Section 308 of the Clean Water Act
Under Section 308 of the Act and 40 CFR § 122.44(1), the Director must require a
discharger to conduct monitoring to determine compliance with effluent limitations and
to assist in the development of effluent limitations. 40 CFR § 122.44(i)(2) allows
flexibility in determining the frequency of reporting.
-11-
-------
APPENDIX D - Draft 401 Certification
FRANKH. MURKOWSKI, GOVERNOR
v' ( " < \
l l ;, 'Y , , ,' ADEC, Division of Water
!'' ' ',',,!'„•', 410 WilloughbyAvenue, Suite 303
,' " ' " „• ' ' '• Juneau, AK 99801-1795
PHONE: (907)465-5175
FAX: (907)465-5177
http://www.state.ak.us/dec
DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL CONSERVATION
DIVISION OF WATER
WASTEWATER DISCHARGE PROGRAM
April 1,2005
Mike Lidgard
ADEC File: 400.68.005
NPDES Unit Manager
USEPA
1200 Sixth Avenue
Seattle WA, 98101
RE: Draft 401 Certification of NPDES Permit AK-005342-2
Dear Mr. Lidgard;
Concha Holdings Ltd. Has applied for an NPDES permit and 401 certification for wastewater
discharge to Norton Sound from a 20" suction dredge proposed to operate offshore of Nome, AK.
The ADEC proposes to authorize a turbidity mixing zone with a 500 meter radius from the dredge
for this facility. The ADEC has authorized turbidity mixing zones with a radius of 500 meters for
similar facilities discharging to the Norton Sound. Previous 401 certifications for similar facilities
(most recently Coggins 20" suction Dredge: AK-005331-7) have been found to be consistent with
the Alaska Coastal Management Plan (ACMP) regulations. The ADEC believes that this project,
due to its similarities with operations that have gone through consistency findings, is also
consistent with ACMP and notes the proposed consistency finding in the attached draft 401
certification. We have copied the ADNR Office of Management and Permitting to ensure that
they concur with our finding.
The ADEC has enclosed the Draft Certificate of Reasonable Assurance to include in the public
notice process for the proposed issuance of AK-005342-2.
If you have any questions regarding this draft certification please contact me at 907-451-2142 or at
luke_boles@dec.state.ak.us.
Sincerely,
-12-
-------
SIGNATURE ON FILE
Luke Boles
Environmental Engineering Associate
Wastewater Discharge Program
Enclosures: Draft Certificate of Reasonable Assurance for NPDES Permit AK-005342-2
CC:
Cindi Godsey, EPA Region 10, Anchorage Amanda Henry, ADNR/OPMP, Anchorage
Concha Holdings Ltd Steve McGroarty, ADNR/DMLW, Fairbanks
Mac McLean, ADNR/OHMP, Fairbanks
STATE OF ALASKA
DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL CONSERVATION
DRAFT CERTIFICATE OF REASONABLE ASSURANCE
This DRAFT Certificate of Reasonable Assurance, in accordance with Section 401 of the Federal
Clean Water Act and the Alaska Water Quality Standards, has been requested by the U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency for issuance of NPDES permit number AK-005432-2. NPDES
Permit number AK-005432-2 is proposed to be issued to Concha Holdings Ltd. for a 20" suction
dredge mining operation on Norton Sound near Nome, AK.
Public Notice of the application for this DRAFT certification will be made in accordance with 18
AAC 15.140.
Water Quality Certification is required for the activity, because the activity will be authorized by
an Environmental Protection Agency permit identified as NPDES Permit No. AK-005432-2 and a
discharge will result from the activity.
After review of the public comments received in response to the public notice, the Alaska
Department of Environmental Conservation certifies that there is reasonable assurance that the
activity and the resulting discharge is in compliance with the requirements of Section 401 of the
Clean Water Act, which includes the Alaska Water Quality Standards, 18 AAC 70, provided that
the terms and conditions of this certification are adhered to.
The Department has reviewed the discharges with respect to the antidegradation policy of the
Alaska Water Quality Standards and finds the reduction in water quality to be in accordance with
the requirements of 18 AAC 70.015, provided that the terms and conditions of this certification are
made part of the final NPDES Permit.
The Department has reviewed the discharges with respect to the Alaska Coastal Management Plan
(ACMP), as required in 11 AAC 110, and proposes to find the project consistent with the
applicable ACMP regulations.
-13-
-------
IMF?
Through this certification, in accordance with 18 AAC 15.120 ADOPTION OF NPDES
PERMITS, the final NPDES permit will constitute the permit required under AS 46.03.100 Waste
Disposal Permit, provided that the terms and conditions of the final certification are made part of
the final NPDES Permit. The department is specifying the following permit terms and conditions
under authority of AS 46.03.110(d):
1. As allowed under 18 AAC 70.240, the AD EC certifies a mixing zone for turbidity
extending 500 meters radially from the dredge's discharge point. The maximum allowable
increase in turbidity at all points measured 500 meters and beyond from the discharge point is 25
nephelometric turbidity units (NTU).
2. A visual increase in turbidity (any additional cloudiness or muddiness) outside of a 500
meter radius of the suction dredge's discharge point during operations is considered a violation of
the permit.
3. If noticeable turbidity does occur outside the 500 meter radius of the work site, operation of
the suction dredge must decrease or cease so that a violation as defined above does not exist.
Rationale: In accordance with State Regulations 18 AAC 70.240, the Department has
authority to designate mixing zones in permits or certifications. This mixing zone will
ensure that the most stringent water quality standard limitations for turbidity; 25
nephelometric turbidity units (NTU), is met at all points outside of the mixing zone.
In authorizing this mixing zone the Department considered all aspects required in 18 AAC
70.015 (Antidegradation) and ISAAC 70.240-270 (Mixing Zones) including, but not
limited to, the potential risk to human health and ecological resources of Norton Sound.
The Department finds that the size of the mixing zone authorized for discharge in this
certification is appropriate and provides reasonable assurance that existing uses of the
Norton Sound outside of the mixing zone are maintained and fully protected.
April 1. 2005 DRAFT
Date Gretchen Keiser
Program Manager
Wastewater Discharge Program
IMF?
-14-
-------
APPENDIX E - REFERENCES
Application received by EPA on April 7, 2004.
Letter dated May 19, 2004, from NMFS to US Army Corps of Engineers (COE) concerning
conservation recommendations for EFH.
Letter dated July 29, 2004, from ADNR/OPMP to Jim Halloran regarding the ACMP review.
Letter dated December 4, 2004, from the COE to NMFS concerning EFH conservation
recommendations.
Angliss, R. P., and K.L. Lodge. 2004. Alaska marine mammal stock assessments, 2003. U.S. Dep.
Commer., NOAA Tech. Memo. NMFS-AFSC, 230 p.
EPA, NPDES Permit Writer's Manual. Office of Water, Office of Wastewater Management,
Permits Division. Washington, DC. 20460; EPA-833-B-96-003, December 1996, 220pp.
EPA. Technical Support Document for Water Quality-based Toxics Control. Office of Water
Enforcement and Permits, Office of Water Regulations and Standards. Washington, DC, 20460;
EPA/505/2-90-001, March 1991, 145pp.
Impact of suction dredging on water quality, benthic habitat, and biota in the Fortymile
River. Resurrection Creek, and Chatanika River. Alaska. Prepared for EPA by Aaron M.
Prussian, Todd V. Royer, and G. Wayne Minshall, Idaho State University. June 1999.
Regional Baseline Geochemisty and Environmental Effects of Gold Placer Mining
Operations on the Fortymile River. Eastern Alaska. Department of Interior, U.S.
Geological Survey. Open-File Report 99-328.1999.
Regional Geochemical Results from the Analyses of Rock, Water, Soil, Stream
Sediment, and Vegetation Samples-Fortvmile River Watershed. East-Central Alaska.
Department of Interior, U.S. Geological Survey. Open-File Report 99-33. 1999.
The following references were used in an unpublished research effort entitled "A Review of the
Regulations and Literature Regarding the Environmental Impacts of Suction Gold Dredges," April
1993 by Phillip A. North of the Environmental Protection Agency, Region 10, Alaska Operations
Office.
Griffith, J.S. and D.A. Andrews. 1981. Effects of a small suction dredge on fishes and
aquatic invertebrates in Idaho streams. North American Journal of Fisheries
Management 1:21-28.
Hassler, T.J., W.L. Somer and G.R. Stern. 1986. Impacts of suction dredge mining on
anadromous fish, invertebrates and habitat in Canyon Creek, California. Calif.
Coop. Fish. Res. Unit., Humboldt State University, Arcata, California, Coop.
Agreement No.14-16-009-1547, Work Order No. 2. 135 pages.
-23-
-------
Harvey, B.C. 1986. Effects of suction gold dredging on fish and invertebrates in two
California streams. North American Journal of Fisheries Management 6:401-409.
Huber, C. and D. Blanchet. 1992. Water quality cumulative effects of placer mining on the
Chugach National Forest, Kenai Peninsula, 1988-1990. U.S. Forest Service,
Chugach National Forest, Alaska Region. 74 pages.
Thomas, V.G. 1985. Experimentally determined impacts of a small suction gold dredge on
a Montana stream. North American Journal of Fisheries Management 5:480-488.
-24-
------- |