FINDINGS FOR THE              
                 ALASKA COASTAL NONPOINT PROGRAM
                                 
FOREWORD

     This document contains the findings for the coastal nonpoint pollution control program
submitted by the State of Alaska pursuant to Section 6217(a) of the Coastal Zone Act
Reauthorization Amendments of 1990 (CZARA).  The findings are based on a review of the  
Alaska Coastal Clean Water Plan, August, 1995.  The National Oceanic and Atmospheric
Administration (NOAA) and the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) reviewed this
information and evaluated the extent to which it conforms with the requirements of CZARA.

     NOAA and EPA commend the State of Alaska on the substantial time and effort put into
developing this program and appreciate the commitment the State has shown to complete an
ambitious task with limited resources.  NOAA and EPA will continue to work with coastal states
and territories to ensure that these findings represent an accurate assessment of current state and
territorial abilities and efforts to address coastal nonpoint source pollution.  NOAA and EPA
recognize that further administrative changes that may affect these findings will be made to the
coastal nonpoint program and, once such changes are finalized, will review these findings in light
of the changes and make any necessary adjustments.  

APPROVAL DECISION

     NOAA and EPA approve the coastal nonpoint pollution control program submitted by the
State of Alaska pursuant to Section 6217(a) of the Coastal Zone Act Reauthorization
Amendments of 1990, subject to certain conditions.

     This document provides the specific findings used by EPA and NOAA as the basis for the
decision to approve the State's program.  It also provides the rationale for the findings and
includes the conditions that will need to be met for Alaska to receive final approval of its
program.  The timeframes associated with conditions become effective upon the date of the
approval letter for these findings.

INTRODUCTION

     This document is organized by the major nonpoint source categories and subcategories
identified in the Section 6217(g) guidance and the administrative elements identified in the
program guidance (including the boundary for the 6217 management area).  Where appropriate,
NOAA and EPA have grouped categories and subcategories of management measures into a
single finding.  The structure of each finding follows a standard format.  Generally, the finding is
that the State program includes or does not include management measures in conformity with the
(g) guidance and includes or does not include enforceable policies and mechanisms to ensure
implementation.  In some cases, the finding reflects that the State has identified a back-up
enforceable policy but has not demonstrated the ability of the authority to ensure implementation. 
For further understanding of terms used in this document, the reader is referred to the following:  

Guidance Specifying Management Measures for Sources of Nonpoint Pollution in Coastal
Waters (EPA, January 1993)
Coastal Nonpoint Pollution Control Program: Program Development and Approval Guidance
(NOAA and EPA, January 1993)
Flexibility for State Coastal Nonpoint Programs (NOAA and EPA, March 1995)

     The references in this document refer to the  Alaska Coastal Clean Water Plan, August,
1995 ("program submittal").  NOAA and EPA have written this document as succinctly as
possible.  We have relied upon, but do not repeat here, the extensive information that the State
included in the program submittal.  Further information and analysis is contained in the
administrative record for this approval decision and may be reviewed by interested parties at the
following locations:

EPA/Office of Wetlands, Oceans and Watersheds
Assessment & Watershed Protection Division
Nonpoint Source Control Branch
401 M St., SW (4503-F)
Washington, DC  20460
Contact: Dov Weitman (202/260-7088)

NOAA/Office of Ocean and Coastal Resource Management
Coastal Programs Division
SSMC-4, N/ORM3
1305 East-West Highway
Silver Spring, MD  20910
Contact: Bill Millhouser (301/713-3121, ext. 189)

U.S. EPA Region X
Alaska Operations Office
410 Willoughby Avenue
Juneau, AK 99811
Contact: Chris Meade (907/586-7622)

I.   BOUNDARY

FINDING: Alaska's proposed boundary is sufficient to control the land and water uses that
have, or are reasonably expected to have,  a significant impact on the State's coastal waters.

RATIONALE: Alaska proposes to use its existing coastal zone boundary, which extends from
2,000 feet to 250 miles inland,  as the 6217 management area boundary. This boundary is not as
extensive as the coastal watershed boundary recommended by NOAA; however, it does
encompass land and water uses that have or are reasonably expected to have a significant impact
on coastal waters. 

In determining the coastal zone boundary, the State identified three distinct biophysical regions:
the zone of direct interaction, the zone of direct influence, and the zone of indirect influence. 
The boundary was refined during the development of local coastal programs, but still includes
the zones of direct interaction and direct influence.  In addition, local coastal program boundaries
must encompass the uses and activities that have, or are likely to have a direct and significant
impact on marine coastal waters (6 AAC 85.040).  Marine coastal waters are broadly defined to
include not only the water bodies themselves but also the living resources dependent upon these
waters (6 AAC 85.900(2)).  These requirements help ensure that the coastal zone boundary
includes areas that are likely to have a significant impact on coastal waters.

In addition, most of the State's population and development activities are situated along the
coast, within the existing coastal zone boundary.  The remaining uses outside of the coastal zone
are either minor in nature, or so far removed from the coast that it is unlikely that they do, or
could, have a significant impact on coastal waters.


II.  AGRICULTURE

FINDING: Alaska has provided sufficient justification for a categorical exclusion of agriculture.

RATIONALE:  Crop farming, fertilizer application, and pesticide application occur on only a
small amount of land in coastal Alaska, and no water quality impairments due to agriculture have
been identified in the State's 305(b) water quality assessment.  Of Alaska's 365 million acres,
only 100,000 acres are identified as cropland.  The use of agricultural chemicals is also very low
in Alaska.  

In 1994, fertilizers were applied to approximately 10,000 acres, and pesticides and herbicides to
approximately 2,000 acres of the estimated 30,000 acres of cropland within the coastal zone.  
Currently only 5 facilities (dairies) in the entire 6217 management area meet the applicability for
the large and small confined animal facilities management measures, and agricultural livestock
production is declining in the State.  Alaska does have a large amount of rangeland, but average
stocking rates of 70 acres per animal are very low and have not resulted in any identified impacts. 
Irrigation occurs on less than 1,000 acres.  The small acreage devoted to agriculture compared to
the large land area in Alaska's 6217 management area demonstrates that agriculture is generally
not a significant contributor of pollutants to Alaska's coastal waters.


III.  FORESTRY

FINDING:  Alaska's program includes management measures in conformity with the 6217(g)
guidance and includes enforceable policies and mechanisms to ensure implementation
throughout the 6217 management area, except it does not include management measures for 
the protection of streamside management areas in all water bodies within the coastal management
area. Alaska has provided sufficient justification to support the sub-categorical exclusions of
Management Measures F (Site Preparation and Forest Regeneration), G (Fire Management), and
I (Forest Chemical Management).

CONDITION:  Within two years, Alaska will include in its program management measures in
conformity with the 6217(g) guidance for streamside management areas throughout the 6217
management area.

RATIONALE:  The Alaska Forest Practices Act (AS 41.17) and Forest Resources and Practices
Regulations (Sec. 11 ACC 95.185 et. seq.) include enforceable policies and mechanisms to
implement the forestry management measures. These authorities also specify best management
practices that are in conformity with the management measures, except for streamside
management areas.

In terms of pre-harvest planning, operators or landowners are required to submit a detailed plan-
of-operations (DPO) to the Department of Natural Resources before commercial operations begin
on forest lands (AS 41.17.090).  The contents of the DPO are specified in the Forest Resources
and Practices Regulations (Sec. 11 AAC 95.185 et.seq.). Although the State forest resources
program meets the requirements of the pre-harvest planning measure, concerns remain regarding
the implementation of the requirements.  The current requirements for information on locations
of water bodies, sensitive areas, and roads, are limited to these features where they are "known"
to the operator (11 AAC 95.220).  Given the State's challenging geography and relative lack of
detailed mapping, there are cases where water bodies and other features to be protected according
to the 6217(g) guidance are not indicated on existing maps or otherwise known to the operator. 
Thus, the DPO may not always address these features.  To be effective, information included in a
DPO on these key features must be as complete as possible, which may require actual field
reconnaissance conducted at a time of the year when it is appropriate to identify features that
require protection.  Operators are required to protect streams, whether or not they are included in
the DPO; however,  failure to account for waterbodies in the early planning phase may make it
more difficult to afford adequate protection and result in the degradation of water quality and the
incremental loss of important aquatic resources.

Improving the information included in the DPO, will enhance the plan's effectiveness.   DFG is
required to specify the waterbodies important for the spawning, rearing, and migration of
anadromous fish (AS 16.05.870).  While the "Catalog of Waters Important for Spawning,
Rearing, or Migration of Anadromous Fishes" identifies approximately 15,000 waterbodies,
according to the State, the actual number of waterbodies used by anadromous fish is clearly
higher.  Improved implementation of these existing requirements to identify waterbodies
important to anadromous fish would improve the DPO by minimizing  the issue of unidentified
waterbodies.   NOAA and EPA strongly encourage the State to review its pre-harvest planning
requirements and implementation to determine what changes, if any, are needed to better protect
water quality.

The management measure for streamside management areas requires the designation and
maintenance of streamside management areas (SMA) along surface waters.   The SMA must be
managed in such a way as to protect against soil disturbance and the delivery to the waterbody of
sediments and nutrients generated by forestry activities.   The SMA must be of sufficient width
and include a sufficient number of canopy trees to buffer against detrimental temperature
changes, provide bank stability, and withstand wind damage.   Within an SMA, a variety of
practices can be applied to meet the measure.  Although it is appropriate in some circumstances,
SMAs do not necessarily have to be managed as no-cut zones.  
 
The Alaska Forest Practices Act requires the protection of riparian areas from the significant
adverse effects of timber harvest activities on fish habitat and water quality (AS 41.17.115). 
Alaska requires SMA's for some surface water bodies in conformity with the 6217(g) guidance;
however, they do not require such SMA's along water bodies that are not catalogued or
determined by Fish and Game to contain or exhibit evidence of anadromous fish. On private
lands, Alaska does not currently require SMA's for some streams that are catalogued or
determined to contain or exhibit evidence of anadromous fish.  SMA limitations can be relaxed
subject to general and site specific variances.  SMA protection  is especially critical for streams
that are tributary to anadromous streams and/or high value resident fish streams.  The sediment
contribution from these streams will have significant detrimental impacts on water quality and
habitat for anadromous and high value resident species when sedimentation is increased as a
result of land disturbing activities such as timber harvesting and road construction.

In January 1996, the State formed a Science and Technical Committee (STC) to advise the Board
of Forestry (BOF) on a wide range of forest practices issues.   In January 1997, and again in
January 1998, the STC provided a series of recommendations for improving forest practices to
the BOF.  The STC reports directly address SMA issues by recommending that all anadromous
waters and tributaries to anadromous waters have a designated riparian area and associated
protection.  Specifically, the STC reports recommend changes to the definition of Type B and C
waterbodies;  ensuring a steady supply of large woody debris to more stream reaches; and
requiring, where feasible,  the retention of low value and non-merchantable timber to maintain
slope stability along Type B and Type C waterbodies.  Implementation of these  STC
recommendations will directly address the issues raised in this findings document and provide a
solid basis for meeting the management measure requirements.

Sufficient justification has been provided to support the sub-categorical exclusions for
Management Measures F, G, and I.  The following summarizes justifying information provided
by the State of Alaska in its submission:  Mechanical site preparation and artificial reforestation
is rarely conducted in Southeast Alaska.  Prescribed fires have not been set on forest lands in
Southeast Alaska for at least the past six years, and wildfires are infrequent due to high
precipitation.  The use of forest chemicals in Alaska's coastal zone is "virtually non-existent" and
no herbicide or insecticide permits have been issued in the last five years.


IV.  URBAN

A.  NEW DEVELOPMENT

FINDING:  Alaska's program does not include management measures in conformity with the
6217(g) guidance.  Alaska's program includes enforceable policies and mechanisms to ensure
implementation of the measures throughout the 6217 management area.

CONDITION:  Within three years, Alaska will develop alternative management measures that
achieve the maximum level of conformity with the management measures that is economically
achievable given Alaska's unique conditions.

RATIONALE: Under contract with the State, Montgomery Watson undertook a study on the
effectiveness and economic achievability of best management practices for stormwater control,
and documented its findings in a report entitled Assessment of Stormwater Controls in Alaska. 
Based on the analysis and findings of this report, Alaska has determined that the 6217(g)
management measures for new development are neither practical nor economically achievable.
Sedimentation ponds are not effective in capturing fine particulates from runoff, which accounts
for more than 20% of the total suspended solid load in Alaska's low intensity storms.  The
methods for removing the remaining unsettleable fraction involve chemical or physical
treatments that would not be economically achievable.  Therefore, the State concluded that the
new development management measure is not attainable, even with the BMP judged most cost-
effective for Alaska's communities.  Alaska also states that the second element of the new
development measure, to maintain post-development peak runoff rate and volume at pre-
development levels, cannot be met in northern and western regions of the State.  

Alaska has proposed an interim measure that "by design or performance, after construction has
been completed and the site is permanently stabilized, reduce turbidity and settleable solids to the
maximum extent practicable."  However, Alaska currently lacks data to demonstrate the
effectiveness of these measures.  The State should develop performance objectives for
stormwater runoff reflecting the maximum level of post-development control economically
achievable in Alaska. 

The State has several enforceable polices and mechanisms that could be used to ensure
implementation of the stormwater measures.  Alaska's Wastewater Disposal Code requires a
permit for any person who disposes of non-domestic wastewater, including stormwater runoff
into or onto land, surface water, or ground water (18 AAC 72.500).  Projects requiring State or
federal permits, must also meet requirements to maintain the physical, biological and chemical
characteristics of identified habitat types including: estuaries, wetlands, tideflats, rivers, and
streams  (6 AAC 80.130). 

B.  WATERSHED PROTECTION AND EXISTING DEVELOPMENT.

FINDING:  Alaska's program includes management measures in conformity with the 6217(g)
guidance for watershed protection.  Alaska does not include management measures in conformity
with the 6217(g) guidance for existing development.  Alaska's program includes enforceable
policies and mechanisms to ensure implementation throughout the 6217 management area.

CONDITION:  Within three years, Alaska will include in its program management measures in
conformity with the 6217(g) guidance for existing development.

RATIONALE:  The ACMP includes several enforceable policies and mechanisms to ensure that
the management measures are implemented.  For example, the ACMP requires local
governments to develop district coastal management programs  (AS 46.40.030).  These programs
are designed to protect natural values and natural systems or processes, "areas which merit
special attention", wetlands, estuaries, and geophysical hazards.  The programs must also manage
rivers, streams and lakes to protect natural vegetation, water quality, important fish or wildlife
habitat, and natural water flow.   These programs must be approved by the Alaska Coastal Policy
Council (CPC), and are implemented through enforceable policies that are applied to projects
requiring State or federal permits (6 AAC 50).   To ensure consistency with the ACMP, State
agencies attach enforceable stipulations to required permits.  In addition, local governments are
required to implement land and water use controls in conformity with their coastal management
program (AS 46.40.100). 

Alaska's program does not address the existing development management measure.  The
proposed watershed protection framework for identifying pollutant reduction opportunities
provides a foundation for implementing the existing development measure.  

C.   SITE DEVELOPMENT, CONSTRUCTION SITE EROSION AND SEDIMENT
CONTROL,  CONSTRUCTION SITE CHEMICAL CONTROL

FINDING:  Alaska's program includes management measures in conformity with the 6217(g)
guidance for the first, second, and fourth elements of the site development management measure.
Alaska does not include management measures in conformity with the 6217(g) guidance for the
third element of the site development management measure, construction site erosion and
sediment control, and construction site chemical control.  Alaska's program includes enforceable
policies and mechanisms to ensure implementation throughout the 6217 management area.

CONDITION:  Within three years, Alaska will include in its program management measures for 
 (1) the third element of the site development measure, (2) construction site erosion and sediment
control,  and (3) construction site chemical control in conformity with the 6217(g) guidance.

RATIONALE:  As described in more detail under section B. above, the ACMP includes several
enforceable policies and mechanisms to ensure that the management measures are implemented,
except as noted in the Finding.  In addition, the regulations for Nondomestic Wastewater and
System Plan Review (18 AAC 72.500 - .600) provide the DEC with the authority to control
erosion and offsite movement of sediment from a project.  These policies, however, do not
specifically ensure preparation and implementation of  an approved erosion and sediment control
plan.  They also do not necessarily limit land disturbing activities including clearing and grading
and cut and fill to reduce erosion and sedimentation.  NOAA and EPA encourage the State to
continue to implement elements of the Action Plan described in Chapter 6 (pp. 12 -14) of the
program submittal to ensure that nonpoint pollution impacts are evaluated and the measures are
developed and applied.  

Alaska has several authorities for implementing construction site chemical controls in a proactive
manner.  For example, discharge of petroleum products is prohibited except by permit (AS
46.03.070).  Regulations at 18 AAC 90.430 prohibit the improper use, storage, and disposal of
pesticides.  Under the Department of Fish and Game's Title 16 authority, construction activities
that could pollute fish-bearing waters must submit a plan that protects the fish and their habitat.  
Because most coastal streams in Alaska support anadromous fish, this authority has broad
geographic applicability.   

The State, however, has not described BMPs or developed a comprehensive program to ensure
proper storage, transport, and disposal of a variety of chemicals on construction sites.  NOAA
and EPA encourage the State to update and expand BMP manuals for roads, highways and
bridges (such as the Alaska Highway Maintenance and Operations Manual) to include all
construction sites throughout the 6217 management area.




D.  ONSITE DISPOSAL SYSTEMS (OSDS)

FINDING:  Alaska's program includes management measures in conformity with the 6217(g)
guidance, except it does not include a provision for inspection of existing OSDS.  Alaska
includes enforceable policies and mechanisms for the new OSDS measure except exemptions in
Alaska's program preclude the State from implementing the measure throughout the 6217
management area.  The State does not have enforceable policies and mechanisms to implement
the existing OSDS management measure.  

CONDITION:  Within three years, Alaska will include in its program provisions for the
inspection of existing OSDS in conformity with the (g) guidance and enforceable polices and
mechanisms to ensure implementation of the new and existing OSDS management measures
throughout the 6217 management area.

RATIONALE:  Through the Wastewater Disposal Code (18 AAC 72), Alaska has a well-crafted
program for OSDS that meets the intent of the 6217(g) guidance, except the State's program does
not ensure periodic inspection of OSDS to identify improperly functioning systems.  

The State reviews and approves for construction, installation and modification the operation of
OSDS serving either (1) more than 3 units or (2) single family or duplex conventional OSDS if
similar systems in nearby areas have failed or the OSDS is located in areas where failure is
expected (18 AAC 72.210 - 235).  The requirement for registered engineering plans provide for
implementation of the design, siting, and installation of OSDS in conformity with the 6217(g)
guidance.  For example, the State requires a minimum vertical separation distance of 4 feet from
high water tables and minimum horizontal setbacks from surface waterbodies. In cases where
nitrogen loadings may impact drinking water aquifers, OSDS planning and design must prevent
aquifer contamination where private water systems (wells) are used.   The State also has the
authority to require alternative systems or system modification where additional treatment is
necessary to protect the public health or environment.  The permitting and engineering plan
requirements, however, do not apply throughout the 6217 management area.

The State is currently in the process of developing regulations addressing inspection
requirements for the operation and maintenance of package treatment plants but does not have a
program to require periodic inspection of single-family OSDS.   The State does have a voluntary
mechanism to encourage some OSDS inspections.  Through DEC's  audit stamp program,
lending institutions are encouraged to require OSDS inspection by a qualified engineer as a
condition for loan approval.  DEC is currently developing regulations to require certification of
installing engineers.





E.  POLLUTION PREVENTION

FINDING:  Alaska's program includes management measures in conformity with the 6217(g)
guidance.

RATIONALE:  The State has developed a variety of pollution prevention laws and public
outreach material that adequately addresses the requirements of the 6217(g) guidance for this
management measure.  For example, AS 46.06.031, establishes a solid waste reduction and
recycling program that is run by DEC.  The ACMP developed public service announcements in
both English and Yup'ik to promote coastal clean water.  DEC also provides grants for hazardous
waste reduction under AS 46.03.317. 

F.  ROADS, HIGHWAYS, AND BRIDGES

FINDING:  For roads, highways and bridges (RHBs) subject to Alaska Department of
Transportation and Public Facilities (DOTPF) jurisdiction, Alaska's program includes
management measures in conformity with the 6217(g) guidance except for the runoff systems
management measure.  For other RHBs, Alaska's program does not include management
measures in conformity with the 6217(g) guidance.  Alaska includes enforceable policies and
mechanisms to ensure implementation of the measures throughout the 6217 management area.

CONDITION:  Within three years, Alaska will include in its program management measures in
conformity with the (g) guidance for local RHBs and, for RHBs under DOTPF jurisdiction,
management measures for runoff systems.

RATIONALE:  Alaska meets the management measure for planning, siting and developing
RHBs for those RHBs within the jurisdiction of DOTPF.  DOTPF has adopted American
Association of State Highway Transportation Officials (AASHTO) guidelines and standard
contract specifications which require practices in conformity with the 6217(g) guidance.  Alaska
does not have similar programs in local areas not under DOTPF jurisdiction.  The Alaska Coastal
Management Program and Alaska Department of Environmental Conservation review RHB
plans for bridges and projects to minimize impacts to surface waters (e.g., in highly erodible
areas and wetlands) (6 AAC 80.050 and 6 AAC 80.130). 

Alaska's DOTPF has developed standard contract plans and specifications to assure
implementation of the construction site erosion and sediment and chemical control management
measures on its RHB projects.  DOTPF also includes programs for operation and maintenance
(O&M), including an O&M manual that addresses water quality issues.  These programs
conform to the management measures.  For local RHB construction, Alaska has identified a need
for erosion and sediment control plans to be developed but does not identify program elements. 
Also, Alaska does not include management measures for O&M for local RHBs.

Alaska identifies federal funding and scheduling provisions to meet the runoff systems
management measure, but does not identify a program to use these provisions to improve runoff
management practices along State and local roadways.

DOTPF uses contract clauses as enforceable policies to ensure implementation of the measures
as well as environmental review requirements in a variety of legislation.  Alaska Administrative
Code Title 18 Chapter 72 can ensure implementation in local areas as it requires a permit issued
by Department of Environmental Conservation for disposal of all nondomestic wastewater,
including storm water runoff.   NOAA and EPA encourage Alaska to improve its programs to
ensure implementation of the construction site measures.  NOAA and EPA commend Alaska's
plans to include an inspection checklist in the Alaska-specific methodologies and Best
Management Practices Guidance under development.  


V.  MARINAS AND RECREATIONAL BOATING

FINDING:  For the siting and design of marinas, Alaska's program includes management
measures in conformity with the 6217(g) guidance and includes enforceable policies and
mechanisms to ensure implementation, except that it does not include a management measure for
storm water runoff.  For operation and maintenance of marinas, Alaska's program does include
the management measure for solid waste, but does not include the remaining operation and
maintenance management measures.  The program includes enforceable policies and mechanisms
to ensure implementation throughout the 6217 management area.

CONDITION:  Within three years, Alaska will include in its program management measures for
storm water runoff and operation and maintenance  in conformity with the 6217(g) guidance.
 
RATIONALE:  Alaska's program includes management measures in conformity with the
6217(g) guidance, but does not include management measures for the storm water runoff
measure, and operation and maintenance activities, with the exception of the solid waste
measure.  Alaska is proposing to supplement its program by developing a manual for Coastal and
Harbor Design Procedures.  The manual will detail the siting and design management measures
and include best management practices for the marinas.  This manual is intended as basic
information to promote awareness of environmental concerns at Alaskan harbors.  The State also
proposes to launch a program for harbor cleanup and disposal of solid waste and liquid and
petroleum spills.  This program will include workshops for marina operators and harbormasters
on how to prepare oil spill response plans and how to comply with Alaska's regulations and
harbor management agreements.  NOAA and EPA encourage the State to complete its Coastal
and Harbor Design Manual in a timely manner.

Alaska has also developed a best management practices manual for operation and maintenance
activities including management practices for: solid and liquid waste; fish waste; petroleum
control; boat cleaning; and maintenance of sewage facilities.  The State has not yet incorporated
the manual into its program, but expects to do so within a few months.  NOAA and EPA
commend the State on completing this manual, and encourage its adoption.  

The vast majority of marinas and harbors are State-owned facilities administered by the DOTPF:
there are only 7 private marinas in the entire State.  For State-owned facilities,  DOTPF can
negotiate Harbor Management Agreements (HMA) with local jurisdictions for the operation of
marinas and harbors.  DOTPF can include appropriate rules and regulations in HMAs with
supplemental conditions as needed; it also has authority to ensure compliance with the HMA. 
State, local, and federal regulations applicable to harbor operation are incorporated into the
HMA.  

Siting and design activities requiring state or federal permits can also be addressed through the
ACMP permitting process, which applies to both public and private marinas.  New or expanding
marinas would likely require nondomestic wastewater permits (18 AAC 72.500), and or DFG
permits under AS 16.05.870.  Permit stipulations can be added to State permits to ensure
compliance with the standards of the ACMP.  For operation and maintenance activities, the State
has several authorities to ensure implementation of the measures at non-DOTPF facilities. 
Harbors and marinas must obtain a solid waste permit (18 AAC 60.015, .025, .200).   The State 
also has authority to address hazardous liquid wastes, petroleum products, and maintenance of
sewage facilities (for example: AS 46.06.021; 18 AAC 62; AS 46.03.740; 18 AAC 72).  The
State needs to develop a process to ensure that the measures contained in the manual discussed
above will be applied to non-DOTPF harbors.


VI.  HYDROMODIFICATION

FINDINGS:  Alaska's program includes management measures in conformity with the 6217(g)
guidance, and includes enforceable policies and mechanisms to ensure implementation of the
management measures; except, Alaska does not include management measures to manage the
operation of dams to protect surface water quality and instream and riparian habitat. 

CONDITIONS: Within three years, Alaska will include in its program management measures to
manage the operation of dams to protect surface water quality and instream and riparian habitat.

RATIONALE:  Alaska requires permits for both new channelization activities and modification
of existing channels (AS 16.05.870).  Permit applications are reviewed for impacts on fish
passage, habitat, water quality and quantity of natural water flow (6 AAC 80.130) .  The State has
completed an analysis of channel modification effects on habitat on the Kenai River, and is
applying the methodology to other altered waterways to identify opportunities to improve surface
water quality and instream and riparian habitat through the operation and maintenance of existing
modified channels.

Alaska implements management measures for erosion and sediment control at dams through
Natural Resources Regulations in the Alaska Administrative Code (11 AAC 93.171).  The
regulations require Erosion and Sediment Control Plans for activities involving construction of
new dams, and demolition of existing dams.  In addition, the DNR Dam Safety program has the
authority to request erosion and sediment control plans (if erosion might be a problem) for
maintenance activities, because most maintenance activities are treated as project modifications.

Alaska implements management measures for chemical and pollutant control at dams by
requiring permits for the proper use of toxic materials, and by requiring proper storage,  handling,
and disposal of solid waste, hazardous waste, and other construction-related wastes  (18 AAC 60
and 62).   Conditions on permits from the Alaska Department of Fish and Game for dam
construction and modification can restrict application of toxic materials and fertilizers (AS
16.05.870).

Alaska implements management measures for protection of surface water quality and instream
and riparian habitat from the effects of dam construction and operation by adding conditions to
permits for new dam construction which stipulate the protection of habitat, fish migration and
propagation, and water quality (AS 16.05.870 and AS 16.05.840).   The State conducts periodic
inspections of operating dams, but the checklist of observations completed by the Dam Safety
Program deals only with issues relating to engineering integrity and not those related to water
quality.   The State program does not include a process to manage the operation of existing dams
to protect surface water quality and instream and riparian habitat.  However, the State intends to
address water quality and habitat issues by developing a database which records and categorizes
aquatic and terrestrial habitat problems from the construction, operation, and maintenance of
dams, and use this to review BMP's which can be attached to permits for dam operation.  When
complete, this approach could enable the State to ensure widespread implementation of the
management measure. The State implements management measures for excessive surface water
withdrawals by adding conditions to water appropriation permits to maintain instream flows to
protect fish and wildlife habitat and water quality (AS 46.15.030 - 035).

To protect anadromous fish habitat and other natural resources, Alaska requires permits for
projects involving streambank and shoreline stabilization, and the State encourages proper design
of structures while giving preference to vegetative controls (AS 16.05.870).  Projects must also
comply with standards of the ACMP, which require coastal areas and shorelines to be managed
to protect important habitats, preserve natural vegetation, and avoid adverse effects on natural
drainage patterns (6 AAC 80.130).  A very small portion of the State's streambanks and
shorelines are impacted by humans, and demonstration streambank stabilization projects have
helped to increase public awareness about the destruction of streamside habitat due to human
activities in waterfront areas.  Additional demonstration projects are planned.




     VII. WETLANDS, RIPARIAN AREAS AND VEGETATED TREATMENT SYSTEMS

FINDING:  Alaska's program includes management measures in conformity with the 6217(g)
guidance, and includes enforceable policies and mechanisms to ensure implementation.

RATIONALE:  Projects requiring State permits are subject to the ACMP.  Under the ACMP,
projects in wetlands and riparian areas are reviewed for impacts on biological, physical and
chemical characteristics of the habitat (6 AAC 80.130; 6 AAC 80.140).  Also,  under AS 16.05 
construction activities that could pollute fish-bearing waters, including wetlands, must submit a
plan that protects the fish and their habitat.  Under the Forest Practices Act (AS 41.17), timber
harvest is prohibited within 100 feet of anadromous streams, or high value streams, on State,
federal, and private (including native corporation) land in Alaska (except private lands in
southeast Alaska, where timber can be harvested within 66 feet of streams in these categories). 
DEC also evaluates a project's potential impacts on water quality before issuing a water quality
certification.  These certifications are enforceable under State law (AS 46.03.850(a)).  

The Municipality of Anchorage and City and Borough of Juneau have implemented wetlands
management plans which identify sensitive wetlands, specify practices for protection and
restoration of high-value wetlands, and contain enforceable policies requiring, under certain
circumstances, mitigation for wetland damages from development.  Similar plans for wetlands
management and conservation are anticipated for other populated areas of the State's coastal
region.

Management measures promoting restoration of wetland and riparian areas are implemented
through the State's coastal management and fish habitat programs which require restoration for
mitigation of wetlands loss or degradation (6 AAC 80.130 and AS 16.05.870).  Restoration is
already a key component of wetlands management plans in Anchorage and Juneau, as well as in
the plans under development for other population centers.  A work group comprised of
government, industry, and indigenous peoples of the North Slope are developing a mitigation
strategy which will emphasize restoration.

Management measures promoting vegetative treatment systems are implemented through
government and industry who are assessing the performance, effectiveness, and durability of
existing demonstration projects.  The use of constructed wetlands and filter strips as nonpoint
source controls for runoff is promising, but limited in the State's environment, due to cold
climate, short growing season, and locally heavy rates of precipitation.        







VIII.  ADMINISTRATIVE COORDINATION

FINDING: Alaska's program establishes mechanisms to improve coordination among State
agencies and between State and local officials.

RATIONALE: Alaska has several existing mechanisms for promoting intergovernmental
coordination.  For example, the coordinated consistency review process (6 AAC 50), establishes
a coordinated State/local project review process.  In addition, there is a statutory requirement (AS
46.40.200) that requires all State agencies, boards and commissions to examine their authorities
and take whatever actions are necessary to ensure compliance with the Alaska Coastal
Management Program.  The submittal describes the various agencies' authorities and roles in the
implementation of the management measures.  To further enhance coordination, the State has
committed to complete a statewide nonpoint source pollution needs assessment and action plan
within the next 18 months.  This will help set a common agenda and improve coordination.
               

IX.  PUBLIC PARTICIPATION

FINDING: Alaska's program provides opportunities for public participation in the development
and implementation of the coastal nonpoint program.

RATIONALE: Chapter 2 of the State's program submittal describes activities that provide
opportunities for public participation in the coastal nonpoint program.  The State established 
a 6217 Task Force consisting of State and local government representatives to help give local
coastal districts an opportunity to guide the development and implementation of the program. 
The State undertook an outreach and education campaign to promote public participation in
program development.  The State has also held informational sessions for affected parties such 
as port administrators and the municipal league.  The State intends to continue these activities as
part of its efforts to ensure strong implementation of its 6217 program.


X.  TECHNICAL ASSISTANCE

FINDING: Alaska has included programs that will provide technical assistance to local
governments and the public for implementing additional management measures.

RATIONALE: Chapter 2 of Alaska's submittal details a variety of technical assistance
initiatives available to local government and the public, as well as an ongoing action plan to
provide for continued technical assistance.  For example, DGC initiated the Coastal Clean Water
Grant Program.  This program provides small grants to local governments to support efforts (e.g.,
data collection, education, demonstration projects) that will lead to better implementation of
management measures.   The Department of Community and Regional Affairs supports an
electronic library of local ordinances relating to surface runoff and other water pollution
problems.  To address the Alaska specific issue of tidal grids, DOTPF is developing best design
practices for tidal grid layout and design and use minimize water quality impacts.    

After the State completes its section 319 Nonpoint Source Pollution needs assessment, it plans to
convene a series of meeting involving affected parties.  The purpose of these meetings will be to
refine and coordinate technical assistance and public outreach efforts.


XI.  CRITICAL COASTAL AREAS

FINDING: Alaska's program does not identify and include a process for the continuing
identification of critical coastal areas adjacent to impaired and threatened coastal waters.

CONDITION: Within two years, Alaska will identify and include a process for the continuing
identification of  critical coastal areas.

RATIONALE: Although the program does not identify critical coastal areas, it does describe
initial efforts to complete this requirement (Chapter 11).  The program also includes a 
preliminary list of impaired and threatened waters and coastal waters of concern.  The program
also commits the State to a consultative process to identify critical coastal areas and delineate
appropriate boundaries. 
                         


XII.  ADDITIONAL MANAGEMENT MEASURES

FINDING: Alaska's program does not provide for the identification and the continuing revision
of additional management measures applicable to critical coastal areas and cases where (g)
measures are fully implemented but water quality threats or impairments persist.

CONDITION: Within two years, Alaska will develop a process for developing and revising
management measures to be applied in critical coastal areas and in areas where necessary to
attain and maintain water quality standards.

RATIONALE: Alaska's program includes a commitment to develop and implement additional
management measures once the identification of critical coastal areas and land uses is completed. 
However, the program does not include a continuing process, including milestones for
implementing, evaluating, and, as necessary, revising the additional management measures.





XIII.  MONITORING

FINDING:  Alaska's program does not yet include a plan to assess over time the success of the
management measures in reducing pollution loads and improving water quality.

CONDITION:  Within one year, Alaska will finalize its plan that enables the State to assess
over time the extent to which implementation of management measures is reducing pollution
loads and improving water quality.  

RATIONALE:  Alaska proposes a one-page "action plan" to develop a monitoring program for
section 6217.  The brief plan identifies six tasks, including a survey of existing monitoring
efforts in the State, establishment of watershed monitoring objectives, identification of
monitoring needs, an assessment of gaps in current monitoring efforts, an evaluation of options
to fill the gaps, and implementation of the program.  Thus, Alaska has not yet formulated its
strategy to assess over time the success of the management measures in reducing pollution loads
and improving water quality.

Alaska should include in its plan information regarding the number and location of monitoring
stations, the types and frequency of water quality data being collected, and the analytic
approaches that will be employed in conjunction with existing monitoring efforts to assess the
success of management measures in achieving water quality objectives.  The State should include
some inexpensive tracking of management measure implementation in conjunction with water
quality monitoring, as such information is needed to assess the success of management measures
in achieving water quality objectives.