# Alaska’s Final 20 10 Integrated Water Quality Monitoring and Assessment Report July 15, 2010



# Alaska Department of Environmental ConservationAlaska’s Final 20 10 Integrated Report



### iv Alaska’s Final 2010 Integrated Report 

### Section Page

1 Introduction

................................ ................................ ................................ ................................ ........... 1 The Purpose of the 2010 Integrated Water Quality Assessment Report

................................ ................. 1 Assessment Results

................................ ................................ ................................ ................................ .. 2 Waterbody Cate gories

................................ ................................ ................................ .............................. 3 Alaska’s Approach to Impaired Waterbodies

................................ ................................ .......................... 4 Significant Changes from Alaska’s 2008 Integrated Water Quality Assessment Report

........................ 5 Pu blic Process Overview

................................ ................................ ................................ ......................... 7
2 Description of Categories and Overview of Assessment Methodology and Results

........................ 8
General Assessment Methods

................................ ................................ ................................ .................. 8 Gene ral Considerations for All Waterbody Categories

................................ ................................ ........... 9 Data Quality Considerations

................................ ................................ ................................ .............. 9 Data Quantity Considerations

................................ ................................ ................................ ............ 9 Categories and Assessments

................................ ................................ ................................ .................. 10 Catego ry 1

– WQS Attained for All Uses

................................ ................................ .......................... 10 Category 2

– WQS Attained for Designated Uses

................................ ................................ ............ 10 Category 3

– Data or Information Insufficient

................................ ................................ ................. 10 Cate gory 4

– Impaired Waterbody

................................ ................................ ................................ ... 14 Category 5

– Impaired Waterbodies on the Section 303(d) List

................................ ...................... 16
APPENDIX A Waterbody Categories 2 through 5

................................ ................................ ........... 21 Category 2 Waterbodies

................................ ................................ ................................ ......................... 22 Category 3 Waterbodies

................................ ................................ ................................ ......................... 41 Category 4a Waterbodies

................................ ................................ ................................ ....................... 49 Category 4b Waterbodies

................................ ................................ ................................ ....................... 61 Category 5/Section 303(d) Listed Waterbodies

................................ ................................ ..................... 64
APPENDIX B Waterbodies Removed From the Section 303(d) List

................................ .............. 78 APPENDIX C TMDL Schedule and Factors

................................ ................................ ..................... 83 Alaska TMDL Completion Date Schedule (Revised 10/09)

................................ ................................ . 83 Factors Considered in Alaska’s 2010 TMDL Schedule Revision

................................ ......................... 83
APPENDIX D Logic Flow Diagram

................................ ................................ ................................ ... 86 APPENDIX E List of Alaska’s Category 5/ Section 303(d) Impaired Waters

............................... 87 APPENDIX F Alaska Water Quality Management Programs

................................ ....................... 90 Alaska Water Quality Standards

................................ ................................ ................................ ............ 90 Al aska’s Clean Water Actions

................................ ................................ ................................ ............... 92 

## able of Contents 

# TAlaska’s Final 20 10 Integrated Report



### v Alaska’s Final 2010 Integrated Report 

### Alaska’s Approach to Water Resources Management

................................ ................................ ...... 92 Alaska Water Monitoring and Assessment Strategy

................................ ................................ ......... 93 Alaska’s Aquatic Resource Surveys

– Probabilistic Assessments

................................ .................... 94 Nonpoint Source Pollution Program

................................ ................................ ................................ ...... 96 Coastal Nonpoint Source Pollution

................................ ................................ ................................ ........ 98 Point Source Pollution Program

................................ ................................ ................................ ............ 99 Overall Approach

................................ ................................ ................................ .............................. 99 Delegation of the Wastewater Permitting Program

................................ ................................ ....... 100 Focus on High

- Priority Permits

................................ ................................ ................................ ..... 100 Enhancement of Compliance

................................ ................................ ................................ .......... 100 Provision of Technical Information

................................ ................................ ................................ 100 Streamlining of the Permitting Process

................................ ................................ .......................... 100 Protection of Subsurface W astewater

................................ ................................ ............................. 101 Regulation of Stormwater

................................ ................................ ................................ ............... 101 Environmental Compliance Program for Commercial Passenger Vessels

................................ .... 102 Drinking Water Program

................................ ................................ ................................ ................ 102 Public W ater System and Drinking Water Compliance

................................ ................................ .. 102 Drinking Water Protection

................................ ................................ ................................ ............. 104 Groundwater Protection

................................ ................................ ................................ ................. 106 Wetlands

................................ ................................ ................................ ................................ .......... 109
APPENDIX G Interpretation of the Residues Criterion in Alaska Water Quality Standards for Use in Attainment and Impairment Determinations

................................ ................................ .......... 113
RESIDUE CRITERIA

................................ ................................ ................................ ......................... 113 ZONES OF DEPOSIT

................................ ................................ ................................ ......................... 115

18 AAC 70.210. ZONES OF DEPOSIT.

................................ ................................ ......................... 115 History of the One

-

Acre Threshold

................................ ................................ ................................ . 116 Background on General Permits for Log Transfer Facilities

................................ ......................... 117 Application of Zones of Deposits for Residues to Seafood Processing Facilities

.......................... 118 Criteria for Waterbody Categories

................................ ................................ ................................ . 119 Removal of Waterbodies from the Category 5/Section 303(d) List Determined to Be Impaired from Residues

................................ ................................ ................................ ................................ .......... 125
APPENDIX H Alaska Clean Water Actions (ACWA) Priority Ranking

................................ ..... 126 APPENDIX I Supplemental Listing Methodology

................................ ................................ ........ 134 Guidance for Determining Water Quality Impairments from Residues

................................ .............. 134 Seafood Processing Facilities

................................ ................................ ................................ ......... 134 Log Transfer Facilities

................................ ................................ ................................ ................... 134 Removal of Waterbodies Determined to be Impaired from Residues from the Category 5 List

..... 135 Guidance for Determining Water Quality Impairments from Turbidity

................................ ............. 136

Parame ter

- Specific Criteria

................................ ................................ ................................ ............ 136 Identification of Natural Conditions

................................ ................................ ............................... 136 Guidance for Determining Water Quality Attainment or Impairment from Pathogens

...................... 138 Guidance for Determining Water Quality Impairments from Pathogens for Fresh Water Uses

........ 138Alaska’s Final 20 10 Integrated Report



### vi Alaska’s Final 2010 Integrated Report 

### Minimum Numb er of Samples

................................ ................................ ................................ ......... 138 Assessment and Sampling Period

................................ ................................ ................................ ... 138 Approach for Determining Attainment or Impairment Caused by Fecal Coliform Bacteria for Fresh Water Uses

................................ ................................ ................................ ............................ 139 Guidance for Determining Water Quality Attainment or Impairment from Pathogens for Marine Water Uses

................................ ................................ ................................ ................................ ........... 139 Minimum Number of Samples

................................ ................................ ................................ ......... 139 Assessment and Sampling Period

................................ ................................ ................................ ... 140 Approach for Determining Attainment or Impairment Caused by Fecal Coliform Bacteria for Marine Water Uses

................................ ................................ ................................ ................................ ........... 140 Criterion for the ―Har vesting for Consumption of Raw Mollusks or Other Aquatic Life‖ Marine Water Use

................................ ................................ ................................ ................................ ............ 140 Minimum Number of Samples

................................ ................................ ................................ ......... 140 Approach for Determining Impairment

................................ ................................ .......................... 141 Criteria for Marine Water Use for Coastal Recreation Areas (Primary Contact)

................................ 141 Minimum Number of Samples Required for Attainment or Impairment for Coastal Recreation Areas

................................ ................................ ................................ ................................ ............... 141Alaska’s Final 20 10 Integrated Report



### vii Alaska’s Final 2010 Integrated Report 

### Table Page

Table 1: Alaska Quick Facts

................................ ................................ ................................ ........................ 2

Table 2: Number of Waterbodies

................................ ................................ ................................ ................. 4

Table F

- 1 Designated Uses of Fresh Water and Marine Waterbodies in Ala ska

................................ .. 90

Table F

- 2 Estimated Wetland Acreage

................................ ................................ ................................ 109

Table F

- 3 Wetland Assessment Activity

................................ ................................ ............................. 111

Figure Page

Figure 1 Alaska's Impaired Waters & Number of TMDLs Completed for Reporting Interval

............ 5 Figure D

- 1 Logic Flow Diagram for Making Category Determinations

................................ ................. 86 Figure F

- 1 Location Map

................................ ................................ ................................ ........................ 95 Figure F

- 2 Groundwater Uses

................................ ................................ ................................ ............... 107 Figure F

- 3 Distribution of Community & Nontransient/Noncommunity Public Water Systems in

Alaska Using Ground water

................................ ................................ ................................ . 108 

## i st of Figures 

# L i st of Tables 

# LAlaska’s Final 20 10 Integrated Report



### viii Alaska’s Final 2010 Integrated Report 

## ist of Abbreviations and Acronyms 

# L

μg/L micrograms per liter

AAC Alaska Administrative Code

ACWA Alaska Clean Water Actions

ADF&G Alaska Department of Fish and Game

APDES Alaska Pollutant Discharge Elimination System

ARWA Alaska Rural Water Association

ATTF Alaska Timber Task Force

BEACH Beaches Environmental Assessm ent and Coastal Health

BMP best management practice

BOD5 5

- day biochemical oxygen demand

BTEX benzene, toluene, ethylbenzene, and xylenes

DEC Alaska Department of Environmental Conservation

CBS City and Borough of Sitka

CERCLA Comprehensive Environmental Response

, Compensation

, and L iability Act

cfs cubic feet per second

cm centimeter

CWA Clean Water Act

CWS C ommunity W ater S ystem

CZARA Coastal Zone Act Reauthorization Amendments

DNR Alaska Department of Natural Resources

DO dissolved o xygen

DRO diesel

- r ange organicsAlaska’s Final 20 10 Integrated Report



### ix Alaska’s Final 2010 Integrated Report 

### DWP Drinking Water Protection

EPA U.S. Environmental Protection Agency

FC fecal coliform

GP G eneral P ermit

GPS global positioning system

GRO gasoline

- range organics

LTF log transfer facility

LSA log storage area

MCL maximum contaminant level

mgd million gallons per day

ml milliliter

NCA National Coastal Assessment

NOAA National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration

NPDES National Pollut ant Discharge Elimination System

NPS National Park Service

NTNCWS N on

- transient, N on

- community W ater S ystem

PAH polynuclear or polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbon s

PCB polychlor inated biphenyl

PWS public water system

PWSS P ublic W ater S ystem S upervision

QAPP quality assurance project plan

ROD r ecord of d ecision

SDWA Safe Drinking Water Act

SDWIS Safe Drinking Water Information System

SFY State Fiscal YearAlaska’s Final 20 10 Integrated Report



### x Alaska’s Final 2010 Integrated Report 

### SPAR DEC’s Division of Spill Planning and Response

STORET STOrage and RETrieval, an EPA environmental database

SVE soil vapor extraction

TAH total aromatic hydrocarbon

TCE t richloroeth yl ene

TDS total dissolved solids

TMDL total maximum daily load

TNCWS T ransient N on

- community W ater S ystem

TOC total organic carbon

TSAIA Ted Stevens Anchorage International Airport

TSS total suspended s ediment

UIC underground injection control

USACE U.S. Army Corps of Engineers

USF&WS U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service

USFS U.S. Forest Service

USGS U.S. Geological Survey

WFLHD Western Federal Lands and Highway Division

WPMP Wellhead Protection Management Plan

WQS water quality standards

WSA Wadeable Streams Assessment

ZOD Zone of DepositAlaska’s Final 20 10 Integrated Report

1. Introduction

— Purpose and Approach



### 1 

# 1 Introduction

The Purpose of the 20 10 Integrated Water Quality Assessment Report

The Clean Water Act (CWA) mandates that each state develop a program to monitor and report on the quality of its surface and groundwaters and prepare a report describing the status of its water quality

. The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) then compiles and summarizes the information and sends this information in a report to Congress

. The process for developing in formation on the quality of the nation’s water resources is contained in several sections of the CWA

. Most prominent are Section 305(b) , which requires that the quality of all waterbodies be characterized , and Section 303(d) which requires that states list any waterbodies that do not meet water quality standards (WQS)

. The Alaska WQS are documented in Title 18, Chapter 70, of the Alaska Administrative Code (18 AAC 70)

. EPA has recommended that the Section 305(b) reports and the Section 303(d) list of impaired waters be integrated into a single, comprehensive monitoring and assessment report, the Integrated Water Quality Monitoring and Assessment Report (Integrated Report )

. This integrated approach allows each state to identify any water quality problems, develop remediation plans

, and ultimately, achieve WQS in all of its waters

. The Alaska Department of Environmental Conservation (DEC) considers the Integrated Report an important tool for understanding the health of Alaska’s waters and identifying actions that can be taken to improve water quality in Alaska

. W ater quality information is one component that contributes to the efforts and priorities under the Alaska Clean Wa ter Actions (ACWA) initiative, a much broader and more comprehensive assessment that includes water quality, water quantity

, and aquatic habitat

. M ore detailed description s of the ACWA initiative and its process for assessing information and establishing w aterbody priorities are available in Section 2 and Appendix F.

The 2010 Integrated Report is a statewide water quality assessment

. It describes whether the existing condition of each Alaska waterbod y is sufficient to maintain multiple designated uses of th at waterbody

. Alaska WQS designate seven uses for fresh waters (drinking water ; agriculture ; aquaculture ; industrial ; contact recreation ; non

- contact recreation ; and growth and propagation of fish, shellfish, other aquatic life, and wildlife) and seven use s for marine waters (aquaculture ; seafood processing ; industrial ; contact recreation ; non

- contact recreation ; growth and propagation of fish, shellfish

, other aquatic life

, and wildlife ; and harvesting raw mollusks or other raw aquatic life for human consumption)

. Sources of information used by DEC to develop the bi annual water quality assessment include monitoring data (e.g., water testing), professional knowledge , and evaluations such a s those provided by water resource managers, fish and wildlife biologists, and aquatic biologists.

This Integrated R eport fulfills the CWA Section 305(b) requirement that each state provide a comprehensive report of water quality to EPA

. The report documen ts a comprehensive evaluation of theAlaska’s Final 20 10 Integrated Report

1. Introduction

— Purpose and Approach



### 2 status and health of each waterbody in the State of Alaska and describ es state programs for maintaining or improving the quality of Alaska’s waters.

In addition, this report describes the process for evaluating whether waterbodies attain WQS or are impaired (polluted)

. T his process includes classifying each waterbody according to five categories, depending on their health; determining which waterbodies need further action; scheduling when each impaired waterbody will be addressed; involving the public in determining how water quality will be addressed; and determining how waterbodies are removed from the impaired waterbody list.

DEC water quality programs are described in Appendix F.



## Assessment Results

Alaska is rich in w ater quantity, water quality, and aquatic resources ; almost half of the total surface waters of the United States are located with in the state

. Because of the size, sparse population, and remote character of Alaska , the vast majority of its water resources are in pristine condition

. More than 99.9% of Alaska’s waters are considered unimpaired

. Among the state’s vast water resources are more than 3 million lakes, 714,00 0 miles of streams and rivers, 44 ,000 miles of coastline, and approximately 17 4

, 683

, 9 00 acres of wetlands

. L ess than 0.1% of these water resources have been identified as impaired

. Historically, Alaska’s water quality individual assessments have focused on areas with known or suspected water quality impairments. Appendix A provides detailed i nformation about the individual assessments and Appendix F provides information about the probalistic assessment program. The table below provides information about Alaska.

Table 1 : Alaska Quick Facts Atlas

– Topic Value Value State population 6 86 ,0 00 a 

### State surface area (square miles) 656,425 Total miles of rivers and streams 714,004 Number of lakes/reservoirs/ponds 3,000,000+ Acres of lakes/reservoirs/ponds 12,787,200 Miles of coastal shoreline 44,000 Wetland Acreages b


### Palustrine

– non

- tidal: muskegs, bogs, forested wetlands, tundra, open water 172,503,400

Estuarine

—

bays, salt marshes, beaches 2,131,900 Marine intertidal

— ocean shoreline 48,600 Total wetland acres 174,683,900

Notes:

a. US Census Bureau National and State Population Estimates , Sept ember 2009 http://www.census.gov/popest/states/NST

- ann

est.html b. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service

, Cowardin Classification of Wetlands and Deepwate r Habitat , 1979



### In Alaska, s urface fresh water supplies three

- fourths of water need ed for industry, agriculture, mining, fish processing, and public water use and is used for about half of the domestic water supply

. Alaska’s surface waters include more th an 15,000 salmon streams, an important resource for Alaskans and the world

. Alaska also has the largest groundwater resources of any state.Alaska’s Final 20 10 Integrated Report

1. Introduction

— Purpose and Approach



### 3 Alaska is sparsely populated , having approximately 6 86 ,000 residents (approximately one resident per square mile)

. Urban development is concentrated in a few main population centers, and the majority of people liv e in Southcentral Alaska. The 200 7

- 200 8 U.S

. Census showed population increase d since the previous census in most areas of the state

. Almost 50% of the state’s population lives in the Municipality of Anchorage in Southcentral Alaska

. The o ther major population center s are Juneau, the state capital, in Southeast Alaska , and Fairbanks in Interior Alaska

. Communities outside these major population centers
te nd to be small and generally not connected by roads.

As population grows and the natural resource

- base d economy expands in Alaska , an increasing number of state waters, especially in urban areas, face the threat of degradation

. In specific localized parts of Alaska, surface water quality has been impaired

. W aters in urban settings (cities, towns, and villages) are predominantly impaired from sediment, turbidity, and fecal coliform (FC) bacteria contamination caused by urban and stormwater runoff

. Other sou rces of impairment are sediment and turbidity from mining activities in Interior Alaska, residues from seafood processing facilities in coastal zone s , contaminated military sites in Southcentral and Southwest Alaska, and bark and wood residues from timber processing and transfer facilities in coastal Southeast Alaska

. Petroleum products, such as oil spills or fuel leaks, are also source s of impairment within the state.



## Waterbod y Categories

Generally, waterbodies are assigned to categories by the degree to which water quality goals are attained

. The five categories and three subcategories are described below : Category 1. All WQS for all designated uses are attained. Category 2. Some WQS for the designated uses are attained, but data and in formation to determine whether the WQS for the remaining uses are attained are insufficient or absent. Category 3. Data or information is insufficient to determine whether the WQS for any designated uses are attained. Category 4. The waterbody is determine d to be impaired but does not need a t otal m aximum d aily l oad (TMDL).

o Category 4a. An established and EPA

- approved TMDL exists for the impaired water

.

o Category 4b

. R equirements from other pollution control s have been identified to meet WQS for the impaired water

.

o Category 4c

. F ailure to meet a water quality standard for the impaired water is not caused by a pollutant ; instead , the impairment is caused by a source of pollution such as nuisance aquatic plants, degraded habitat, or a dam that affects flow

. Category 5. WQS for one or more designated uses are not attained and the waterbody requires a TMDL or recovery plan. Category 5 waters are those waters identified on the Section 303(d) list of impaired waters.

The following table summarizes the number of waterbod ies in each category as determined by the evaluation of existing and readily available water quality data and information reviewed for this draft 20 10 Integrated Report

.Alaska’s Final 20 10 Integrated Report

1. Introduction

— Purpose and Approach



### 4 Table 2 : Number of Waterbodies Category Number of Waterbodies 1 Majority of Alaskan waters 2 4 4 3 30 4 4a 3 3 4b 4 4c 0 5 2 8



## Alaska’s Approach to Impaired Waterbodies

Alaska’s process for listing a n individual waterbody for failure to meet WQS , as required in the CWA Section 303(d)

, begins with an internal review of existing and new information to determine (1) the presence of pollutants , (2) whether persistent exceedances of WQS are occurring, (3) whether impacts

on the designated uses are occ urring, and (4) the degree to which WQS and the other criteria are attained

. The specific criteria used for evaluation and listing of waterbodies associated with residue discharges from log transfer or seafood processing facilities are found in Appendi x es G and I

.

When a waterbody is placed on the Section 303(d) list, a TMDL or recovery plan is developed, unless data obtained after the listing indicate that the waterbody is no longer impaired or other measures are undertaken to restore the waterbody

. State of Alaska waterbodies on the Section 303(d) list are scheduled for development of a TMDL (see Appendix C) or waterbody recovery plan between now and 201 4

. Specific criteria apply for delisting of impaired waterbodies in Section 2, and Appendices G and I

.

When a TMDL or waterbody recovery plan is developed, a public process is initiated

. As part of the
process, the public is notified of the document and can comment on it

.Alaska’s Final 20 10 Integrated Report

1. Introduction

— Purpose and Approach



### 5 Figure 1 Alaska's Impaired Waters & Number of TMDLs Compl eted for Reporting Interval 

## Sign ificant Changes from Alaska’s 200 8 Integrated Water Quality Assessment Report

This 2010 Integrated Report documents the following water quality impairment changes from the 2008 Integrated Report :

Addition of n ine new impairments to the Section 303(d) list of impaired waters (Category 5):

o Coffman Cove C reeks

– consisting of five creeks , impaired from cadmium, copper, iron, manganese, nickel, and zinc

. o Cottonwood Creek

– 7 miles of the creek impaired from FC bacteria.

o Kuskokwim River

– 1000 feet of the river near confluence with Red Devil Creek impaired from antimony, arsenic, and mercury

. o Red Devil Creek

– 0.5 miles of the creek impaired from antimony, arsenic, and mercury

. o Salt Chuck Bay

– impaired from copper 48

31 56 51 58

48

34 33

25 28

10 14 24 37 37 37 37 61 72 71 71 70

62 65

0 0 1 10
4 9 10

3 1 4

1990 1992 1994 1996 1998 2003 2004 2006 2008 2010 

# Alaska's Impaired Waters & Number of TMDLs Completed for Reporting Interval

Category 5 Section 303(d) Listed Impaired Waters Category 4a and 4b Waters with Pollution Controls Identified Total Impaired Waters (Category 4a+4b+5)

TMDLs Completed for Section 303(d) Listed Waters during Reporting IntervalAlaska’s Final 20 10 Integrated Report

1. Introduction

— Purpose and Approach



### 6 Five w a ters now attaining WQS :

o Caribou Creek

– The water is meeting the turbidity standard.

o Iliuliuk Bay

– The water i s meeting the petroleum hydrocarbon s standard.

o Jewel Lake

– Th e water is meeting the FC bacteria standard

. o Kenai River

– The water is meeting th e petroleum hydrocarbons standard.

o Nakwasina River

– The water is meeting the turbidity and sediment standards.

F our i mpaired waters now under a plan:

o Jordan Creek

– A TMDL has been developed for sediment and dissolved oxygen (DO)

. o Klag Bay

– A TMDL has been developed for metals.

o Noyes Slough

– A TMDL has been developed for residues ; the waterbody remains impaired from sediment and petroleum hydrocarbons.

o Pullen Creek

– A TMDL has been developed for metals.

Six m odification s of waters with impairments:

o Cottonwood Creek

– This water is no longer impaired from residues; however, 7 miles of the creek are being listed for FC bacteria.

o Chena River

– This water is no longer impaired from petroleum hydrocarbons ; it remains listed for sediment.

o Chena Slough

– Th is water is no longer impaired from petroleum hydrocarbons ; it remains listed for sediment

o Dutch Harbor

– Most of the water has been found to be meeting WQS, but areas of impairment still exist

. o Hood/Spenard Lakes

– This water is no longer impaired from FC bacteria ; it remains impaired from low DO

. o Ward Cove

– This water is no longer impaired from sediment toxicity ; it remains impaired for residues.

N e w listing and assessment methodology has be e n proposed for pathogens

. N o impairment determinations based on this new methodology were made in this 2010 report

. Th e new listing and assessment methodology proposed for pathogens does not change the FC bacteria standard within Alaska’s WQS (in 18 AAC 70) ; however, it does provide direction for implementing the standard when making water quality attainment or impairment determinations

. Other broader changes reflected in the 2010 report include the following:

Six new waterbodies are reported in Category 3 because waters were added to the DEC water quality assessm ent database , which now identifies 303 Category 3 waterbodies.

Narratives were u pdate d based on existing and readily available information. Updates to Category 4a waterbody narratives were completed to describe development of TMDL s

. ACWA waterbody priorit y rankings are included in Appendix H

. S ome descriptions of water quality management program s were updated in Appendix F.Alaska’s Final 20 10 Integrated Report

1. Introduction

— Purpose and Approach



### 7 

## Public Process Overview

DEC has an open, ongoing solicitation for water quality data and information

. T o solicit ACWA waterbody nomina tions , DEC coordinates a continuous effort among state resource agenc ies

. During the preparation and development of Alaska’s 20 1 0 Integrated Report, DEC actively solicited readily available and existing water quality data and information for use in prepar ing the r eport.

DEC posted a public notice solicitation for existing and readily available water quality data and information from August 3 to September 18, 2009

. A 30

- day public review and comment of th e draft 20 1 0 Integrated Report wa s provided fr om Febr uary 2 6 , 20 1 0

, to March 30 , 2010

.
DEC consider ed public comments on the public no tice draft of the report and mad e necessary changes to the final report. DEC prepare d a responsiveness summary on the public comments received on the draft report and informa tion received during the solicitation

.Alaska’s Final 20 10 Integrated Report

2. Categories, Assessment Methodology, and Results



### 8 

# 2 Description of Categories and Overview of Assessment Methodology and Results

This section of the Integrated Report describes the process used by the State of Alaska to evaluate the nature, health, and status of waterbodies

. This evaluation process includes assigning waterbodies into five categories, depending on their health; deter mining which waterbodies need further action; scheduling when each polluted or impaired waterbody will be addressed ; and involving the public in determining how waterbodies will be addressed

. (Figure D

- 1, Logic Flow Diagram for Making Category Determinatio ns , in Appendix D portrays the logic of assigning waterbodies to categories

. )

Section 303(d) requires a list of impaired waterbodies that are not expected to meet standards without additional controls. Section 303(d) requires that for waterbodies found to be impaired or polluted, a TMDL must be conducted and implemented

. A lternatively, a waterbody recovery plan can be developed and the water is placed in Category 4b

. Many Section 303(d) listed waters have not undergone comprehensive water quality assessm ents to determine the extent of water quality impairment or whether existing controls are adequate to achieve the standards

. DEC closely scrutinizes waterbodies to determine whether suspected water quality violations or persistent exceedances of WQS have b een thoroughly investigated and documented

. Careful review by DEC is intended to prevent the listing of waterbodies with inconclusive or circumstantial data or solely on the basis of observation.



## General Assessment Methods

DEC actively solicits all existi ng and readily available water quality data and information in accordance with EPA guidance

. Th e information gathered is not limited to w aters for which water quality problems have been reported by local, s tate, or federal agencies; members of the public; or academic institutions. O rganizations and groups are contacted for research they may be conducting or reporting. U niversity researchers, the U .S. Department of Agriculture, the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) , the U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) , and the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USF&WS) are examples of such sources of field data.

DEC actively accepts and solicits water quality data and information on a continuous basis. Additionally, formal public notice that such information is sought is made every 2 years as part of develop ing the Integrated Report.

DEC considers and evaluates data and information from a wide range of sources, such as those listed below:

Previous reports prepared to satisfy CWA Sections 305(b), 303(d)

, and 314 and any updatesAlaska’s Final 20 10 Integrated Report

2. Categories, Assessment Methodology, and Results



### 9 R eports of ambient water quality data

, including those prepared as part of s tate ambient water quality monitoring programs, complaint investigations

, information generated by the public and other sources that provide readily available data (e.g., STORET

, an EPA environmental database ), and data and information provided in public comments

R eports of dilution calculations or predictive models

W ater quality management plans

R ecords of d ecision (RODs) for Superfund (contaminated) sites Safe Drinking Water Act (SDWA) source water assessments

In addition to these conventional sources of data

, DEC also considers water quality data and information from citizen volunteer monitoring networks.


## General Considerations for All W aterbody Cat egories

The following subsections describe data quality and quantity considerations addressed by DEC when evaluating a water for inclusion on or removal from the Section 303(d) list of impaired waters (Category 5) or in making an attainment determination. 

## Data Quality Considerations

DEC consider s whether typical elements of a quality assurance project plan (QAPP) are submitted for water quality data and information . A QAPP checklist for sampling, a QAPP review checklist, and a description of elements that c haracterize a good QAPP are available on the DECs web site at http://www.dec.state.ak.us/water/wqapp/wqapp_index.htm

. Water quality data and information that is collected and submitted wi thout a QAPP or that uses a QAPP for which the level of confidence is weak wi ll not be relied on to make an impairment determination

. Such data and information may only be considered as ancillary information to support an attainment or impairment determina tion. 

## Data Quantity Considerations

A dequate data quantity is necessary to make well

- grounded attainment and impairment decisions

. Assessments based on larger sample sets are preferred because they are more likely to yield accurate conclusions than assessme nts based on smaller sample sets.

Enough data or information should be available to indicate that standards are or are not exceeded, or that uses are or are not impaired, and that such measurements are representative of the waterbody.Alaska’s Final 20 10 Integrated Report

2. Categories, Assessment Methodology, and Results



### 10 

## Categories and Assessments
Category 1

– WQS Attained for All Uses

Waterbodies are placed in this category if data are available to support a determination that all WQS are attained.
Criteria Used to Classify a Waterbody as Category 1 The majority of Alaska’s waters are n ot subject to man

- caused stressors and are considered unimpaired

. DEC expects that 99.9% of Alaska’s waters can be classified as Category 1 ; however

, no specific waters

are identified in this category. 

## Category 2

– WQS Attained for Designated Uses

Waterbod ies are placed in this category if some of the WQS for the designated uses are attained.

Waterbodies are placed in C ategory 2 if data and information are available to support a determination that some, but not all, uses are attained and if the attainment s tatus for the remaining uses is unknown because there is insufficient or no data or information

. These waters are presumed to be attaining all

uses

. Monitoring should be scheduled for these waters to determine whether the uses previously found to be in att ainment remain in attainment and to determine the attainment status of those uses for which data and information were previously insufficient to make a determination

. The 4 4 waterbodies assigned to Category 2 are identified in Appendix A

.
Criteria Used to Classify a Waterbody as Category 2

Waterbodies that have been previously identified as impaired but are now attaining a water quality standard are placed in this category. Examples are waters for which a TMDL or other pollution controls have been implemented or for which recent monitoring data support a determination that the water quality standard is attained.

Waterbodies associated with residue discharges are also placed in Category 2 if recent dive survey reports show that WQS are atta ined and have continued to be attained.

Waterbodies that were determined to be impaired from residues and listed as Category 5 but have a documented continuous coverage of residues of less than 1.0 acre are also placed in Category 2 and are identified in A ppendix A. 

## Category 3

– Data or Information Insufficient

Waterbodies are placed in Category 3 if d ata or information are insufficient to determine whether the WQS are attained for any of the designated uses.

An additional seven waterbodies have been ident ified for placement in Category 3 since the 2008 Integrated Report . The 30 4 Category 3 waterbodies are identified in Appendix A

.Alaska’s Final 20 10 Integrated Report

2. Categories, Assessment Methodology, and Results



### 11 Criteria Used to Classify Waterbodies as Category 3

Alaska’s water resources include more than 3 million lakes larger than 5 a cres in size, 714 ,00 4 miles of rivers and streams, more than 175 million acres o f fresh water wetlands, and 44 ,000 miles of coastal shoreline

. Because of the size of its water resources, Alaska has insufficient, inadequate, or little to no data or information to support attainment or impairment determinations for many waterbodies

. DEC expects that the majority of these waters would be assigned to Category 1

— waters attaining standards for all uses

— if it had information available to assess them

. Category 3 includes waters DEC formerly called ―open files‖ and waters nominated for assessment through the ACWA process of Alaska’s three resource agencies : DEC, Alaska Department of Fish and Game (ADF&G) , and Alaska Department of Natural Resources (DNR) . Actions that trigger opening a file can include nomination from the public, a public complaint, a newspaper report, or more rigorous information such as water quality reports or assessments

. For ma ny of these waters

, definitive water quality data or information to determine whether water uses are being attained or impaired is lacking, scant, spotty, or outdated. Many of these waters have been brought to the attention of Alaska’s state
resource agenc ies for suspected pollution or for impairment of water quantity or fish habitat. DEC maintains files on some of these waterbodies , and t he information is available upon request.

Some circumstances under which a water may be assigned to Category 3 are ident ified below :

The dat a and information were collected using unacceptable quality assurance/quality control s and could not be used to provide an accurate assessment. The quantity of the existing and readily available data and information is inadequate to
pro vide an accurate assessment. The existing and readily available data and information are not representative of current conditions of the waterbody. Examples of conditions that might have altered current conditions are (1) significant land use changes occur red in the watershed affect ing the hydrology and nonpoint loadings, (2) point source discharges were removed or new discharges are now operating, (3) Alaska made significant changes in applicable d a ta collection methodologies, o r (4) s a mpling station location s did not reflect the character of the waterbody segment.

The ACWA Process

Through the ACWA process, DEC, DNR , and ADF&G work together to focus state and federal resources on addressing issues of water quality, water quantity, and aquatic habitat for the waters with the greatest need

. These cooperating agencies have developed a waterbody nomination and ranking process that relies on established criteria to identify priorities for assessment, stewardship, and corrective action needs

. The process add resses waters affected by these and other problems: presence or risk of pollution, habitat degradation, and quantity problems

. Several components of ACWA are interwoven and occur concurrently.Alaska’s Final 20 10 Integrated Report

2. Categories, Assessment Methodology, and Results



### 12 Determination About Future Actions

The entire ACWA process (co nsisting of the integrated components) is conducted in three phases: nomination, analysis, and action

. During the nomination phase, each waterbod y nominated by the public

, agencies , or both is reviewed

. Information identifying the waterbody is entered into the ACWA database

. T he nominator may be asked for additional information

. The ACWA database uses four tracks to identify the nominated waterbodies: Data Collection and Monitoring, Adequately Protected Waterbodies, Waterbody Recovery, and Protect and Main tain Waterbodies at Risk

. Identification of the applicable track is an ongoing process and is affected by evaluations, analysis, and ranking, as well as receipt of additional data and information . Therefore, new knowledge or decisions may lead to placement of the waterbody in a different track. For example, during the analysis and action phases, the identification of additional data needs may result in the waterbody being reassigned to the Data Collection and Monitoring track.

Waterbodies for which data are not sufficient to suggest a current or anticipated problem are placed in the Data Collection and Monitoring track

. The waterbodies for which sufficient and credible data are available and for which those data suggest existence of a current water quality, water quantity, or aquatic habitat problem or the likelihood of future problems are subject to additional evaluation . Those further evaluations assess the effectiveness of agency stewardship and determine the persistence of standard exceedances or of regulation violations

. Many of these waterbodies are entered in the Protect and Maintain Waterbodies at Risk or Waterbody Recovery database tracks

. The determination about future actions primarily considers whether the water is at risk, in need of recovery, or adequately protected. The determination is used by the agencies to identify actions needed for a particular water.

Waterbodies that are at risk and waterbodies needing recovery are addressed as follows during the a ction phase :
Priorities for action on individual waterbodies are established.

P rotecti on or recovery actions are identified and implemented.

T he success of protection/recovery actions and directing the waterbody for additional information, continued monitoring

, or additional protection/recovery actions is evaluated

. Finally, waterbodies t hat are determined to be adequately protected are placed in the A dequately P rotected waterbodies track.

Analysis of Data

During the analysis phase , a successfully nominated waterbody undergo es a series of determinations using established criteria to assess the adequacy and credibility of the associated data available for the waterbody

. This step is called a ―sufficient and credible data review.‖ Tables used to assist in reviewing the rigor of t he data and information associated with each water and to score each water are available at http://www.dec.state.ak.us/water/acwa/pdfs/su.pdf

.Alaska’s Final 20 10 Integrated Report

2. Categories, Assessment Methodology, and Results



### 13 In scoring waters for sufficient and credible dat a, three topics are considered: Data Content

, Data Coverage

, and Data Quality

. Parameters addressed under Data Content evaluate how sufficiently and completely the information contained in the nomination describes the nature and extent of the identified is sue. Parameters addressed under Data Coverage and Data Quality evaluate the quality of the information provided and how rigorous it is.

Data Content scoring considers the basis for the assessment of use attainment, the land use information available for th e water, information on the expected reference condition, information on the source or

sources of pollution, and the availability of photographs showing the condition of the water. The objective is to identify whether the available data are sufficient to i dentify the existence or extent of a current or potential problem

. Data Coverage scoring considers the number of locations and seasonal information available. Data Quality scoring considers adequacy of the quality assurance and quality control for the info rmation, whether sampling protocols were documented, and how relevant and current the information is.

Nearly all of the Category 3 waters identified in this Integrated Report have gone through the sufficient and credible data step in the ACWA process. A s mall number of waters at any given time are placed in a ―pending‖ status until the water quality information and data associated with the water undergo a sufficient and credible data review step.
Creation of the ACWA Priority Ranking

In addition to the ana lysis of data and overall determination of future actions for the watershed, the waterbodies are ranked to establish priorities. The waterbody ranking enables agencies to focus resources on the most important priorities. Criteria were developed to assign a numeric value that identifies relative priority to each successfully nominated waterbody, resulting in the ACWA Priority Ranking

. Six factors are used to score each of three components: water quantity, water quality, and aquatic habitat. The six factors are as follows:

Allocation, or the extent to which the water has been obligated for various uses Condition Protection Future use Present use Value

Evaluation for each of the six factors results in relevant scoring for each component. The possible scores

a re high (5), medium (3), or lower (1).

Staff from one of the three resource agencies review readily available information and data related to a given waterbody and use their best professional judgment to assign a factor rating

. The agency with statutory o r regulatory authority over the water resource component is responsible for assessing that component

. The following considerations guide the ranking decisions: (1) the statutory criteria, (2 ) severity of pollution, and (3) expected uses of the waters, according to CWA Section 303(d)(1)(A).Alaska’s Final 20 10 Integrated Report

2. Categories, Assessment Methodology, and Results



### 14 The DNR hydrologists provide factor ratings for water quantity; biologists in the ADF&G provide aquatic habitat factor ratings; and DEC provides water quality ratings. Appendix H provides ranking for each waterbody. More detailed information on the ranking process is available online at http://www.dec.state.ak.us/water/acwa/acwa_ranking.htm

. Distinctions for the ACWA Process and Listing of Waters by Category

For the ACWA process and the categorization or listing of waters in the Integrated Report, two important points should be noted:

The process for the Integrated Report listing decisions is different from the process used for ACWA ranking and priori ties

. An impairment listing is considered in the ACWA process

, and most w aters that are listed as impaired under C ategor ies 5 and 4 are ranked as high priority by the ACWA process . In other words, the Integrated Report plays a role in the ACWA prioritizati on process

. ACWA does not drive the listing decision; it provides information management and helps with identifying and implementing actions that will remove impairments. One component of the ACWA process is a n analysis of whether sufficient and credible i nformation exists

. T his analysis is only used for ACWA prioritization for further action ; it does not determine whether data are sufficient for a use in an attainment decision. The

c riteria used for attainment and listing decisions are discussed under the " Criteria Used to Classify a Waterbody as Category 5 " section of this report

. 

## Category 4

– Impaired Waterbody

Category 4 waters have been determined to be impaired but do not need a TMDL

. The three sub categories of Category 4 waters are discussed below.
Category 4a

– TMDL Has Been Completed

An impaired water that was previously listed in Category 5 but for which a TMDL has been completed and approved by EPA is assigned to this category.

For w aterbodies that have been placed in this category

, a TMDL addressing a specific impairment has been developed and approved by EPA

. It is expected that implement ation of that TMDL will result in full attainment of the WQS applicable for that specific impairment

. If the waterbody has another impairment , the waterbo dy will also be assigned to Category 5 until a TMDL has been developed and approved for that impairment.

Monitoring should be scheduled for Category 4a waters to verify that the WQS have been met after implementation of the water quality management action s needed to achieve one or more TMDLs.

3 3 TMDLs have been developed for 3 2 waterbodies and are identified for placement in Category 4a are described in Appendix A.
Criteria Used to Classify a Waterbody as Category 4a The key criterion for C ategory 4a is a completed and approved TMDL.Alaska’s Final 20 10 Integrated Report

2. Categories, Assessment Methodology, and Results



### 15 Category 4b

– Other Pollution Control Requirements A re Reasonably Expected to

R esult in Attainment of the Water Quality Standard in a Reasonable Period of Time

W aters are placed in this category when other pollution control re quirements required by a local, state, or federal authority are stringent enough to achieve any WQS applicable to such waters

. These pollution control requirements should specifically appl y to the particular water quality problem.

Monitoring should be sch eduled for these waters to verify that the WQS will be attained as expected.

The four waterbodies identified for placement in Category 4b are shown in Appendix A.
Criteria Used to Classify a Waterbody as Category 4b

For waterbodies placed in Category 4b, c ontrols and assurances are sufficiently stringent that the waterbody is expected to meet standards in a reasonable time period

. The following are e xamples of pollution controls:

An approved state or federal ROD associated with a state or federally approve d cleanup action for a contaminated site

A n approved remediation plan for a permitted facility, such as a log transfer facility (LTF)

, reporting more than 1.5 acres of continuous residue coverage A National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) p ermit that incorporates TMDL

- type controls for the permitted facility

A water

- quality based permit with controls or assurances that water quality goals will be met Restoration, remediation, or recovery measures or plans with controls and assurances that ar e sufficiently stringent to assure that water quality goals will be attained within a reasonable time period

Key factors that must be considered before placing a waterbody in Category 4b are as follows:

T he need for pollution controls or measures

W hether requirements and controls are sufficiently stringent that standards can be expected to be met in a reasonable time period

A ssurances that the requirements and controls will be implemented in a reasonable time period

Placing a water in Category 4b requires EPA approval and the development of a Category 4b rationale that must address the following six elements :
1. Identification of impaired segment and statement of problem causing the impairment 2. Description of pollution controls and how they will achieve WQS 3. An estimate or projection of the time when WQS will be met 4. Schedule for implementing pollution controls 5. Monitoring plan to track effectiveness of pollution controlsAlaska’s Final 20 10 Integrated Report

2. Categories, Assessment Methodology, and Results



### 16 6. Commitment to revise pollution controls as necessary

Determining whether to place a waterbody in Category 4b requires the application of best professional judgment and agency enforcement discretion

. This approach includes discussion and analysis of a variety of factors such as pollutant characteristics (for instance, consideration of the magnitude, frequency, and duration of the pollution event or events ), pollutant sources, size of the waterbody, the stringency of the requirements or assurances, and the degree of recovery response required.

Waterbodies associated with residue discharges also are pl aced in Category 4b if the following conditions are met: (1) two or more dive survey reports from LTFs document more than 1.5 acres of continuous residues coverage and (2) the waterbody is addressed in an approved remediation plan under the LTF General Per mit ( GP ) or under an individual state wastewater discharge permit

. ( Information on remediation plans is provided in Appendix G. ) Waterbodies that are under EPA compliance orders for seafood residue violations may also be considered for placement in Categor y 4b if compliance with the order ensures that the water will attain the water quality standard for the residues in a reasonable time period.
Category 4c

– Impairment Is Not Caused By a Pollutant

Waterbodies are placed in this category if the impairment is not caused by a pollutant affecting water quality

. An example of an impairment with a cause other than water quality is degraded riparian habitat.

Category 4c waterbodies should be considered for monitoring to confirm no pollutant

- caused impairment is present and to support water quality management actions necessary to address the cause

or causes of the impairment.

N o Category 4c waterbodies are currently identified ; however

, Alaska’s resource agencies use this category to track waterbodies with non

- pol lutant impairments.
Criteria Used to Classify a Waterbody as Category 4c

Alaska has not adopted specific criteria or standards to identify any impairments not related to water quality

. ACWA priority rankings identify aquatic habitat or water quantity water s for action, but these waters are not referred to as ― impaired ‖ because they are not impaired in terms of water quality

. 

## Category 5

– Impaired Waterbodies on the Section 303(d) List

Waterbodies are placed in Category 5 if one or more WQS (in 18 AAC 70) a re not attained

. Waters are als o placed in Category 5 if the waterbody is impaired for at least one designated use and a TMDL or waterbody recovery plan to attain applicable WQS is required

.

The 2 8 waterbodies identified for placement in Category 5 and on the Section 303(d) list are described in Appendix A

.Alaska’s Final 20 10 Integrated Report

2. Categories, Assessment Methodology, and Results



### 17 Criteria Used to Classify a Waterbod y as Category 5

The Alaska listing methodology for determ in ing impairments from turbidity, pathogens, and residues is described in Appendix I.

Waterbodies in Catego ry 5 constitute the CWA Section 303(d) list of waters impaired by one or more pollutants and for which applicable TMDLs are needed. A waterbody is listed in this category if application of Alaska ’ s assessment and listing methodology finds that a pollutant has caused impairment. According to CWA Section 303(d) and EPA’s implementing regulations, Section 303(d)

- designated waters include impaired surface waters that do not or are not anticipated to meet applicable WQS solely through the implementation of exist ing technology

- based or similar controls

. In Alaska, these waterbodies are priority

- ranked based on the severity of the pollution, the feasibility of implementing a waterbody recovery plan, and other factors

. The development of a TMDL or equivalent waterbo dy recovery plan for these waterbodies is scheduled 8 to 13 years into the future from the time they are first placed on the Section 303(d) list

. Impaired waterbodies are surface waters with documentation of actual or imminent persistent exceedances of water quality criteria, adverse impacts to designated uses, or both, as defined in Alaska WQS

. Designation of a waterbody as impaired does not necess arily indicate that the entire waterbody is affected

. In most cases

, only a segment of the waterbody is affected

. When possible, the assessment process identifies the specific segment that is impaired and the corresponding pollutant parameters of

concern.
The term ―persistent‖ is key to determining whether a surface waterbody is impaired

. Determining persistent exceedances of WQS is a waterbody

- specific decision that requires the application of best professional judgment

. This approach includes discussion and analysis of a variety of factors such as pollutant characteristics (for instance, consideration of the magnitude, frequency, and duration of the pollution event or events ); pollutant sources; size of the waterbody; and the degree of remediation
respon se required.

DEC makes impairment determinations based on credible data

. The ter m ― c redible data‖ means scientifically valid chemical, physical, or biological monitoring data collected under a scientifically accepted sampling and analysis plan, including quality control and quality assurance procedures that are consistent with Alaska WQS ( 18 AAC 70 )

. Water quality data supportive of an impairment determination must be specific to the waterbody. W ater quality data and information that are less than 5
years old are preferred

. In certain instances, data and information m ore than 5 years old may be considered in an impairment determination . For those instances, the data and information are carefully scrutinized and reviewed before they are validated as credible.

Impairment determinations must be substantiated with empirical water quality chemistry unless the water quality criteri on is a narrative qualitative standard such as the absence of a visible sheen or presence of sludge

.
DEC uses th e following guidelines to determine whether a waterbody is impaired:

Water quality monitoring data that documents persistent exceedances of a criterion or criteria established in Alaska WQS (18 AAC 70)Alaska’s Final 20 10 Integrated Report

2. Categories, Assessment Methodology, and Results



### 18 Issuance of a notice of violation or other enforcement action definitively linked to a persistent water quality violation (of 18 AAC 70) that does not result in adequate corrective

measures Photographs or videos with appropriate documentation definitively linked to persistent exceedances of WQS ( P hotographic or videographic documentation is supportive of water quality data unless such documentation is supportive of a narrative water quality criteri on such as for residues

. ) Documented persistent presence of residues (floating solids, debris, sludge, deposits, foam, scum) on or in the water, on the bottom, or on adjoining shorelines

Documentation or water quality data, such as a report or study within the last 5 years , that demonstrates designated uses are ad versely affected by pollutant condition data or documentation that is more than 5 years old

. D ata or documentation older than 5 years old is only considered if it is determined to reflect the current condition of the waterbody

. Developed listing methodolog y guidelines Documentation from a resource agency or other credible source that applies the use of best professional judgment to provide credible data. Best professional judgment is used to determine whether a waterbody persistently exceeds WQS or has designated uses that are adversely affected by pollutant sources

. Best professional judgment determinations should be made by more than one professional and at the agency level; must be made by a professional knowledgeable in the relevant field of expertise and generally be based on that person’s experience and all the information reasonably available at the time; should be based on the best available scientific data and information; and must be subject to management level review.

Best professional judgment recommendations from outside DEC must be affirmed by DEC

, and available data and basis for the decision should be documented.

Alaska’s process for listing an individual waterbody under Section 303(d) begins with an internal review of existing and new information for ACWA

- nominated waters or former open files. Waters may be brought to the attention of DEC by its staff, other state and federal agencies, municipalities, Native organizations and tribes, industry, and the concerned public. In the develo pment of the Integrated Report

, DEC solicits public participation in providing existing and readily available water quality data and information.

DEC staff initially evaluate available information about a waterbody to determine the presence of pollutants a nd/or persistent exceedances of WQS or impacts to the designated uses and the degree to which WQS are attained

. This process constitutes a DEC desk audit and may involve a preliminary field review and the collection of water quality monitoring data . The po ssible findings and the subsequent actions are described below:

Credible data and information indicates that the waterbody may be impaired and that existing controls may be inadequate to attain or maintain standards in a reasonable time period

. TheAlaska’s Final 20 10 Integrated Report

2. Categories, Assessment Methodology, and Results



### 19 waterb ody is placed on the Category 5 list

. As needed, these Section 303(d) listed waterbodies are scheduled for comprehensive water quality assessments. Credible data and information indicates that the waterbody may be impaired and that existing controls are ad equate to attain or maintain standards in a reasonable time period

. If a water under goes the process associated with a Category 4b assignment and meets thos e requirements

, the waterbody may be placed i n Category 4b

. Category 4b waters are tracked and monit ored until standards are achieved. Credible data and information on a waterbody indicates the waterbody is not impaired

. The waterbody is placed i n Category 1 or 2

. Category 1 and 2 waters typically require no further action but may be reconsidered at any time if new water quality data or information become s available

.

Not all Section 303(d)

- designated waters have undergone comprehensive water quality assessments to determine either the extent of water quality impairment or whether existing controls are adequate to achieve the standards

. DEC closely scrutinizes waterbodies to determine whether suspected water quality violations were thoroughly investigated and documented

. This approach is designed to prevent the listing of waterbodies with inconclusive or circumstantial data or solely on observations. A completed water quality assessment of a Category 5 waterbody confirms the extent of impairment to water quality

, designated uses , or both

. A comprehensive assessment requires the identification of the pollu tion source and pollutant causing the impairment

. The subsequent actions that follow specific findings of the assessment are described below:

The assessment indicates the waterbody is impaired and that existing controls are inadequate to achieve WQS in a reasonable time period. Category 5 waterbodies require a TMDL or equivalent waterbody recovery plan. The assessment indicates the waterbody is impaired but confirms existing controls are adequate to achieve standards in a reasonable time period

. The water body is placed on the Category 4b list. The assessment indicates that the waterbody is not impaired

. The waterbody is placed in Category 1 or 2.

Section 303(d) listed waterbodies are scheduled for TMDL development or waterbody recovery plan, now and out t o year 20 14 . The TMDL schedule and the criteria for developing the schedule are provided in Appendix C.

DEC has developed specific listing criteria guidelines for the most common pollutants for impairments from turbidity, pathogens, and residues in Appendi x I. Addition listing criteria guidelines for residues is contained in Appendix G. Site specific information including biological assessment information (such as sediment profiling imaging) can be used to help determine whether an impairment exists and may be used to justify variance from listing methodologies as long as the information provides a clear demonstration as to whether the waterbody is meeting the applicable water quality standard

.Alaska’s Final 20 10 Integrated Report

2. Categories, Assessment Methodology, and Results



### 20 Remov al of Waterbodies from the Category 5 List

A fter a waterbod y has been placed on the Category 5 list, several conditions can lead to removal of the waterbody from the list . All determinations to remove waterbodies from the Category 5 list are subject to approval by EPA

. One or more of the following conditions can s upport delisting of a waterbody :

More recent and accurate data show that one or more of the applicable WQS are met

. More sophisticated water quality modeling demonstrates that one or more of the applicable WQS are met

. Flaws in the original analysis of data and information led to the water being incorrectly listed

. R evised listing criteria negate the criteria for listing

. The water quality standard for which the waterbody was listed has been revised and the water
meet s the new water quality st a ndard

. Sufficiently stringent requirements have been applied. Examples are incorporation of TMDL

type controls into the NPDES permit or controls such as those applied by a cleanup or remediation plan with assurance that one or more of the WQS will be met within a reasonable time period

. A TMDL or equivalent waterbody plan has been developed

. I f a TMDL is developed

, the water is placed in Category 4a; if an equivalent waterbody recovery plan is developed

, the water is placed in Category 4b

. Other pollution control s that en sure WQS are attained and are developed in a reasonable time period (as described for Category 4b waterbodies)

. Other relevant information supports the decision that the water should not be include d on the Category 5 list

. In addition, all of t he following conditions are required to support a determination to remove a water from the Category 5 list :

― G ood cause‖

— an explanation of why or on what basis the water was originally listed and why it is now appropriate to remove the listed water or redefine the listed area

— has been demonstrated. An administrative record and documentation supporting the recommended determination is needed. A public notice of the proposed delisting is published and public comment is sought. Typically the Integrated Rep ort acts as the vehicle for providing public notic e and soliciting
comment s . In special instances, a public meeting could be held in the community closest to the waterbody in question. When considering a determination to remove a waterbody from the Categor y 5 list, the level of data to support a determination and burden of proof are not required to be greater than

w ere used in the initial listing determination

.Alaska’s Final 20 10 Integrated Report

A. Waterbody Categories 2 through 5



### 21 

# APPENDIX A Waterbody Categories 2

through 5

The tables in this appendix describe the waterbodies that have been placed in Categories 2 through 5. No waterbodies in Alaska have been identified as Category 1 because the state does not possess that level of information for any one waterbody.

To more easily sort and find waterbodies within the tables of this appendix , each waterbody is associated with one of three general regi ons in Alaska . Within each category

, waterbodies are organized by region in the following order: Interior

, Southcentral, and Southeast.

Unless otherwise stated in the narrative associated with a waterbody

, no determination has been made about the effects t o any designated use(s) for that waterbody.

The following abbreviations or notations are used consistently in Appendix A tables :

The ―Region‖ column indicates the general region of Alaska in which the waterbody is located. The abbreviations are defined as follows: IN for Interior

, SC for Southcentral

, and SE for Southeas t

. The ―AK ID Number‖ column identifies the Alaska waterbody

- specific identification number, such as ―20402

- 409.‖ The first five digits of the number represent the USGS hydrologic (catalog) unit in which the waterbody is located. The last three digits identify the type of waterbody , as follows : 001 for rivers, creeks, or streams ; 400 for lakes; 500 for bays (i.e., marine waters); 600 for estuaries; 700 for wetlands; and 800 for coastal waters (i.e., coastline). The ―Waterbody‖ column provides the name of the waterbody.

The ―Location‖ column describes the area or provides location information to clarify the location of the waterbody.

The ―Area of Concern‖ column describes the specific area of the waterbody that is considered

. The abbreviation ―N/A‖ means either ―not applicable‖ or ―not available.‖ The ―Water Quality Standard‖ column identifies the 18 AAC 70 standard that is being measured

. This column also identifies one or more WQS that are not attained in the waterbody if the water is a CWA Section 303(d) listed (Category 5) waterbody.

The ―Pollutant Parameters‖ column identifies the specific pollutant or pollutant s for which the waterbody is impaired or, for non

- impaire d waterbodies, the specific pollutant or pollutants of concern

. For instance, a waterbody could be Section 303(d) listed as impaired for the ―Residues‖ standard from the specific pollutant parameter of bark and woody debris.

The ―Pollutant Sources‖ column identifies the source or sources of the pollutant or pollutants

.Alaska’s Final 20 10 Integrated Report

A. Waterbody Categories 2 through 5



### 22 

## Category 2 Waterbodies

Alaska’s 20 10 Integrated Water Quality Monitoring and Assessment Report Category 2 Waterbodies

– attaining some uses but insufficient or no data and information to determine whether remaining uses are attained

Region Category AK ID Number Waterbody Location Area of Concern Water Quality Standard Previous Impairing Pollutant Parameters Previous Impairing

Pollutant Sources

IN Category 2 40510

- 005 Caribou

Creek Denali

National Park 16.1 miles Turbidity Turbidity Mining
Caribou Creek was included on the 1994 Section 303(d) list for turbidity from past mining activity within Denali National Park and Preserve. The waterbody lost its sinuosity along segments of the watershed

. Currently there is no active mining on Caribou Creek and current National Park Service (NPS) policy will not permit future placer mining. A site visit with NPS, EPA

, and DEC was conducted in 2009 to review the progress of previous reclamation efforts and to assess any areas requiring additional reclamation activities. NPS established seven cross sections for floodplain design purposes. Topographic monitoring was conducted before and after the establishment of the seven cross sections. Channel locations and sinuosity were surveyed with a global positioning system (GPS) , and water discharge was measured

. Analysis and evaluation of site and data concluded that C aribou creek is meeting the turbidity standard

, although further work would be beneficial. Therefore , a draft recovery plan has been prepared to reconstruct the floodplain, rebuild the channel(s), and provide for more natural ove rbank flooding and depositi on. The reconstruction will be followed by a revegetation effort. If funding becomes available, work is to begin in 2010.

IN Category 2 40506

- 007 Chena River Fairbanks 15 miles Petroleum Hydrocarbons, Oil s & Grease Petroleum Products Urban Runoff

Chena River was Section 303(d) listed in 1990 for turbidity ; petroleum hydrocarbons, oil s and grease ; and sediment

. The identified pollutant source is urban runoff

. DEC conducted sampling in 2005, 2007

, and 2009 for hydrocarbons and sediment

. Data ha ve shown tha t the Chena River met WQS for the petroleum hydrocarbon standard and remains impaired from sediment

. Data are currently being reviewed for the sediment standard.

IN Category 2 40506

- 002 Chena

Slough Fairbanks 13 miles Petroleum Hydrocarbons, Oil s & Grease Petroleum Products Urban Runoff
This waterbody was Section 303(d) listed in 1994 for non

- attainment of the petroleum hydrocarbons

, oil s and grease standard and the sediment standard. Information presented in the 1994 Statewide Water Quality Assessment survey indicated that a petroleum problem existed and was affecting water quality. File assessment information indicates nonpoint source problems result from the surfac e water runoff, road construction, site clearing, and dewatering activities from gravel operations. Based on best professional judgment of DEC staff

, this water was listed for petroleum products. DEC conducted water quality testing in 2005, 2007

, and 2009. Data ha ve shown that the Chena Slough met WQS for the petroleum hydrocarbon standard

. Data are currently being reviewed for the sediment standard.Alaska’s Final 20 10 Integrated Report

A. Waterbody Categories 2 through 5



### 23 

## Category 2 Waterbodies

Alaska’s 20 10 Integrated Water Quality Monitoring and Assessment Report Category 2 Waterbodies

– attaining some uses but insufficient or no data and information to determine whether remaining uses are attained

Region Category AK ID Number Waterbody Location Area of Concern Water Quality Standard Previous Impairing Pollutant Parameters Previous Impairing

Pollutant Sources

IN Category 2 40505

- 401 Harding

Lake Fairbanks N/A Fecal Coliform Bacteria Fecal Coliform Bacteria Urban Runoff
Harding Lake was placed on the 1998 Section 303(d) list and was delisted on February 13, 2004. Harding Lake first appeared on the Alaska Section 303(d) list in 1994

. In compiling the 1994 list, data w ere reviewed from studies conducted in 1974, 1986, 1987, 1988, and 1994

. Virtually all data showed Harding Lake was consistently meeting the FC bacteria WQS during each sampling effort

. However, one sample collected in 1986 showed a high level of FC bacteria ( more than 60 colonies/100 milliliters [ ml ] )

. Although the geometric mean of 29 samples taken during the 1986 study was meeting WQS (15.7 colonies/100 ml), a graduate student study of Harding Lake suggested the lake may not be meeting the standard because of extensive recreational use

. Because of this concern, DEC decided that ―based on the limited sample results and high population density using onsite wastewater disposal systems, it is likely that additional monitoring will show the waterbody to be water quality limited for fecal coliform bacteria. ‖ Harding Lake continued to be listed in 1996 and 1998 listings because no more information was available. DEC conducted additional monitoring and data analysis in 1999

. Data collected in fiscal years 1999, 2000, and 2001 through an approved QAPP showed 83% non

- detects and no exceedances of Alaska WQS ( 18 AAC 70) for FC bacteria of less than 20 FC/100 ml

. These results were consistent with samples collected in 1987, 1988, and 1994 that also showed Harding Lake att aining WQS

. A s ampling r eport prepared by the DNR Division of Land, Mining and Water (DOLMW) and DEC and previous studies by DEC documents this information. In summary, the initial listing relied on one sample event and a concern that increased recreationa l use of the lake was causing suspected additional FC bacteria inputs to the lake

. In reviewing the initial listing, it is clear that the one high sample result was an inconsistent outlier and should not have led to listing Harding Lake as impaired. Later sampling show ed WQS are being achieved and the recreational use of the lake is not causing violations as initially suspected. The new level of information showing Harding Lake should be delist ed is a much stronger body of evidence than that used for the or iginal listing determination. Based on the findings

, Harding Lake was removed from Alaska ’ s Section 303(d) list of impaired waters in the 2002/2003 Report

.Alaska’s Final 20 10 Integrated Report

A. Waterbody Categories 2 through 5



### 24 

## Category 2 Waterbodies

Alaska’s 20 10 Integrated Water Quality Monitoring and Assessment Report Category 2 Waterbodies

– attaining some uses but insufficient or no data and information to determine whether remaining uses are attained

Region Category AK ID Number Waterbody Location Area of Concern Water Quality Standard Previous Impairing Pollutant Parameters Previous Impairing

Pollutant Sources

IN Category 2 60402

- 601 Nearshore

Beaufort Lagoons Sag River to

Simpson Lagoon N/A Temperature, Dissolved Inorganic Substances Temperature, Salinity Causeway

Nearshore Beaufort Lagoons was placed on the 1996 Section 303(d) list for temperature and salinity. In 1998 the waterbody was delisted and moved to Category 4b for tracking and monitoring. Various study reports and information from the EPA Alaska Operations Office indicated that the h ydrology and water quality (temperature and salinity) of the Nearshore Beaufort Sea was affected by the causeways and was suspecte d to have adverse effects to anadromous fish in 1996. Mitigation to correct problems with water quality and fish passage agreed upon in the Negotiated Settlement Agreement for Endicott and West Dock Causeways between the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USACE) and the permit holders (Public Notice 91

- 1)

. This mitigation, described more specifically in permit modification FF 820562

, consisted of additional breaching at both West Dock and Endicott causeways

. Breaching construction was finished in f all 1995

. The North Slope Borough requires water quality monitoring of the waterbody as a condition to conduct oil and gas operations adjacent an d within the waterbody. M onitoring for temperature and salinity of Nearshore Bea u fort Lagoon s is performed on an annual basis during the ice

- free periods

, as required by the North Slope Borough. D ata and information transmitted to DEC and EPA in 2002 support that this waterbody is attaining the WQS for temperature and dissolved inorganic substances

. Post

- causeway monitorin g studies have demonstrated that there is no biological impact and that water quality is within s tate standards. Based on this information

, the waterbody was placed in Category 2 in 2003

. SC Category 2 30102

- 605 Captain’s

Bay Unalaska

Island N/A Residues Settleable Solids Seafood Processing
This waterbody was placed on the 1994 Section 303 ( d ) list for settleable solids

. Data used for the 1994 list indicated that the established zone of deposit (ZOD) for the discharger was being exceeded

. Monitoring data evaluated by the DEC has resulted in the conclusion that the discharger is meeting ZOD requirements. This waterbody w as removed from the Section 303(d) list in 1998.

SC Category 2 20401

- 403 Cheney Lake Anchorage N/A Fecal Coliform Bacteria Fecal Coliform Bacteria Urban Runoff,

Storm Drainage Cheney Lake was placed on the 1994 Section 303(d) list for non

- attainment of the FC b acteria standard. Water quality data collected by the Municipality of Anchorage from 1991 to 1994 indicated that the FC bacteria criterion was exceeded in almost every month of monitoring. However, in 2006 DEC conducted extensive water quality monitoring in Cheney Lake. The 2006 data shows FC bacteria levels met state WQS the vast majority of the time

. DEC believes t he higher levels , when state WQS were exceeded, are from natural conditions. Cheney Lake is currently meeting WQS for two reasons: ( 1 ) the Municipality of Anchorage (and USF&WS ) campaign to reduce the goose populations in Anchorage ( because of increased nu mber of geese/aircraft incidences

, including a crash of a military plane with numerous fatalities blamed on waterfowl), and ( 2) a successful public awareness campaign educating pet owners on the benefits and owner responsibilit y of picking up after pets, i .e., ―Scoop the Poop‖ campaign. As a result of this monitoring

, Cheney Lake w as removed from the Section 303(d) list and placed in Category 2 in 2008

.Alaska’s Final 20 10 Integrated Report

A. Waterbody Categories 2 through 5



### 25 

## Category 2 Waterbodies

Alaska’s 20 10 Integrated Water Quality Monitoring and Assessment Report Category 2 Waterbodies

– attaining some uses but insufficient or no data and information to determine whether remaining uses are attained

Region Category AK ID Number Waterbody Location Area of Concern Water Quality Standard Previous Impairing Pollutant Parameters Previous Impairing

Pollutant Sources

SC Category 2 20505

- 001 Cottonwood

Creek Wasilla Entire 13 miles Residues Foam & Debris Urban Runoff, Urban Development

Cottonwood Creek (13 miles) was Section 303(d) listed for non

- attainment of the r esidues standard for foam and debris in 2002/2003. DEC received numerous complaints about foam in Cottonwood Creek and foam was observed in the creek in 1998, 2000, 2001

, and 2002

. T he problem was recurring , with no existing controls to address it

. A n intensive water quality evaluation was conducted on Cottonwood Creek

, commencing in September 2004. Water quality sampling conducted in 2004 and 2005 indicat ed that the foam present in Cottonwood Creek is most likely naturally occurring

. However, hydrologic changes within the watershed may be influencing the amount and timing of the foam

. The foam was further investigated

, and water sampling conducted in 2006 examined temperature and FC bacteria. Foam was determined to be naturally occurring and to be meeting WQS . Foam was determined to be influenced by natural conditions . F ecal coliform bacteria were found to exceed WQS

, and the source(s) was unknown , and sect ion of Cottonwood Creek has been determined to be impaired from FC bacteria

. SC Category 2 30401

- 601 Dutch

Harbor Unalaska

Island 0.5 acre Petroleum Hydrocarbons, Oil s & Grease Petroleum Products Industrial, Urban Runoff Dutch Harbor was Section 303(d) listed in 1994 for non

- attainment of the petroleum hydrocarbons

, oil s and grease standard for petroleum products

. An EPA study in August 1994, Water Quality Assessment for Greater Unalaska Bay , concluded the waterbody was affe cted by petroleum products

. TM DL assessment began in 2006

. An e xisting data compilation was completed, and potential risk sources were identified and assigned priorities

. Rigorous field sampling events were conducted in April 2007, September 2007

, and September 2008 and included water column and sediment samples for benzene, toluene, ethylbenzene, and xylenes ( BTEX ); polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbon ( PAH ); and total organic carbon ( TOC )

. Results indicate the water column meets WQS but several sediment results had surface sheening in exceedance of the standard

. The original area of impairment has been reduced as a result of the field sampling and includes two nearshore impaired areas and some areas of the harbor found to meet WQS

. The TMDL for the remaining impaired are a s is scheduled for completion by June 30, 2010

. I mplementation will focus on dock and harbor BMPs to minimize any new petroleum hydrocarbon inputs to the area.Alaska’s Final 20 10 Integrated Report

A. Waterbody Categories 2 through 5



### 26 

## Category 2 Waterbodies

Alaska’s 20 10 Integrated Water Quality Monitoring and Assessment Report Category 2 Waterbodies

– attaining some uses but insufficient or no data and information to determine whether remaining uses are attained

Region Category AK ID Number Waterbody Location Area of Concern Water Quality Standard Previous Impairing Pollutant Parameters Previous Impairing

Pollutant Sources

SC Category 2 20302

- 601 Eagle River

Flats (60 acres) Fort

Richardso n N/A Toxic & Other Deleterious Organic and Inorganic Substances White Phosphorus, Munitions Residues Military Base

Operations

This waterbody was placed on the 1996 Section 303(d) list for white phosphorus. An EPA consultant, CH2M Hill prepared a report, Eagle River Flats

- Comprehensive Evaluation Report

, in July 1994 . This report is a detailed environmental assessment that qualifies as a waterbody assessment. The report presents water quality data and other information on the relationship between white phosphorous (from artillery shell r esidue) and its lethal effect on waterfowl in the Eagle River Flats area. A ROD was signed on September 30, 1998

, placing the water in Category 4b. Approximately 60 acres were identified as contaminated and requiring treatment. Remediation activities occur red in 1998

– 2001. During each field season, six pumping systems were placed into the contaminated ponds and operated to drain the water from the ponds. Draining the ponds allow ed the sediments to dry out and cause d the white phosphorus to oxidize and no lo nger be a threat to the waterfowl. F ield activities resulted in a dramatic decrease in white phosphorus concentrations in more than half the total acreage identified as contaminated. By 2004 , more than 75 percent of the contaminated areas were addressed. T he remaining area wa s treated in 2005, the last year for active treatment. The Army is now in the long

- term monitoring phase to ensure that the remedial action will meet the long

- term goal of reducing duck mortality to levels identified in the ROD

. Additio nal pumping of water from the ponds and drying of white phosphorus contaminated sediments occurred in 2007. DEC’s Contaminated Sites section summary on Eagle River Flats can be viewed at http://www.dec.state.ak.us/spar/csp/search/csites_report.asp?Reckey=199721X204805 . DEC considers the Army to have met the milestones in the ROD

, and mortality is considered to be at levels typical for the species in this area. This water was removed from Category 4b in 2008.Alaska’s Final 20 10 Integrated Report

A. Waterbody Categories 2 through 5



### 27 

## Category 2 Waterbodies

Alaska’s 20 10 Integrated Water Quality Monitoring and Assessment Report Category 2 Waterbodies

– attaining some uses but insufficient or no data and information to determine whether remaining uses are attained

Region Category AK ID Number Waterbody Location Area of Concern Water Quality Standard Previous Impairing Pollutant Parameters Previous Impairing

Pollutant Sources

SC Category 2 30204

- 023 Eskimo

Creek King Salmon N/A Petroleum Hydrocarbons, Oil s & Grease ; Toxic & Other Deleterious Organic and Inorganic Substances Petroleum Products, Diesel Range Organics , Trichloroeth yl ene Landfill, Fuel

Storage, F ormer Underground Storage Tanks , F ormer Dry Wells ( I njection W ells), Military Eskimo Creek was initially placed on the 1996 Section 303(d) list based on information provided by the EPA ’ s Comprehensive Environmental Response

, Compensation

, and Liability Act (CERCLA) or ―Superfund‖ group. Seeps from a fuel storage area, former dry wells, and a dump adjacent to Eskimo Cre ek led to potential stream water contamination by metals, pesticides, and petroleum hydrocarbons

. T he waterbody was listed for these parameters in 1996. Later information suggest ed removing metals and pesticides as a pollutant parameter because no analytic al tests support these constituents as contaminants of concern and place ment of this segment of Eskimo Creek in Category 2. The primary sources of petroleum hydrocarbons and trichloroethylene (TCE) from aboveground storage tanks and dry wells have been rem oved. A final ROD for Groundwater Zone 1 was signed by DEC and the Air Force in November/December 2000

. A final ROD for Groundwater Zone 2 and a Zone 2 Addendum were signed by DEC in December 2002 and 2003 and by the Air Force in December 2003. Future activities based on the RODs include removal of extruding surface drums and debris and the recontouring and revegetation of the landfill cover; continued operation, maintenance, and monitoring of the biovent s ystems; monitored natural attenuation of the groundwater; groundwater modeling; continued operation of the water treatment sy stem; annual monitoring of groundwater (A

- Aquifer and B

- Aquifer) and surface water; implement ation and maint enance of institutional controls; and 5

- year reviews. T he waterbody wa s placed in Category 2 because WQS are attained for petroleum hydrocarbons

, TCE

, and diesel

- range organics ( DRO ) in 2002/2003

.

SC Category 2 20401

- 412 Hood

/Spenard Lake Anchorage N/A Fecal Coliform Bacteria Fecal Coliform Bacteria Urban Runoff,

Industrial
Hood/Spenard Lake was Section 303(d) list ed in 1996 for FC bacteria and was placed in Category 4a because a TMDL for FC bacteria was developed and finalized on September 30, 1997. Review of water quality data from 2000 to 2009 shows that the waters are meeting the FC bacteria standard . The waterbody was moved to Category 2 in 2010. This waterbody remains on the Category 5 Section 303(d) list for low DO

.Alaska’s Final 20 10 Integrated Report

A. Waterbody Categories 2 through 5



### 28 

## Category 2 Waterbodies

Alaska’s 20 10 Integrated Water Quality Monitoring and Assessment Report Category 2 Waterbodies

– attaining some uses but insufficient or no data and information to determine whether remaining uses are attained

Region Category AK ID Number Waterbody Location Area of Concern Water Quality Standard Previous Impairing Pollutant Parameters Previous Impairing

Pollutant Sources

SC Category 2 30102

- 602 Iliuliuk Bay Unalaska Island Petroleum Hydrocarbons, Oil s & Grease Petroleum Products Urban Runoff
Iliuliuk Bay was Section 303(d) listed in 1990 for non

- attainment of the petroleum hydrocarbons

, oil s and grease standard for petroleum products. An EPA study in August 1994, Water Quality Assessment for Greater Unalaska Bay , concluded the waterbody was affe cted by petroleum products

. TMDL assessment began in 2006 with completing an e xisting data compilation and identifying and prioritizing potential risk sources

. Rigorous field sampling events were conducted in April 2007 and September 2007 and included water column and sediment samples for BTEX, PAH , and TOC. All sample results for Iliuliuk Bay indicate the water and sediments are meeting standards for petroleum hydrocarbons

. DEC is removing Iliuliuk Bay from the Category 5/Section 303(d) list based on th ese data in 2010

. SC Category 2 20402

- 409 Jewel Lake Anchorage N/A Fecal Coliform Bacteria Fecal Coliform Bacteria Urban Runoff,

Land Development Jewel Lake w as Section 303(d) list in 1994 for FC bacteria. A TMDL was developed and finalized on September 30, 1997. Jewel Lake was removed from the Section 303(d) list in 1998. Monitoring results from July through October 2008 and May and June 2009 indicate the water is meeting state WQS for FC bacteria

. The waterbody was moved to Category 2 in 2010.

SC Category 2 20701

- 502 Kazakof Bay Afognak Island N/A Residues Bark & Woody Debris Log T ransfer

F acility This waterbody was placed on the 1998 Section 303(d) list for non

- attainment of the r esidues standard for bark and woody debris. Dive survey information for this LTF (known as Kazakof Bay 1) document exceedance s of the bark accumulation level for the interim intertidal threshold ( according to the ATTF Log Transfer Facility Siting, Construction, Operation and Monitoring/Reporting Guidelines , October 21, 1985) at 1.2 acres of bottom coverage in February 2000 and at 3.0 acres in February 2001. A March 2004 dive survey report document ed 0.20 acre of continuous residue coverage

. T herefore

, the water was removed from Category 5 (Section 303(d) list) and placed in Category 2 in 2004.Alaska’s Final 20 10 Integrated Report

A. Waterbody Categories 2 through 5



### 29 

## Category 2 Waterbodies

Alaska’s 20 10 Integrated Water Quality Monitoring and Assessment Report Category 2 Waterbodies

– attaining some uses but insufficient or no data and information to determine whether remaining uses are attained

Region Category AK ID Number Waterbody Location Area of Concern Water Quality Standard Previous Impairing Pollutant Parameters Previous Impairing

Pollutant Sources

SC Category 2 20302

- 005 Kenai River

(lower) Kenai Slikok Creek (river mile 19.0) to the mouth ( river mile 0.0) Petroleum Hydrocarbons ,

Oils & Grease Total Aromatic Hydrocarbons Motorized Watercraft

The Kenai River was Section 303(d) listed in 2006 for petroleum hydrocarbons ( total aromatic hydrocarbon [ TAH] ) . Beginning in 2000 and through 2007, DEC received water quality data that showed exceedances of the Alaska petroleum hydrocarbon water quality standard for TAH during the month of July. A water quality study conducted by DEC in 2003 confirmed the so urce of the petroleum hydrocarbon pollution was from motorboats. Sampling also indicated detections in the river of no petroleum in May, low levels in June, exceedances in July, low levels in August, and no contamination in September

. In 2008, regulatory a ctions taken by ADF&G a n d DNR , requiring all outboard engines operating on the Kenai River during the month of July to be either four

- stroke or direct fuel injection
two

- stroke motors, allowed the Kenai River to be moved to Category 4b

. Intensive water quality monitoring conducted in July 2008 and 2009 confirmed the actions taken resulted in the Kenai River attaining waterbody standards

. T he Kenai River was moved to Category 2 in the 2010 Integrated Report. DEC will continue periodic monitoring to ensure WQS are being met.

SC Category 2 30203

- 001 King Salmon

Creek King Salmon N/A Petroleum Hydrocarbons, Oil s & Grease Petroleum Products Landfill, Military,

U nknown D rum C ontents This waterbody was placed on the 1996 Section 303(d) list for petroleum hydrocarbons

, oils and grease and for metals and pesticides. Monthly influent and effluent samples are analyzed for all potential contaminants of concern. A final ROD for Groundwater Zone 3 was signed by DEC and the Air Force in April 2000

. A ctivities requ ired by the ROD include landfill cover inspection and maintenance; continued operation of the water treatment system; annual monitoring of groundwater (A

- Aquifer and B

- Aquifer) and surface water; maint enance of institutional controls; and a 5

- year review

. T he extensive sampling program has not identified any exceedances of surface WQS at this site ; therefore

, the waterbody was placed in Category 2 in 2002/2003

. SC Category 2 20701

- 501 Lookout

Cove Afognak Island N/A Residues Bark & Woody Debris Log Transfer

Facility Lookout Cove was previously placed on the Section 303(d) list for non

- attainment of the r esidues standard for bark and woody debris. Dive survey information for this LTF from 200 2 reported 1.2 acres of continuous residues coverage

, and 2003 dive survey information reported 0.7 acre of continuous bottom coverage

. These dive surveys document that the residues coverage is less than the 1.5 acres impairment standard for residues ; therefore

, the waterbody was removed from the Category5/Section 303(d) list and placed in Category 2 in 2004.Alaska’s Final 20 10 Integrated Report

A. Waterbody Categories 2 through 5



### 30 

## Category 2 Waterbodies

Alaska’s 20 10 Integrated Water Quality Monitoring and Assessment Report Category 2 Waterbodies

– attaining some uses but insufficient or no data and information to determine whether remaining uses are attained

Region Category AK ID Number Waterbody Location Area of Concern Water Quality Standard Previous Impairing Pollutant Parameters Previous Impairing

Pollutant Sources

SC Category 2 30204

- 001 Naknek

River King Salmon N/A Petroleum Hydrocarbons, Oil & Grease ; Toxic & Other Deleterious Organic and Inorganic Substances Petroleum Products, TCE Landfill, Fuel

Storage, F ormer M arina , Military
Naknek River was Section 303(d) listed in 1996 and was not expected to meet WQS because of pollutant sources coming from tributary waterbodies (Eskimo Creek, King Salmon Creek, and Red Fox Creek). In 1998 Naknek River was removed from the Section 303(d) list because other pollution control s were in place. The primary contaminant sour ces (a drum storage area and underground storage tanks) were removed prior to 1988. In 1998, and later in 2000, it was determ ined that this waterbody needed additional monitoring and tracking. Samples were collected from the Naknek River at various locati o ns over the years for laboratory analysis . N o results were detected above state and federal regulatory levels

. In December 1998, oil sheen was observed on the Naknek River bank adjacent to the King Salmon Morale, Welfare, and Recreation Marina. In 1999 a f inal ROD was signed by DEC and the Air Force for a groundwater area located approximately 1/2

- mile downstream from the main runway at the King Salmon Airport that includes approximately 3,000 feet of the Naknek River’s north shore

. Future activities identi fied in the ROD include passive product recovery system operation and maintenance; annual monitoring of groundwater and surfa ce water; landfill cover inspection and maintenance; implement ation and maint enance of institutional controls; and a 5

- year review. Between September 2002 and January 2003

, approximately 1,100 cubic yards of petroleum

- contaminated soil was removed. Groundwater, surface water, and sediment monitoring will continue at the marina to evaluate remedial efforts and attenuation processes. No seep or sheen has been observed following the source removal action. Naknek River was placed in Category 2 in 2004.

IN Category 2 50404

- 001 Red Dog

Creek , Ikalukrok Creek Near Red Dog

Operation N/A Dissolved Inorganic Substances Total Dissolved Solids Mining

EPA approved DEC’s reclassification of the uses of Red Dog and Ikalukrok c reeks for industrial water supply in February 2002

. EPA approved a site

- specific criterion for zinc in July 1998

. The facility was issued a water quality

- based permit and the revised permit is an existing control that will bring the waterbody into compliance with applicable WQS (fresh water industrial water supply) for total dissolved solids ( TDS ) , cadmium, lead, selenium, and the site

- specific standard for zinc. A site

- spe cific criterion for TDS was developed and approved by EPA on April 21, 2006. In the 1998 Integrated Report

, Red Dog and Ikalukrok c reeks was placed in Category 4b ; however

, because of the development of the reclassification, the water

- quality based permit, the site specific criteri a for zinc and TDS, and both Red Dog Creek and Ikalukrok Creek meet ing the 1

, 500

- milligram

- per

- liter site specific criteria for TDS , the se creeks are in attainment of WQS . T herefore , the waterbody was placed in Category 2 in 2006.Alaska’s Final 20 10 Integrated Report

A. Waterbody Categories 2 through 5



### 31 

## Category 2 Waterbodies

Alaska’s 20 10 Integrated Water Quality Monitoring and Assessment Report Category 2 Waterbodies

– attaining some uses but insufficient or no data and information to determine whether remaining uses are attained

Region Category AK ID Number Waterbody Location Area of Concern Water Quality Standard Previous Impairing Pollutant Parameters Previous Impairing

Pollutant Sources

SC Category 2 30204

- 002 Red Fox

Creek King Salmon N/A Petroleum Hydrocarbons, Oil s & Grease ; Toxic & Other Deleterious Organic and Inorganic Substances Petroleum Products, Diesel Range Organics, Benzene , and Trichloroethylene Landfill, Fire Training Areas, Military

Red Fox Creek w as Section 303(d) list ed in 1994 for non

- attainment of the p etroleum h ydrocarbons and o il s and g rease standard for petroleum hydrocarbons and the toxic and other deleterious organic and inorganic substances standard for metals. Information provided by EPA’s CERCLA ( or Superfund ) group show ed that the waterbody wa s water quality impaired fr om petroleum hydrocarbons and TCE. Consequently, the metals parameter was dropped from this listing. Water quality

assessm ent studies were completed for the waterbody

, and a remediation plan has been implemented. Red Fox Creek formerly consisted of a small stream before construction of the airport runway in the 1940s. It is currently a losing stream with minimal flow that ent ers the groundwater system as it intersects the runway. Red Fox Creek does not directly affe ct the Naknek River. Contaminants of concern include d DRO, gasoline

- range organics (GRO), and benzene in surface water, and DRO, GRO, benzene, toluene, tetrachloroe thene, and PAH in sediment. S urface water and sediment sample data from 1997 showed that Red Fox Creek d id not
meet WQS and was placed in Category 5. The 1997 remedial actions included the secondary source removal and treatment of the contaminat ed soil in on

- facility biocells. The 1998 remedial actions included the installation of an air sparging and soil vapor extraction system. The treatm ent system had been intermittently and seasonally operated from 1999. The 2001 groundwater samples reveal DRO, GRO, TCE , and benzene above groundwater cleanup levels. During the Remedial Process Optimization Phase II meetings in 2002

, which included participants from EPA, DEC, Air Force, Pacific Air Forces, Air Force Center for Environmental Excellence, and consultants, it was agreed that

, based on operational data

, the system should be converted into a biovent system to more adequately treat the contamination

. T he conversion occurred in late 2002. No surface water quality criteria were exceeded in 2002 and 2003

. Future activities required by the ROD for this site include continued operation and maintenance of the biovent system; monitored natural attenuation of the groundwater; annual groundwater, surface water, and sediment sampling; implement ation and maint enanc e of institutional controls; and 5

- year review. This water was removed from Category 5 (Section 303(d) list) and placed in Category 2 in 2004

.Alaska’s Final 20 10 Integrated Report

A. Waterbody Categories 2 through 5



### 32 

## Category 2 Waterbodies

Alaska’s 20 10 Integrated Water Quality Monitoring and Assessment Report Category 2 Waterbodies

– attaining some uses but insufficient or no data and information to determine whether remaining uses are attained

Region Category AK ID Number Waterbody Location Area of Concern Water Quality Standard Previous Impairing Pollutant Parameters Previous Impairing

Pollutant Sources

SC Category 2 30104

- 601 Saint Paul

Island Lagoon St. Paul

Harbor, St. Paul Island N/A Petroleum Hydrocarbons, Oil s & Grease Petroleum Products Leaking

Above g round Storage Tanks A segment of Saint Paul Island Lagoon wa s placed on the 2002/2003 Section 303(d) list for the p etroleum h ydrocarbons and o il s and g rease standard for petroleum products . An oil sheen was observed on the water on a daily basis

. The pollutant source was a seal processing plant built in 1918 and demolished in 1988 when the commercial seal harvesting ended. Diesel contamination was thought to have been from spillage during fuel handling. A n area of approximately 120 feet by 120 feet showed evidence of diesel contamination and extended from the surface to groundwater at 3 to 5 feet. Groundwater movement fro m the contaminated area threaten ed uncontaminated wetlands to the west and northwest. The areal extent of contamination was estimated at 10,000 square feet. Leaking aboveground storage tanks and diesel seepage we re ongoing into the lagoon from as early as the 1980s. Controls implemented have controlled the sheen ; therefore

, this water was

r emoved from the Section 303(d) list in 2008.

SE Category 2 10302

- 5 02 Corner Bay Tenakee Inlet, Baranof Island N/A Residues Bark & Woody Debris Log T ransfer

F acility This waterbody was placed on the 1998 Section 303(d) list for debris

. At that time, dive survey information from May 1996 demonstrated an exceedance of the bark accumulation level for the interim intertidal threshold ( according to the ATTF Log Transfer Facility Siting, Construction, Operation and Monitoring/Reporting Guideli nes , October 21, 1985 ) at 1.18 acres of bottom coverage. Dive survey reports from June 2002 of 0.1 acre and from July 2001 of 0.6 acre of bottom coverage document that this water is compliant with standards. This water was removed from the Category 5 (Sect ion 303(d) list) in 2002/2003.

SE Category 2 10204

- 5 0 2 Cube Cove NW Admiralty Island N/A Residues Bark & Woody Debris Log T ransfer

F acility Cube Cove on Admiralty Island in Southeast Alaska was first placed on Alaska’s Section 303(d) list in 1998 as impaired for residues from LTF operations. Cube Cove remained on the subsequent 2002/2003 Section 303(d) list

. The 1998 Section 303(d) listing criteria required only one dive survey documenting an exceedance of 1.0 acre of continuous coverage bark resid ues. A January 1998 dive survey documented 9.5 acres of continuous coverage bark on the marine bottom. Subsequent dive surveys document that the Cube Cove LTF has a trend of reduced continuous coverage bark residues. Dive surveys document 1.35 acres in Apr il 2001 and 1.2

acres in December 2002. A February 2004 dive survey documented 0.9 acre of continuous bark residue coverage ; t herefore

, Cube Cove was removed from the Category 5/Section 303(d) list and moved to Category 2 in 2004

. SE Category 2 10202

- 601 Hamilton

Bay Kake N/A Residues Bark & Woody Debris Log Transfer

Facility This waterbody was placed on the 1994 Section 303(d) list for debris. Past dive surveys had indicated that excessive bark exi sted on the bottom of Hamilton Bay as a result of logging operations on Kupreanof Island that use the Hamilton Bay LTF . Dive survey reports from September 2000 of 0.6 bottom coverage and the June 2002 of 0.6 acre document that this water is compliant with standards. This water was removed from the Category 5 (Section 30 3(d) list) in 2002/2003.Alaska’s Final 20 10 Integrated Report

A. Waterbody Categories 2 through 5



### 33 

## Category 2 Waterbodies

Alaska’s 20 10 Integrated Water Quality Monitoring and Assessment Report Category 2 Waterbodies

– attaining some uses but insufficient or no data and information to determine whether remaining uses are attained

Region Category AK ID Number Waterbody Location Area of Concern Water Quality Standard Previous Impairing Pollutant Parameters Previous Impairing

Pollutant Sources

SE Category 2 10202

- 006 Hammer

Slough Mitkof Island N/A Sediment Sediment Urban Runoff, Gravel Mining This waterbody was Section 303(d) listed in 1994. DEC staff has coordinated implementation of best management practices (BMP s ) for the waterbody from the responsible parties that have resulted in the waterbody attaining WQS . The water quality data in the file support that the waterbody is no longer impaired

. DEC staff inspected the Slough in April 2000 and confirmed that BMP imp lementation has been accomplished and effective in controlling sedimentation and recommended that this waterbody requires no further action. The water wa s placed in Category 2 in 2002/2003

.

SE Category 2 10201

- 5 01 Hobart Bay Mainland, SE Stephens Passage N/A Residues Bark & Woody Debris Log T ransfer

F acility
Hobart Bay was Section 303(d) listed in 1998 for non

- attainment of the r esidues standard for bark and woody debris. Dive survey information from May 1996 ( LTF known as Hobart Bay 3) document ed a significant exceedance of the bark accumulation level for the interim intertidal threshold ( according to the ATTF Log Transfer Facility Siting, Construction, Operation and Monitoring/Reporting Guidelines , October 21, 1985) at 2.3 acres of bottom coverage. 1.3 acres of marine bottom adjacent to the LTF was listed as impaired. A 2007 dive survey documented that the LTF and log storage area (LSA) contained no continuous coverage by bark debris and only a few small patches of discontinuous coverage by bark debris. The December 2007 dive survey and assessment document that this facil ity is attaining WQS

. T he water wa s removed from the Section 303(d) in 2008.

SE Category 2 10103

- 502 Klawock

Inlet Klawock

Island, W. Prince of Wales Island N/A Residues Bark & Woody Debris Log T ransfer

F acility

The area just off the dock and log transfer area at Klawock Inlet wa s Section 303(d) listed in 2002/2003 for non

- attainment of the r esidues standard for bark and woody debris

. A dive survey conducted by the operator of the facility in February 2004 documented 1.0 acre of continuous residues coverage

, and a subsequent dive survey report in November 2004 documents continuous residues coverage at 0.5 acre. Two consecu tive dive survey reports document that continuous residue coverage is less than the 1.5

- acre impairment standard

. T herefore

, this waterbody wa s removed from the Category 5/Section 303(d) list in 2006

.Alaska’s Final 20 10 Integrated Report

A. Waterbody Categories 2 through 5



### 34 

## Category 2 Waterbodies

Alaska’s 20 10 Integrated Water Quality Monitoring and Assessment Report Category 2 Waterbodies

– attaining some uses but insufficient or no data and information to determine whether remaining uses are attained

Region Category AK ID Number Waterbody Location Area of Concern Water Quality Standard Previous Impairing Pollutant Parameters Previous Impairing

Pollutant Sources

SE Category 2 10203

- 001 Nakwasina

River Baranof

Island, Sitka 8 miles Sediment, Turbidity Sediment, Turbidity Timber Harvest
Nakwasina River was placed on the 1998 Section 303(d) list for non

- attainment of the sediment and turbidity standards. Past land use activities had created a number of concerns about water quality and fish habitat. The harvest of riparian timber and the location and lack of maintenance of the road system created the following conditions : decreased channel stability, landslides and small slope failures, increased sediment levels, loss of aquatic habitat, siltation of holding pools for migrating salmon, and alteration of watershed hydrology. Watershed effects resulted in use impairment for aquatic life. The U.S. Forest Service (USFS) submitted a 2

- year Water Quality and Aquatic Habi tat Restoration Assessment in February 2009 and recommended removal from the 303(d) list based on its results. The data demonstrate that turbidity levels have decreased below state WQS

. T he waterbody was moved to Category 2 in 2010

. SE Category 2 10202

- 801 Point

Macartney Kupreanof

Island, Kake N/A Residues Bark & Woody Debris Log T ransfer

F acility This waterbody was Section 303(d) listed for residues in 1998. D ive survey information documented an exceedance of bark accumulation level for t he interim intertidal threshold ( according to the Log Transfer Facility Siting, Construction, Operation, and Monitoring/Reporting Guidelines , October 21, 1985) from February 2001 at 1.2 acres of bottom coverage. A dive survey report from March 2002 documen ts 1.0 acre of bottom coverage

, and another dive survey report from November 2002 reported 0.52 acre . These findings validate that this water is compliant with standards. This water was removed from the Category 5 (Section 303(d) list) in 2002/2003.

SE Category 2 10202

- 602 Rowan Bay Kuiu Island N/A Residues Bark & Woody Debris Log Transfer

Facility This waterbody was placed on the 1996 Section 303(d) list for debris (bark debris from deposition at a n LTF )

. Past dive surveys have shown an exceedance of the bark accumulation level for the interim intertidal threshold ( according to the Log Transfer Facility Siting, Construction, Operation and Monitoring/Reporting Guidelines , October 21, 1985). Dive survey repor ts from May 2002 of 0.8 acre and from June 2001 of 0.6 acre of bottom coverage document that this water is compliant with standards. This water was removed from the Category 5 (Section 303(d) list) in 2002/2003.

SE Category 2 10202

- 802 Saginaw Bay Kuiu Island N/A Residues Bark & Woody Debris Log Transfer

Facility This waterbody was placed on the Section 303(d) list for excessive residues associated with an LTF. Dive survey information from 2001 documented a significant exceedance of the bark accumulation level for the interim intertidal threshold ( according to the Log Transfer Facility Siting, Construction, Operation and Monitoring/Reporting Guidelines , October 2 1, 1985) at 1.7 acres of bottom coverage. A dive survey report from May 2002 documents 0.7 acre of bottom coverage and validates that that this water is compliant with standards. This water was removed from the Category 5 (Section 303(d) li st) in 2002/2003

.Alaska’s Final 20 10 Integrated Report

A. Waterbody Categories 2 through 5



### 35 

## Category 2 Waterbodies

Alaska’s 20 10 Integrated Water Quality Monitoring and Assessment Report Category 2 Waterbodies

– attaining some uses but insufficient or no data and information to determine whether remaining uses are attained

Region Category AK ID Number Waterbody Location Area of Concern Water Quality Standard Previous Impairing Pollutant Parameters Previous Impairing

Pollutant Sources

SE Category 2 10203

- 502 Saint John Baptist Bay Baranof Island N/A Residues Bark & Woody Debris Log T ransfer

F acility Dive survey information from September 2000 documented a significant exceedance of the bark accumulation level for the interim intertidal threshold ( according to the ATTF Log Transfer Facility Siting, Construction, Operation and Monitoring/Reporting Guidelines , October 21, 1985) at 1.32 acres of bottom coverage. Saint John Baptist was considered for Category 5/Section 303(d) listi ng during the 2002/2003 Integrated Report development process

, but the facility came into compliance with the residues impairment standard. A dive survey report from June 2002 document ed 0.2 acre of bottom coverage and validates that that this water is com pliant with the residues standard

.

SE Category 2 10203

- 504 Salt Lake

Bay Port Frederick,

Chichagof Island N/A Residues Bark & Woody Debris Log Transfer

Facility
This waterbody was placed on the 1998 Section 303(d) list for debris. Dive survey information from October 1991 demonstrated an exceedance of the bark accumulation level for the interim intertidal threshold ( according to the Log Transfer Facility Siting, C onstruction, Operation, and Monitoring/Reporting Guidelines , October 21, 1985) at 1.16 acres of bottom coverage. Dive survey reports from May 2002 of 0.1 acre and from March 2000 of 0. 3 acre of bottom coverage document that this water is compliant with sta ndards. This water was removed from Category 5 (Section 303(d) list) in 2002/2003.Alaska’s Final 20 10 Integrated Report

A. Waterbody Categories 2 through 5



### 36 

## Category 2 Waterbodies

Alaska’s 20 10 Integrated Water Quality Monitoring and Assessment Report Category 2 Waterbodies

– attaining some uses but insufficient or no data and information to determine whether remaining uses are attained

Region Category AK ID Number Waterbody Location Area of Concern Water Quality Standard Previous Impairing Pollutant Parameters Previous Impairing

Pollutant Sources

SE Category 2 10303

- 006 Sawmill

Creek Haines N/A Residues Debris Urban Runoff
This waterbody was never Section 303(d) listed for debris

, but was placed in Category 4b in 1996. Some debris removal work, in addition to a culvert replacement and reseeding

, was completed in 1997. The debri s was attributed to highway and maintenance sources

. Plans call ed for moving the stream away from the highway/stre et in two areas and constructing a dike in another. Plans also call ed for establishing vegetative buffers, swales, and matting to improve filtration of runoff entering the stream. Priority actions for this water include d design ing and implement ing an inter agency watershed assessment and a recovery plan; establish ing water quality monitoring objectives and implement ing a water quality monitoring plan; and work ing with city of Haines to review and develop
stormwater plans in accordance with EPA and DEC requirements. An extensive residues cleanup was undertaken in 2006 and 2007 and provided removal of 27,000 pounds of scrap metal and 33 bags of trash. The bulk of the debris removed in 2007 was from legacy activities

, including abandoned vehicles used for stream bank stabilization. Control measures are in place to prevent similar activities from occurring in the future (state and federal la ws), however, more importantly, public acceptance of using abandoned vehicles for stream bank stabilization is no longer tolerated. Enforcement by t he City and Borough of Haines police department also has reduced such types of illegal disposal practices. Spring c leanup events occur annual ly in the City of Haines. DEC does not have the resources to document litter trends in areas outside of Juneau. DEC relies on the best professional judgment from state and federal agencies and on credible information from the local watershed group (Takshanuk Watershed Council) to establish whether the c reek meets WQS for debris. The majority of debris within the creek, for which the water was placed in Category 4b originally, has been removed . A ny remaining or future debris/residues problems are not unlike th ose of other urban Alaskan waterway s and are b eing addressed by the City of Haines. Consequently

, it has been determined that the waterbody meets the residues criterion

, and the waterbody wa s moved from Category 4b to Category 2 in 2008.

SE Category 2 10203

- 503 Schulze Cove Fish Bay, Baranof Island N/A Residues Bark & Woody Debris Log Storage Area
This section of Schulze Cove was Section 303(d) listed in 1998 for non

- attainment of the residues standard for bark and woody debris

. The Schulze Cove LSA covers the whole Cove. Review of USF&WS video documentation and dive report (September 1995 report on dives from July 27 and 29, 1995, several transects) revealed extensive bark deposition ( more than 1 acre in area and 10 c entimeters [cm] in thickness )

. Historically, l og storage activities have severely affec ted Schulze Cove

. A December 2007 dive survey and assessment documents that this waterbody is attaining WQS and consequently removed from the Section 303(d) list in 2008. The 2007 dive assessment work used a parallel pattern to survey the sit e and consisted of 17 transects at 300

- foot spacing intervals. The sample point frequency was at 300

- foot intervals using visual survey methods. The survey documented that the LSA contained no continuous coverage by bark debris and 25.02 acres of discontin uous coverage by bark debris. The 2007 dive survey and assessment documents that this facility is attaining WQS and consequently removed from the Section 303(d) list in 2008.Alaska’s Final 20 10 Integrated Report

A. Waterbody Categories 2 through 5



### 37 

## Category 2 Waterbodies

Alaska’s 20 10 Integrated Water Quality Monitoring and Assessment Report Category 2 Waterbodies

– attaining some uses but insufficient or no data and information to determine whether remaining uses are attained

Region Category AK ID Number Waterbody Location Area of Concern Water Quality Standard Previous Impairing Pollutant Parameters Previous Impairing

Pollutant Sources

SE Category 2 10103

- 602 Thorne Bay ( L og S torage A rea) Prince of

Wales Island N/A Residues Bark & Wood Debris Historical Log

Transfer Facility
The Thorne Bay historical marine LTF, which consisted of both a nearshore log transfer area and an associated LSA, was Sectio n 303(d) listed in 1994 for non

attainment of the residues standard for bark and wood debris

. Log transfer and storage activities began in 1962 and caused the accumulation of woody debris on the bottom of the head of Thorne Bay

. Log transfer and storage activities ended in 2000

, and the operator, USFS

, does not plan to res ume them; all equipment and facilities have been removed. A key feature of the recovery of the former log transfer and storage area is the Thorne River

, which empties into the bay and deposits sediments onto a large sand and gravel delta

, where they mix wi th debris and aid in biological recovery. The Log Storage Area : Dive surveys of the LSA conducted in July 2001 and June 2002 documented 1.1 acres of bark and wood debris on the marine bottom. Dive surveys in 2003 and 2005 d etailed the benthic health of 161 acres of the former LSA

. F inding s included the following : ( 1) bark debris wa s mostly decomposed to small fragments and was mixed with natural sediments; ( 2) the bottom wa s biologically recovered, exhibiting mostly mature ―Stage III‖ biological communities ; and ( 3) the site wa s an ―extremely healthy coastal embayment.‖ DEC determined, based on the detailed benthic assessment, that the residues standard is met in the former LSA . DEC removed the LSA from the Section 303(d) list and placed it in Category 2 in 2004. T he LSA remain ed in Category 2 with no known impairments. The Log Transfer Facility : Dive surveys conducted in 1988 and 1990 documented approximately 55 acres of bark accumulation in the LTF. Dive surveys of the LTF conducted in July 2001 and Ju ne 20 02 documented 2.6 and 1.1 acres of bark and wood debris , respectively, on the marine bottom. An April 2004 dive survey of the LTF documented 6.5 acres of bark and woody debris. The former LTF remained on the Section 303(d) list for a defined area of approx imately 35 acres between the LTF shoreline and the boundary of the former LSA established in the 2003

- 2005 benthic assessment

. A December 2007 dive survey documented a reduced area of impaired marine bottom of only 7.5 acres and the rest of the previous area of impairment as meeting the residues criterion and attaining WQS

. Th ese findings suggest that biological recovery is procee ding and is well advanced within the area associated with the LTF. A residues TMDL for the Thorne Bay LTF was completed and approved by EPA on May 8, 2007

. With the completed TMDL, the LTF wa s removed from the Section 303(d) list and placed in Category 4a in 2008 with an approved TMDL for residues.

SE Category 2 10103

- 802 Tolstoi Bay NW Bight of Tolstoi Bay, Prince of Wales Island N/A Residues Bark & Woody Debris Log Storage Area

Tolstoi Bay had been on the Section 303(d) list since 1998 for non

- attainment of the residues standard for bark and woody debris

. A dive survey report from June 1994 for this area (known as Tolstoi Bay 2) reported 1.82 acres of bottom coverage from debris. A March 2003 dive survey report show ed 0.7 acre of bark on the bottom

. T herefore , the waterbody was removed from the Category 5/Section 303(d) list and moved to Category 2 in 2002/2003.Alaska’s Final 20 10 Integrated Report

A. Waterbody Categories 2 through 5



### 38 

## Category 2 Waterbodies

Alaska’s 20 10 Integrated Water Quality Monitoring and Assessment Report Category 2 Waterbodies

– attaining some uses but insufficient or no data and information to determine whether remaining uses are attained

Region Category AK ID Number Waterbody Location Area of Concern Water Quality Standard Previous Impairing Pollutant Parameters Previous Impairing

Pollutant Sources

SE Category 2 10102

-

502

- 001 Tongass

Narrows 1 Tongass

Narrows, Eastern Channel, SE of Thomas Basin N/A Residues Seafood Residues, Seafood Processing Wastes Seafood Processing Facility

This waterbody segment wa s placed in Category 4b for residues in 2002/2003 . The seafood processing facility exceeded its 1 acre ZOD standard for residues associated with its discharge permit

, and EPA issued a compliance order /consent decree from for non

- compliance with its waste discharge limitations

. Additionally the facility has discharged seafood sludge, deposits, debris, scum, floating solids, oily wastes

, or foam, which alone or in combination wit h other substances cause a film, sheen emulsion

, or scum on the surface of the water

. A 2005 dive survey reported a reduction of 0.31 acre from the 2004 survey

, with a total acreage of 1.22

, and compliance with the residues impairment standard

. Additionall y, the EPA Region 10 compliance unit reported that the pile size of the seafood processing was 0.5 acre and that the facility was in compliance with the consent decree and its NPDES permit. Consequently, Tongass Narrows 1was moved from Category 4b to Categ ory 2 in 2006.

SE Category 2 10102

-

502

- 002 Tongass

Narrows 2 Tongass

Narrows, Eastern Channel, SE of Thomas Basin N/A Residues Seafood Residues, Seafood Processing Wastes Seafood Processing Facility

This waterbody segment wa s placed in Category 4b for residues in 2002/2003

. Previously, t he seafood processing facility exceeded its 1

- acre ZOD standard for residues associated with its discharge permit and wa s under an EPA compliance order for non

- compliance with its waste discharge limitations

. Additionally

, the facility ha d discharged seafood sludge, deposits, debris, scum, floating solids, oily wastes

, or foam, which alone or in combination with other substances cause a film, sheen emulsion

, or scum on the surface of the water

. EPA conducted a compliance inspection of this facility in f all 2006. Reports from this compliance inspection found that the ZOD was less than 1.0 acre

, at 0.5 acre

, and the facility was compliant with the consent d ecree and its NPDES permit

. This waterbody segment is now meeting WQS and was moved from Category 4b to Category 2 in 2008.Alaska’s Final 20 10 Integrated Report

A. Waterbody Categories 2 through 5



### 39 

## Category 2 Waterbodies

Alaska’s 20 10 Integrated Water Quality Monitoring and Assessment Report Category 2 Waterbodies

– attaining some uses but insufficient or no data and information to determine whether remaining uses are attained

Region Category AK ID Number Waterbody Location Area of Concern Water Quality Standard Previous Impairing Pollutant Parameters Previous Impairing

Pollutant Sources

SE Category 2 10103

- 503 Twelvemile

Arm Prince of

Wales Island N/A Residues Bark & Woody Debris Log Storage Area

Twelvemile Arm ha d been on the Section 303(d) list since 1998 for non

- attainment of the r esidues standard for bark and woody debris

. Review of USF&WS video documentation and a dive transect conducted in 1997 reveal ed 100% coverage along an entire transect and numerous sections exceeding 10 cm in thickness, i.e., extensive bark deposition ( more than 1 acre in are and more than 10 cm in thickness ). Log storage activities had been conducted at the head of the a rm in a shallow area lacking sufficient flushing capability. Th e log storage site is inactive and there have been no new sources of residues . A December 2007 dive survey and assessment document ed that this water was meeting the residues criterion and attaining WQS

. The 2007 survey documented that the LSA contained no continuous coverage by bark debris and only a few small patches of discontinuous cover by bark debris. The us e of p lan

- v iew v ideo and dive survey methods quantified the extent and type of both continuous and discontinuous coverage as 0.00 acres of bark deb ris. The 2007 dive survey and assessment document ed that this water is meeting the residues criterion and attaining WQS

. The water was removed from the Section 303(d) list in 2008.

SE Category 2 10102

- 601 Ward Cove Ketchikan 80 acres Toxic & Other Deleterious Organic and Inorganic Substances

– Sediment Toxicity Pulp Residues,

Logs, Bark & Woody Debris, Sediment Toxicity due to Wood Decomposition By

- products Industrial

DEC and EPA determined that the approved and final ROD of the Superfund cleanup for the ―Ketchikan Pulp Company, Marine Operable Unit, Ketchikan, Alaska‖ (March 29, 2000) were adequate ―other pollution controls‖ for sediment toxicity (4

- methyl phenol, ammonia, sulfides) in Ward Cove

. Three acres have been dre dged in the area of concern

, in addition to thin capping of approximately 30 acres of the marine bottom. Monitoring in 2004 show ed that thin layer capping w as successful in eliminating sediment toxicity and stimulating colonization by bottom

- dwelling inver tebrate species. In May 2009 EPA determined that the Ward Cove sediment cleanup monitoring was complete and objectives had been achieved. Regular monitoring of the sediments since cleanup have shown that cleanup goals have been met. Consequently, the Super fund portion of Ward Cove has been moved to Category 2 in 2010.

SE Category 2 10203

- 804 West Port

Frederick Chichagof

Island N/A Residues Bark & Woody Debris Log Transfer

Facility This waterbody was placed on the 1998 Section 303(d) list for debris. Dive survey information from April 1995 demonstrated an exceedance of the bark accumulation level for the interim intertidal threshold ( according to the ATTF Log Transfer Facility Siting , Construction, Operation and Monitoring/Reporting Guidelines , October 21, 1985) at 1.35 acres of bottom coverage. Dive survey reports from April 2001 of 0.3 acre and from March 2000 of 0.3 acre of bottom coverage document that this water is compliant with standards

. T he water was removed from the Section 303(d) list in 2002/2003.Alaska’s Final 20 10 Integrated Report

A. Waterbody Categories 2 through 5



### 40 

## Category 2 Waterbodies

Alaska’s 20 10 Integrated Water Quality Monitoring and Assessment Report Category 2 Waterbodies

– attaining some uses but insufficient or no data and information to determine whether remaining uses are attained

Region Category AK ID Number Waterbody Location Area of Concern Water Quality Standard Previous Impairing Pollutant Parameters Previous Impairing

Pollutant Sources

SE Category 2 10203

- 018 Wrinkleneck

Creek Swan Lake Sitka N/A Residues Solid Waste Urban

This waterbody was placed on the 1996 Section 303(d) list for residues from trash and urban debris. The Swan Lake Watershed R ecovery Strategy and TMDL were completed (January 2000) and approved by EPA (May 2000). In 1999 volunteers collected more than 6

, 600 pounds of trash and debris

. In s pring 2002

, the City and Borough of Sitka (CBS) completed the third annual Swan Lake Cleanup

. Each year the amount collected has been lower than previous years

. This cleanup will continue to be an annual event in coordin ation with a citywide spring clean up

. The success of these efforts reflects the community’s commitment and the approach of the Swan Lake Watershed Recovery Strategy. CBS believes the actions to date support moving the Swan Lake watershed to Cate gory 2

. Sw an Lake watershed has an implemented waterbody recovery plan and an approved TMDL, including annual cleanups and monitoring

. CBS has provided the documentation confirming that it is implementing the TMDL and the waterbody is meeting WQS

. DEC has concurred that the waterbody is attaining standards and placed the waterbody in Category 2 in 2002/2003.Alaska’s Final 20 10 Integrated Report

A. Waterbody Categories 2 through 5



### 41 

## Category 3 Waterbodies

Alaska’s 20 10

Category 3 Waterbodies

– Waters for which there is i nsufficient or no data and information to determine whether any designated use is attained NOTE: DEC has limited information on the following waters to make an attainment or impairment determination. Data are available upon r equest. Regions are abbreviated as follows: IN

– Interior, SE

– Southeast, and SC

– Southcentral. Within the Alaska waterbody identification number (WBID #), the first five numbers indicate in which USGS hydrologic unit code (i.e., HU C ‖) the waterbody is l ocated.

Region Waterbody Name Assessment Unit ID SC Anchor River AK

- 20301

- 004 IN Anvil Creek AK

- 50104

- 008 SE Auke Bay AK

- 10301

- 501 SE Auke Lake AK

- 10301

- 403 SE Auke Nu Cove AK

- 10301

- 801 SE Auke Nu Creek AK

- 10301

- 008 SC Barbara Creek AK

- 20301

- 017 SC Beach @ Bluff Point AK

- 20301

- 801 SE Beach @ City Park AK

- 10202

- 804 SE Beach @ Douglas Harbor AK

- 10301

- 803 SC Beach @ Homer Spit AK

- 20301

- 802 SC Beach @ Kanakanak (Dillingham) AK

- 30304

- 801 SC Beach @ King Salmon AK

- 30204

- 801 SC Beach @ Kvichak Bay (Naknek) AK

- 30204

- 802 SE Beach @ Letnikof Cove AK

- 10303

- 802 SE Beach @ Lutak Inlet AK

- 10303

- 801 SC Beach @ Naknek River AK

- 30204

- 803 SC Beach @ North Kenai AK

- 20302

- 801 SE Beach @ Petroglyph Beach AK

- 10202

- 806 SC Beach @ Point Woronzof AK

- 20401

- 801 SE Beach @ Portage Cove Boat Harbor AK

- 10303

- 803 SE Beach @ Sandy Beach AK

- 10301

- 805 SE Beach @ Sandy Beach Park AK

- 10202

- 805 SC Beach @ Scandinavian Beach AK

- 30304

- 802 SC Beach @ Snag Point AK

- 30304

- 806 IN Beach @ West Beach AK

- 50104

- 802 SC Bear Cove AK

- 20301

- 506Alaska’s Final 20 10 Integrated Report

A. Waterbody Categories 2 through 5



### 42 Region Waterbody Name Assessment Unit ID SC Bear Creek (Becharof) AK

- 30203

- 002 IN Bear Creek (Hogatza) AK

- 40608

- 002 SC Bear Creek (Homer) AK

- 20301

- 021 SC Bear Creek (Hope) AK

- 20302

- 013 IN Bear Creek (Salchaket Slough) AK

- 40507

- 006 SC Beaver Creek AK

- 20302

- 007 SC Beaver Inlet AK

- 30102

- 608 SC Beaver Lake AK

- 20701

- 406 SC Bell Flats AK

- 20701

- 701 SC Beluga Lake (Homer) AK

- 20301

-- 401 SC Beluga Slough AK

- 20301

- 028 SC Benny Creek AK

- 20301

- 020 SE Berners Bay AK

- 10301

- 502 SC Bidarka Creek AK

- 20301

- 006 SC Bidarka Creek AK

- 20301

- 006 SC Birch Creek (Talkeetna) AK

- 20505

- 009 IN Birch Lake AK

- 40507

- 402 SE Black Bear Creek AK

- 10103

- 023 SC Bodenburg Creek AK

- 20402

- 003 IN Bolio Lake AK

- 40504

- 401 IN Bons Creek AK

- 50404

- 002 SE Bradfield River AK

- 10101

- 001 SC Bridge Creek AK

- 20301

- 007 SC Busch Creek AK

- 20501

- 001 SC Buskin Lake AK

- 20701

- 407 SC Buskin River AK

- 20701

- 002 SC Cache Creek AK

- 20504

- 001 SC California Creek AK

- 20401

- 415 IN Camp Creek (Nulato) AK

- 40705

- 002 SC Canoe Lake AK

- 20505

- 411 SE Carlanna Creek AK

- 10102

- 003 SC Cedar Bay AK

- 20201

- 501 IN Chatanika River AK

- 40509

- 002 SC China Poot Bay AK

- 20301

- 601 SC China Poot Creek AK

- 20301

- 013 SC Chuitna River AK

- 20601

- 001 SC Clear Creek AK

- 20503

- 001 IN Clearwater Creek AK

- 40503

- 001 IN Clearwater Lake AK

- 40503

- 402 IN Colleen Lake AK

- 60402

- 401 IN Colville River/Umiat Lake AK

- 60303

- 001 SC Conners Lake AK

- 20401

- 408 SC Cook Inlet (upper) AK

- 20401

- 601 SC Cooper Creek AK

- 20302

- 011Alaska’s Final 20 10 Integrated Report

A. Waterbody Categories 2 through 5



### 43 Region Waterbody Name Assessment Unit ID SC Copper River AK

- 20104

- 001 SC Cottonwood Lake AK

- 20505

- 403 SE Crab Bay AK

- 10203

- 501 SC Crow Creek AK

- 20401

- 416 SC Dark Lake AK

- 20701

- 402 SC Deep Creek AK

- 20301

- 002 SC Delong Lake AK

- 20401

- 423 SC Deshka River (Kroto Creek) AK

- 20505

- 010 SC Diamond Creek AK

- 20301

- 008 SE Dog Salmon Creek AK

- 10103

- 007 SC Dogfish Bay (Koyuktolik Bay) AK

- 20301

- 018 SC Donlin Creek AK

- 30501

- 002 SE Dora Bay AK

- 10103

- 001 SE Dora Lake AK

- 10103

- 401 IN Dry Creek (Nome) AK

- 50104

- 010 SC East Creek AK

- 20301

- 019 SC Edmonds Lake AK

- 20401

- 424 SC Eklutna River AK

- 20402

- 403 SC Eldred Passage AK

- 20301

- 501 SE Elfin Cove AK

- 10203

- 805 SC English Bay River AK

- 20301

- 014 SC Eyak River AK

- 20104

- 002 SE Falls Creek (Gustavus ) AK

- 10302

- 001 SC Falls Creek (Kachemak) AK

- 20302

- 101 SC Finger Lake AK

- 20505

- 404 SE Fire Cove AK

- 10103

- 005 SC Fire Lake AK

- 20302

- 401 IN Fortymile River AK

- 40104

- 001 IN Fourth of July Creek AK

- 40401

- 001 SC Fourth of July Creek (Seward) AK

- 20202

- 002 SC Fox Creek AK

- 20301

- 012 SE Freshwater Creek AK

- 10203

- 006 SC Fritz Creek AK

- 20301

- 009 SC Funny River AK

- 20302

- 006 SE Gastineau Channel AK

- 10301

- 802 SE Gastineau Channel (Harris and Aurora Harbors) AK

- 10301

- 804 SC Gibson Cove AK

- 20701

- 605 SC Glacier Creek (Girdwood) AK

- 20401

- 414 IN Glacier Creek (Kantishna Creek) AK

- 40510

- 002 SC Goodnews River AK

- 30502

- 004 SC Goose Bay AK

- 20505

- 501 SC Goose Creek AK

- 20505

- 008 SC Goose Lake AK

- 20401

- 409 SE Greens Creek AK

- 10204

- 001Alaska’s Final 20 10 Integrated Report

A. Waterbody Categories 2 through 5



### 44 Region Waterbody Name Assessment Unit ID SC Gulkana River AK

- 20102

- 001 SE Gunnuk Creek AK

- 10202

- 001 SC Halibut Cove AK

- 20301

- 502 SE Harris River AK

- 10103

- 008 SE Hatchery Creek AK

- 10103

- 009 SE Hawk Inlet AK

- 10204

- 501 SE Herring Bay Creek AK

- 10102

- 004 SC Hidden Lake AK

- 20401

- 410 SC Hideway (Hidden) Lake AK

- 20401

- 010 SE Hoadley Creek AK

- 10102

- 005 IN Hogatza River AK

- 40608

- 001 SC Homer Harbor AK

- 20301

- 505 SC Horseshoe/Island Lakes AK

- 20701

- 405 IN Hospital Lake AK

- 40205

- 401 SC Iliamna Lake AK

- 30206

- 401 IN Illinois Creek AK

- 40703

- 001 SE Indian River AK

- 10203

- 007 SC Jakolof Bay AK

- 20301

- 011 SC Jim Creek AK

- 20402

- 004 SC Jim Lake AK

- 20402

- 402 SE Johnson Creek AK

- 10301

- 009 SC Jones Lake AK

- 20401

- 405 SC Juneau Creek AK

- 20302

- 003 SC Kachemak Bay AK

- 20301

- 504 SC Kalmbach Lake AK

- 20505

- 410 SC Kanektok River AK

- 30502

- 001 IN Kantishna River AK

- 40510

- 001 SC Kasilof River AK

- 20301

- 015 SC Kaskanak Creek AK

- 30206

- 001 SE Ketchikan Creek AK

- 10102

- 006 SE Ke ndrick Creek AK

- 1010 3

- 0 1 0 SE Klehini/Chilkat River AK

- 10303

- 001 SC Klutina River AK

- 20102

- 002 IN Kobuk River AK

- 50304

- 001 SC Kodiak Landfill Creek AK

- 20701

- 001 SC Koktuli River

- North Fork AK

- 30302

- 001 IN Kotzebue AK

- 50301

- 401 IN Kotzebue Estuary AK

- 50403

- 601 IN Kotzebue Lagoon AK

- 50301

- 601 IN Kuparuk River AK

- 60401

- 001 SC Kuskokwim River AK

- 30502

- 003 SE Lab Bay AK

- 10103

- 803 SC Lake Clark AK

- 30205

- 401 SE Lake Creek AK

- 10301

- 012Alaska’s Final 20 10 Integrated Report

A. Waterbody Categories 2 through 5



### 45 Region Waterbody Name Assessment Unit ID SC Lake Louise AK

- 20501

- 401 IN Lake McDermott AK

- 60402

- 402 SC Lake Otis AK

- 20401

- 404 IN Lignite Creek AK

- 40508

- 002 SC Lilly Lake AK

- 20701

- 404 SE Little Auke Creek AK

- 10301

- 007 SC Little Campbell Lake AK

- 20401

- 413 IN Little Creek, south fork (Nome) AK

- 50104

- 009 SC Little Susitna River AK

- 20505

- 004 SC Little Tutka Bay AK

- 20301

- 510 SC Lost and Found Lake AK

- 20301

- 402 SC Lost Harbor AK

- 30102

- 501 SC Lower Fire Lake AK

- 20401

- 422 SC Lower Talarik Creek AK

- 30206

- 002 SE Lutak Inlet AK

- 10303

- 602 SE Margaret Creek AK

- 10102

- 002 SC Mariner Creek AK

- 20301

- 026 SC McClure Bay AK

- 20202

- 601 IN McDonald Creek (Salchaket Slough) AK

- 40507

- 005 SE McKenzie Inlet AK

- 10103

- 002 SC McKinley Lake AK

- 20201

- 402 SC McNeil Creek AK

- 20301

- 010 SC McRoberts Creek AK

- 20402

- 005 SC Meadow Creek AK

- 20505

- 006 SC Meadow Lake AK

- 20401

- 411 SC Memory Lake AK

- 20505

- 405 SE Mendenhall River AK

- 10301

- 006 SC Millard Bay AK

- 20301

- 508 SC Mills Creek AK

- 20302

- 001 IN Minook Creek AK

- 40404

- 001 SC Mirror Lake AK

- 20401

- 401 SC Mission Lake AK

- 20701

- 403 SE Montana Creek (Juneau) AK

- 10301

- 002 SC Montana Creek (Talkeetna) AK

- 20505

- 008 IN Moose Creek AK

- 40507

- 001 SC Moose River AK

- 20302

- 009 SE Mosquito Lake AK

- 10303

- 401 SC Mud Bay (Homer) AK

- 20301

- 520 SC Mulchatna River AK

- 30302

- 003 SC Nahodak Creek AK

- 20301

- 022 SC Nancy Lake AK

- 20505

- 406 SE Nataga Creek AK

- 10303

- 003 SC Neptune Bay AK

- 20301

- 507 SC Nilumat Creek AK

- 30502

- 002Alaska’s Final 20 10 Integrated Report

A. Waterbody Categories 2 through 5



### 46 Region Waterbody Name Assessment Unit ID SC Ninilchik River AK

- 20301

- 005 IN Nome River AK

- 50104

- 003 SE North Twin Lakes AK

- 10301

- 401 SC Nushagak River AK

- 30304

- 002 SE One Mile Creek AK

- 10303

- 002 SE Ophir Creek AK

- 10401

- 001 SC Orca Inlet AK

- 20201

- 801 SC Palmer Creek (Homer) AK

- 20301

- 023 SC Passage Canal (Whittier Harbor) AK

- 20202

- 501 SE Pavlof River AK

- 10203

- 004 SC Paxson Lake AK

- 20102

- 401 SC Peters Creek AK

- 20401

- 001 SC Peterson Bay AK

- 20301

- 503 SE Peterson Creek AK

- 10301

- 010 IN Pile Driver Slough AK

- 40507

- 002 IN Port Clarence AK

- 50104

- 801 SC Port Valdez AK

- 20201

- 602 SC Port Valdez Small Boat Harbor AK

- 20201

- 603 SC Potato Patch Lake AK

- 20701

- 401 SC Potter Creek AK

- 20401

- 021 SC Quartz Creek AK

- 20302

- 008 IN Quartz Lake AK

- 40507

- 401 SC Rabbit Creek AK

- 20401

- 007 SC Red Devil Creek AK

- 30501

- 001 SC Resurrection Creek AK

- 20302

- 002 SC Rice Creek AK

- 20301

- 024 SC Robe Lake AK

- 20201

- 403 IN Rogge Creek AK

- 40505

- 001 SC Ruby Creek AK

- 20301

- 025 SC Russian Creek AK

- 20701

- 003 IN Sagavanirktok River AK

- 60402

- 001 SC Saint Paul Harbor AK

- 20701

- 503 SE Salmon Creek AK

- 10301

- 011 SC Salmon River (Kinegnak) AK

- 30502

- 005 SE Sawmill Creek (Sitka) AK

- 10203

- 008 SE Sawmill Creek (Sitka) AK

- 10203

- 009 SC Scheffler Creek AK

- 20202

- 004 SE Schoenbar Creek AK

- 10102

- 007 SC Seldovia Bay AK

- 20301

- 602 IN Shaw Creek AK

- 40507

- 004 IN Sheenjek River AK

- 40205

- 001 SE Shoal Cove AK

- 10102

- 503 SE Shoal Creek AK

- 10102

- 001 SE Shoemaker Bay AK

- 10102

- 603Alaska’s Final 20 10 Integrated Report

A. Waterbody Categories 2 through 5



### 47 Region Waterbody Name Assessment Unit ID IN Shovel Creek AK

- 50104

- 006 IN Sinuk River AK

- 50104

- 004 SE Sitka Channel AK

- 10203

- 807 SE Sitka Sound AK

- 10203

- 806 SE Situk River AK

- 10401

- 002 SC Sleepy Bay AK

- 20202

- 801 SC Slikok Creek AK

- 20302

- 010 IN Snake River AK

- 50104

- 002 SC Soldotna Creek AK

- 20302

- 004 IN Solomon River AK

- 50104

- 001 IN Solomon River, East Fork AK

- 50104

- 007 SE South Twin Lakes AK

- 10301

- 402 SC Spring Creek AK

- 20402

- 006 SC Spring Creek (Seward) AK

- 20202

- 003 SC Stariski Creek AK

- 20301

- 003 SC Sundi Lake AK

- 20401

- 406 SE Sunshine Cove AK

- 10203

- 809 SC Sunshine Creek AK

- 20503

- 003 IN Suqitughneq River AK

- 50101

- 001 SC Susitna River AK

- 20505

- 007 SC Sweeper Cove AK

- 30103

- 501 SC Sweeper Creek AK

- 30103

- 001 SE Taku River AK

- 10301

- 018 SC Talkeetna River AK

- 20503

- 002 IN Tanana River AK

- 40506

- 010 SE Thorne River Estuary AK

- 10103

- 603 IN Tisuk River AK

- 50104

- 005 SE Tolstoi Bay AK

- 10103

- 802 SE Tolstoi Bay Watershed AK

- 10103

- 501 SE Tongass Narrows, Refuge Cove AK

- 10102

- 801 SC Town Lake AK

- 20102

- 402 IN Troutman Lake AK

- 50101

- 401 SE Turnaround Creek AK

- 10203

- 003 SC Tuxedni Bay AK

- 20602

- 601 SC Twitter Creek AK

- 20301

- 016 SC Two Moon Bay AK

- 20201

- 802 SC Ugashik River AK

- 30202

- 001 SC Unalaska Lake AK

- 30102

- 401 SC Unnamed Creek (City of Kenai) AK

- 20302

- 012 IN Unnamed Lake AK

- 40506

- 401 IN Unnamed Lake (Chena Hot Springs Rd.) AK

- 40506

- 401 SC Upper Bonnie Lake AK

- 20402

- 404 SC Upper Fire Lake AK

- 20401

- 407 SC Walby Lake AK

- 20402

- 401Alaska’s Final 20 10 Integrated Report

A. Waterbody Categories 2 through 5



### 48 Region Waterbody Name Assessment Unit ID SC Wasilla Creek AK

- 20505

- 002 SC Wasilla Lake AK

- 20505

- 402 SE Whale Passage AK

- 10103

- 004 SC Whittier Creek AK

- 20202

- 001 SC Willow Creek AK

- 20505

- 003 SE Winter Harbor AK

- 10103

- 006 SC Women ’ s Bay AK

- 20701

- 802 SC Wood River AK

- 30304

- 001 SC Woodard Creek AK

- 20301

- 001 SE Wrangell Narrows AK

- 10202

- 803 IN Wulik River AK

- 50404

- 003 SE Zinc Creek AK

- 10204

- 002Alaska’s Final 20 10 Integrated Report

A. Waterbody Categories 2 through 5



### 49 

## Category 4a Waterbodies

Alaska’s 2010 Integrated Water Quality Monitoring and Assessment Report Category 4a Waterbodies

– TMDL has been completed, impaired water.
Region Category Alaska ID

Number Waterbody Location Area of Concern Water Quality

Standard Pollutant Parameters Pollutant Sources

IN Category

4a 40402

- 001 Birch Creek Drainage:

- Upper Birch Creek; Eagle Creek; Golddust Creek North of

Fairbanks N/A Turbidity Turbidity Placer Mining

Birch Creek has been Section 303(d) listed since 1992 for turbidity as a result of placer mining activity within the drainage . A TMDL was developed and finalized on October 10, 1996. In 1998 Birch Creek was removed from the Section 303(d) list . T he waterbody remains in Category 4a because a TMDL has been developed for this waterbody. Priority actions for this water include continued NPDES inspections to monitor reduction of discharges from active mine sites, particularly during storm events; continued implementation of reclamation activities in key areas to address high

- priority nonpoint source problems, and monitoring at key sites in the drainage to dete rmine the extent of the water quality improvements. The U.S. Bureau of Land Management conducted water quality sampling in 2004, 2005, 2007, 2008

, and 2009

. Data are still being reviewed and will be submitted to DEC when finalized. A review of the data fro m DEC staff will be completed to determine whether removal from the 4a list is warranted.

IN Category

4a 40506

- 009 Garrison Slough Eielson Air Force Base N/A Toxic & Other Deleterious Organic and Inorganic Substances Polychlorinated

B iphenyls Military Base/ Operations

Garrison Slough was placed on the 1996 Section 303(d) list for polychlorinated biphenyls (PCBs), a TMDL was developed in 1996 , and the water was removed from the Section 303(d) list in 1998. Sediment and fish samples from the slough contained elevated leve ls of PCBs. The source of the PCBs was traced to a drainage ditch. Eielson Air Force Base vacuum dredged and removed most of the upper 18 to 24 inches of soil in the drainage ditch leading into Garris on Slough. Excavation in the drainage ditch extended dow nward until either groundwater was encountered or field screening results indicated PCB concentrations of less than 10 millig rams per kilogram. A 180

- foot section of Garrison Slough was not excavated because an unexploded ordnance was discovered. PCBs at c oncentrations above DEC cleanup levels are known to remain in the slough sediments. Fish tissue sampling has also occurred. A risk assessment was performed to set maximum conta mination levels allowable in fish. As a temporary measure engineering controls were initiated to prevent fish from entering the slough. An additional munitions sweep was conducted in spring 2007 and ensured no other unexploded ordnances existed. Some sediment profiling was conducted in spring 2007, and 2008 and a ―Dredge a nd Cap‖ r emoval action is being planned. In the 5

- year ROD review, completed in 2008, ADEC and EPA recommended additional actions to address the contamination. The planned rem edial action is a high priority for FFY2011. Long term monitoring will consist of sedimen t sampling and fish tissue analysis. The TMDL was finalized on September 27, 1996, and the waterbody was moved to Category 4a in 1998. The TMDL analysis showed that the remedial actions would result in attaining WQS.Alaska’s Final 20 10 Integrated Report

A. Waterbody Categories 2 through 5



### 50 

## Category 4a Waterbodies

Alaska’s 2010 Integrated Water Quality Monitoring and Assessment Report Category 4a Waterbodies

– TMDL has been completed, impaired water.
Region Category Alaska ID

Number Waterbody Location Area of Concern Water Quality

Standard Pollutant Parameters Pollutant Sources

IN Category

4a 40506

- 003 Noyes Slough Fairbanks 7 miles Residues Debris Urban Runoff
Noyes Slough was placed on the 1994 Section 303(d) list for debris. A TMDL was developed and finalized for the debris residue in May 2008. Noyes Slough remains on the Section 303(d) list of impaired waters for petroleum hydrocarbons and sediment

.

SC Category

4a 30102

- 604 Akutan Harbor Akutan Island N/A Residues Dissolved Gas Settleable Solids

Low Dissolved Oxygen Seafood Processing/ Waste
Akutan Harbor was originally on the 1994 Section 303(d) list for residues and dissolved gas. EPA issued a TMDL for Akutan Harbor on February 12, 1995. EPA finalized the associated NPDES permit for this area in spring 1996. The waterbody was removed from the Section 303(d) list in 1998 and remains in Category 4a. The

sea food processing facility located in Akutan Harbor is currently under a consent decree that requires a 12% reduction in 5

- day biochemical oxygen demand (BOD5) in addition to the limitations in the NPDES permit. The associated revised NPDES permit has discha rge limits consistent with a TMDL.

SC Category

4a 20401

- 004 Campbell Creek Anchorage 10 miles Fecal Coliform Bacteria Fecal Coliform

Bacteria Urban Runoff
Campbell Creek was placed on the Section 303(d) list in 1990 for non

- attainment of the FC bacteria standard

. The Campbell Creek water quality assessment completed in June 1994 investigated several parameters of concern, includi n g temperature, turbidity, zinc, and lead, but concluded that Campbell Creek was water quality limited for FC bacteria only. Water quality sampling was conducted in 2005. A TMDL was developed for FC bacteria and was approved by EPA on June 15, 2006.

SC Category

4a 20401

- 402 Campbell Lake Anchorage 125 acres Fecal Coliform Bacteria Fecal Coliform

Bacteria Urban Runoff
Campbell Lake was placed on the Section 303(d) list in 1990 for non

- attainment of the FC bacteria standard

. The Campbell Creek water quality assessment, completed in June 1994, included an assessment of Campbell Lake

. The assessment investigated several pa rameters of concern, including FC bacteria, lead

, and zinc, but concluded that Campbell Lake was water quality limited only for FC bacteria. Water quality sampling was conducted in 2005. A TMDL was developed for FC bacteria and was approved by EPA on June 15, 2006.

SC Category

4a 20401

- 003 Chester Creek Anchorage 4.1 miles Fecal Coliform Bacteria Fecal Coliform

Bacteria Urban Runoff, Industrial
Chester Creek was placed on the Section 303(d) list in 1990 for non

- attainment of the FC bacteria standard

. In April 1993, a water quality assessment was completed on the Chester Creek drainage . Although the assessment identified several parameters of concern for Chester Creek, it was concluded that the waterbody is water quality limited only for FC bacteria

. A TMD L for FC bacteria was developed and approved by EPA (dated May 2005).Alaska’s Final 20 10 Integrated Report

A. Waterbody Categories 2 through 5



### 51 

## Category 4a Waterbodies

Alaska’s 2010 Integrated Water Quality Monitoring and Assessment Report Category 4a Waterbodies

– TMDL has been completed, impaired water.
Region Category Alaska ID

Number Waterbody Location Area of Concern Water Quality

Standard Pollutant Parameters Pollutant Sources

SC Category

4a 20 402

- 00 2 Eagle River Eagle River N/A Toxic & Other Deleterious Organic and Inorganic Substances Ammonia, Chlorine,

Copper, Lead, Silver Wastewater Treatment Facility

Although Eagle River was never Section 303(d) listed, a TMDL for the waterbody for ammonia and metals was completed by EPA on April 12, 1995

, to support the NPDES permit for the wastewater treatment facility that discharges to the river.

SC Category

4a 20401

- 005 Fish Creek Anchorage 6.4 miles Fecal Coliform Bacteria Fecal Coliform

Bacteria Urban Runoff
Fish Creek has been on the Section 303(d) list since 1990 for non

- attainment of the FC bacteria standard and the turbidity standard

. A 1995 waterbody assessment concluded Fish Creek was impaired only for FC bacteria. A TMDL for FC bacteria was developed and approved by EPA in March 2004.

SC Category

4a 20401

- 006 Furrow Creek Anchorage 5.3 miles Fecal Coliform Bacteria Fecal Coliform

Bacteria Urban Runoff

This waterbody was placed on the 1990 Section 303(d) list for non

- attainment of the FC bacteria standard. W ater quality monitoring data from the Municipality of Anchorage show that the levels of FC bacteria exceed the designated use criteria for drinking water, primary contact recreation, and occasionally for secondary co ntact recreation

. The source of the FC bacteria is presumed to be human

- caused from urban runoff sources. A TMDL for FC bacteria w as developed and was approved by EPA in March 2004.

SC Category

4a 30101

- 501 King Cove King Cove N/A Residues Seafood Waste Residue Seafood Processing/ Waste
King Cove was originally on the 1996 Section 303(d) list for residues. On October 10, 1998

, EPA completed a TMDL for King Cove . T he water was removed from the Section 303(d) list in 1998. The original listing was based on historical information provided by the Aleutians East Borough and verified by DEC staff . The information included citizen complaints and photographs as well as other indicat ions that persistent exceedances of seafood residues were from seafood processing activity adjacent to the waterbody. The water remains in Category 4a since a TMDL was developed in 1998

.Alaska’s Final 20 10 Integrated Report

A. Waterbody Categories 2 through 5



### 52 

## Category 4a Waterbodies

Alaska’s 2010 Integrated Water Quality Monitoring and Assessment Report Category 4a Waterbodies

– TMDL has been completed, impaired water.
Region Category Alaska ID

Number Waterbody Location Area of Concern Water Quality

Standard Pollutant Parameters Pollutant Sources

SC Category

4a 20505

- 409 Lake Lucille Wasilla N/A Dissolved Gas Low Dissolved

Oxygen Urban Runoff
This waterbody was Section 303(d) list ed for dissolved gas (low DO) and nutrients in 1994

. A TMDL for Lake Lucille was completed and was approved by EPA (March 2002)

. T he waterbody was removed from the Section 303(d) list in 2002/2003. Priority actions for this water include complet ion of the development of a TMDL implementation plan

, continu ation of education on nonpoint source pollution controls

, and work with a technical team to determine a water quality sampling plan to monitor nutrients and DO levels. Water quality data collected by DEC in 2004, 2005, and 2006 indicate DO levels have been within Alaska WQS ranges during open water seasons, but below WQS ranges during ti mes of ice cover.

SC Category

4a 20401

- 017 Little Campbell Creek Anchorage 8.3 miles Fecal Coliform Bacteria Fecal Coliform

Bacteria Urban Runoff
Little Campbell Creek was Section 303(d) list ed in 1990 for non

- attainment of the FC bacteria standard

. The water quality assessment for the Campbell Creek Drainage indicates that Little Campbell Creek is impaired only for FC bacteria. A TMDL for FC bacteria was developed and was approved by EPA in March 2004.

SC Category

4a 20401

- 024 Little Rabbit Creek Anchorage 6.2 miles Fecal Coliform Bacteria Fecal Coliform

Bacteria Urban Runoff
Little Rabbit Creek was placed on the 1994 Section 303(d) list for non

- attainment of the FC bacteria standard

. A TMDL for FC bacteria was developed and was approved by EPA in March 2004

. SC Category

4a 20401

-

018 Little Survival Creek Anchorage 3.0 miles Fecal Coliform Bacteria Fecal Coliform

Bacteria Urban Runoff
Little Survival Creek was placed on the 1994 Section 303(d) list for non

- attainment of the FC bacteria standard

. The source of the FC bacteria exceedances has been identified as caused by both human and non

- human sources, such as wildlife

. A TMDL for FC bacteria was developed an d was approved by EPA in March 2004

.

SC Category

4a 20401

-

020 Ship Creek Glenn Hwy. Bridge

. Down to Mouth Anchorage Glenn Hwy. Bridge

. Down to Mouth Fecal Coliform

Bacteria Fecal Coliform

Bacteria Urban Runoff

A TMDL for the FC bacteria impairment on Ship Creek was developed and approved by EPA in March 2004. Ship Creek remains Category 5/Section 303( d) listed from a petroleum product impairment.Alaska’s Final 20 10 Integrated Report

A. Waterbody Categories 2 through 5



### 53 

## Category 4a Waterbodies

Alaska’s 2010 Integrated Water Quality Monitoring and Assessment Report Category 4a Waterbodies

– TMDL has been completed, impaired water.
Region Category Alaska ID

Number Waterbody Location Area of Concern Water Quality

Standard Pollutant Parameters Pollutant Sources

SC Category

4a 30102

- 603 South Unalaska Bay Unalaska Island N/A Residues, Low Dissolved Oxygen Seafood Waste

Residues, Dissolved Gas Seafood Processing Waste
This waterbody was on the 1994 Section 303 ( d ) list for both settleable solids and DO

. EPA issued the TMDLs on February 12, 1995

, and revised seafood processing permits to implement TMDL controls

. The water was removed from the Section 303(d) list in 1996. Seafood processors discharging into South Unalaska Bay have been implementing TMDL controls. South Unalaska Bay discharge permit s are tracked and monitored by DEC and/or EPA to ensure that waterbody recovery continues

, and the seafood processors are fully implementing their revised permit requirements.

SC Category

4a 30102

- 607 Udagak Bay Unalaska Island N/A Residues Settleable S olids Seafood Processing Waste This waterbody was listed on the Section 303(d) list for seafood waste (settleable solids) in 1994. A nearshore floating poll ock processor has discharged seafood waste into Udagak Bay

. Because of the poor flushing action in Udagak Bay, two piles of fish waste have accumulated at the bottom of the bay

. Th e accumulations resulted in a violation of the WQS because the seafood general NPDES permit issued in 1989 did not provide for a ZOD

. Enforcement action has been taken against the same seafood processors for waste that had accumulated on the shoreline and for floating solids on the receiving water

. One floating seafood processor is discharging to this water body

. The seafood waste residues (waste pile) are decreasing because of better utilization of the fish product. A TMDL was completed for Udagak Bay on September 30, 1998

, and the waterbody was removed from the Section 303(d) list in 1998.

SC Category

4a 20401

- 419 University Lake Anchorage 10 acres Fecal Coliform Bacteria Fecal Coliform

Bacteria Urban Runoff
University Lake has been on the Section 303(d) list since 1990 for non

- attainment of the FC bacteria standard

. The Chester Creek Drainage Water Quality Assessment

, focusing on an area that included University Lake, was completed in April 1993 . It determined that the waterbody was impaired only for FC bacteria

. A TMDL for FC bacteria was developed and was approved by EPA (dated May 2005).

SC Category

4a 20401

- 421 Westchester Lagoon Anchorage 30 acres Fecal Coliform Bacteria Fecal Coliform

Bacteria Urban Runoff
Westchester Lagoon was Section 303(d) listed in 1990 for non

- attainment of the FC bacteria standard

. The Chester Creek Drainage Water Quality Assessment (which also included Westchester Lagoon), from April 1993, indicated Westchester Lagoon was impaired only for FC bacteria

. A TMDL for FC bacteria was developed and was approved by EPA (dated May 2005).Alaska’s Final 20 10 Integrated Report

A. Waterbody Categories 2 through 5



### 54 

## Category 4a Waterbodies

Alaska’s 2010 Integrated Water Quality Monitoring and Assessment Report Category 4a Waterbodies

– TMDL has been completed, impaired water.
Region Category Alaska ID

Number Waterbody Location Area of Concern Water Quality

Standard Pollutant Parameters Pollutant Sources

SE Category

4a 10301

- 005 Duck Creek Juneau N/A Dissolved Gas , Residues , Toxic & Other Deleterious Organic and Inorganic Substances , Fecal Coliform Bacteria , Turbidity Low Dissolved

Oxygen, Debris, Iron, Fecal Coliform Bacteria, Turbidity Urban Runoff, Landfill, Road Runoff, Land Development

Duck Creek was Section 303(d) listed for dissolved gas ( low DO), residues (debris), metals, FC bacteria, and turbidity in 1994. TMDLs were completed for all pollutants (turbidity in 1999, FC bacteria and residues in 2000, and DO and iron in 2001)

, and Duck Creek was removed from the Section 303(d) list and placed in Category 4a in 2002/2003. Priority actions identified for this water include implement ing the Duck Creek Management Plan and act ions to address loadings identified in TMDLs; conduct ing monitoring program to determine whether recovery actions are improving water quality; maintain ing stream flow to provide fish rearing habitat in the stream, dilute pollutants, and prevent salt water intrusion; and work ing with the City and Borough of Juneau and others to ensure adequate stormwater permitting practices and controls are implemented to restore water quality. A ccording to the 2007 final monitoring report

, Duck Creek continue d to suffer fr om low in

- stream flow, except for during large precipitation events; DO levels continue d to regularly fall below state standards for aquatic life; pH values were centered near and at times below the state water quality standard of 6.5 for aquatic life, at least during the morning sampling events conducted for this study (variations in pH are expected based on time of day and amount of sunlight); and large amounts of iron floc were noted at all sites. Stream cleanup events are typically conducted on a bi enni al basis to address ongoing residues (debris) issues in high

- density corridors. The construction of wetland habitat and channelization of the stream above Nancy Street ha ve produced some improvement to fish and wildlife habitat, reduced turbidity and iron levels, and raise d pH and DO in the downstream reach. However, ongoing land use, ordinance enforcement, and snow disposal o n private lands adjacent to Duck Creek continue to impair water quality.Alaska’s Final 20 10 Integrated Report

A. Waterbody Categories 2 through 5



### 55 

## Category 4a Waterbodies

Alaska’s 2010 Integrated Water Quality Monitoring and Assessment Report Category 4a Waterbodies

– TMDL has been completed, impaired water.
Region Category Alaska ID

Number Waterbody Location Area of Concern Water Quality

Standard Pollutant Parameters Pollutant Sources

SE Category

4a 10203

- 005 Granite Creek Sitka N/A Turbidity , Sediment Turbidity, Sediment Gravel Mining
Granite Creek was placed on the 1996 Section 303(d) list for turbidity and sediment. Information showed that the lower 1.5

- mile section of the creek is impaired from sediment and turbidity. Since a TMDL was completed for Granite Creek and approved by EPA ( September 30 2002 )

, the waterbody was removed from the Section 303(d) list and moved to Category 4a in 2002/2003. Priority actions for this water include implement ing actions identified in the Granite Creek TMDL Watershed Recovery Strategy and Action Plan (March 2002). Granite Creek has been monitored for turbidity and total suspended solids (TSS) as part of the TMDL Implementation Plan t hrough ACWA grants since 2001 . The turbidity in Granite Creek has improved significantly since BMP controls at the gravel mining operations have been implemented. Practices have included establishing and enforcing a stream setback, recontouring the road an d creating vegetated ditches

, and stopping operations if a certain amount of rain falls in a set time period. The C ity and Borough of Sitka is ensuring that new developments in the area to make sure it is in compliance with the TMDL.

SE Category

4a 10203

- 603 Herring Cove of Silver Bay Sitka 102 acres Residues Bark & Woody Debris Log Storage from

former Pulp Mill Operations The Herring Cove segment of Silver Bay has been Section 303(d) listed since 1994. On September 27, 1999

, a TMDL was completed for residues for this segment of Silver Bay

. The Herring Cove segment of Silver Bay was removed from the Section 303(d) list in 2002/2003.

SE Category

4a 10301

- 004 Jordan Creek Juneau 3 miles from tide

- water upstream Residues Debris Land Development, Road Runoff
A TMDL was developed and approved by EPA for residues on Jordan Creek and is dated May 2005. Since a TMDL was developed and approved for residues Jordan Creek was removed from the Section 303(d) and moved to Category 4a for residues. A TMDL for sediment and dissolved gas was completed in 2009. Jordan Creek is being moved to Category 4a in 2010.Alaska’s Final 20 10 Integrated Report

A. Waterbody Categories 2 through 5



### 56 

## Category 4a Waterbodies

Alaska’s 2010 Integrated Water Quality Monitoring and Assessment Report Category 4a Waterbodies

– TMDL has been completed, impaired water.
Region Category Alaska ID

Number Waterbody Location Area of Concern Water Quality

Standard Pollutant Parameters Pollutant Sources

SE Category

4a 10301

- 004 Jordan Creek Juneau 3 miles from tide

water upstream Sediment,

Dissolved Gas Sediment, Low

Dissolved Oxygen Land Development, Road Runoff

A TMDL was developed and approved by EPA for residues on Jordan Creek and is dated May 2005. A second TMDL was developed and approved by EPA for d issolved gas and sediment in October 2009. Since a TMDL was developed and approved for residues, dissolved gas , and sediment, Jordan Creek was removed from the Section 303(d) and moved to Category 4a for residues. Populations of c oho salmon have dropped from an average of 250 adult returns to 54 in 1996 and 18 in 1997. Jordan Creek had been one of the most product ive small streams in Juneau and Southeast Alaska for coho salmon

, but has experienced a rapid decline. There are serious sediment problems in the stream , leading to poor survival of salmon eggs and low oxygen readings in the substrate that are in violation of WQS . The stream is largely spring fed and cannot transport large volumes of sediment like the higher gradient systems can . The headwaters of the stream are manipulated with ditches replacing more productive habitat and ponds that have been filled in. M ore recent observations note a problem with iron floc that was not present 10 years ago; however

, no hard iron data that might document iron exceedances are available . The stream corridor is under rapid development

, and the lower section of the creek regul arly goes dry. Macroinvertebrate bioassessment sampling shows the stream has low diversity and experienced declines during the 1994 to 1996 period. A suite of water quality parameters and pollutants

, including sediment, pH, DO , and turbidity

, were sampled between November 2007 and June 2008. Findings are summarized in the report Watershed Protection and Recovery for Jordan Creek, Juneau, Alaska (Nagorski, Hood, Hoferkamp, Neal & Hudson, July 2008). Bi ennial ―Slash the Trash‖ cleanup
events occur and two s St ormwater BMP demonstration sites were installed in 2009 in areas adjacent to the stream to provide information and education to the ge neral public.

SE Category

4a 10203

- 602 Klag Bay West Chichagof Island 1.25 acres Toxic & Other Deleterious Organic and Inorganic Substances Metals

–

Arsenic, Cobalt, Copper, Lead, Manganese, Mercury, Silver, Zinc Mining

Klag Bay was placed on the 1996 Section 303(d) list for non

- attainment of the toxic and other deleterious organic and inorganic substances standard for metals

. Past mining resulted in the deposition of large amounts of tailings in Klag Bay

. A draft 1985 report (n ever finalized) on Klag Bay , the Klag Bay Study , was prepared by USF&WS and indicated high levels of metals from tailings are leaching into the b ay. Contaminants are mercury, arsenic, cobalt, copper, lead, and silver. These metals caused abnormalities in numerous blue mussels

. These abnormalities are considered an impairment of a designated use. A preliminary assessment /site investigation (PA/SI) (Ecology & Environment Inc. 1999) and Preliminary Draft Report (Klag Bay waterbody Assessment, Cadmus Group Inc. and CDM, 2008) confirmed lead, silver, arsenic

, and mercury in the intertidal sediments above NOAA screening benchmarks. A TMDL was developed a nd approved by EPA on June 1, 2009

, for the metals impairments.Alaska’s Final 20 10 Integrated Report

A. Waterbody Categories 2 through 5



### 57 

## Category 4a Waterbodies

Alaska’s 2010 Integrated Water Quality Monitoring and Assessment Report Category 4a Waterbodies

– TMDL has been completed, impaired water.
Region Category Alaska ID

Number Waterbody Location Area of Concern Water Quality

Standard Pollutant Parameters Pollutant Sources

SE Category

4a 10301

- 001 Lemon Creek Juneau N/A Turbidity, Sediment Turbidity, Sediment Urban Runoff, Gravel Mining This waterbody was placed on the 1990 Section 303(d) list for turbidity, sediment, and concerns about habitat modification

. A waterbody recovery plan that included a TMDL was prepared and approved for this waterbody in fall 1995

, and Lemon Creek was remove d from the Section 303(d) list in 1996

. Waterbody recovery plan implementation began during fall 1995. The University of Alaska Southeast conducted a sediment assessment. This assessment defined concentrations of natural nonpoint source sediment within Lem on Creek, where active glacial processes contribute to sediment problems. A paired watershed study was conducted from May 200 2 through June 2003 to ascertain the roles of glacier processes on watershed sediment discharge

. This study concluded that in systems substantially influenced by glacier and mass wasting processes, the traditional TSS

- Q (total suspended sediment

- stream discharge) relationship is not particularly meaningful because some of the most pronounced sediment events are associated with pr ocesses that are not well correlated with stream discharge

. Results of this project will also assist with flood control and bank stabilization projects proposed for Lemon Creek

. Priority actions for this water include implementing control actions and monit oring as recommended in the TMDL document.

SE Category

4a 10301

- 014 Pederson Hill Creek Juneau Lower two miles Fecal Coliform

Bacteria Fecal Coliform

Bacteria Septic Tanks
Pederson Hill Creek was Section 303(d) listed in 1990 for non

- attainment of the FC bacteria standard from certain areas of failing onsite septic systems

. FC bacteria contamination had been well documented since 1985, with values as high as 2400 FC/100 ml reported in 1991. Monitoring conducted from November 2005 through summer 2006 found that FC bacteria levels continue to exceed WQS at least on some sites during parts of the year. A final TMDL for FC bacteria was completed for Pederson Hill Creek ( dated February 2009 )

.

SE Category

4a 10303

- 004 Pullen Creek (Lower Mile) Skagway Lower mile of Pullen Creek Toxic & Other

Deleterious Organic and Inorganic Substances Metals

– Barium,

Lead, Zinc Industrial

Pullen Creek has been on the Section 303(d) list since 1990 for non

- attainment of the toxic and other deleterious organic and inorganic substances standard for metals. The lower mile of Pullen Creek was previously Section 303(d) listed with the Skagway Harbor listing

, but was segmented out into its own listing in the 2006 report. A local nonprofit group completed an environmental assessment on the creek, collecting baseline monitoring data on water qualit y, flow

, and sedimentation and develop ed an action strategy for P ullen Creek in 2006. Assessment results found no elevated levels of toxics in the water column. Elevated levels of lead, zinc

, and barium have been found i n stream bottom sediments and adjoining banks. Stream banks

, are very stable but elevated levels of m etals are found near railroad transport areas where ore was transported in the past

. A waterbody recovery plan with BMPs was completed in 2006 , and major riparian restoration projects were completed in s ummer 2009 . A TMDL was developed in May 2010 and Pul len Creek was removed from the Section 303(d) list and placed in Category 4a.Alaska’s Final 20 10 Integrated Report

A. Waterbody Categories 2 through 5



### 58 

## Category 4a Waterbodies

Alaska’s 2010 Integrated Water Quality Monitoring and Assessment Report Category 4a Waterbodies

– TMDL has been completed, impaired water.
Region Category Alaska ID

Number Waterbody Location Area of Concern Water Quality

Standard Pollutant Parameters Pollutant Sources

SE Category

4a 10203

- 601 Silver Bay Sitka 6.5 acres Residues , Toxic & Other Deleterious Organic and Inorganic Substances Pulp Residues, Logs,

Bark & Woody Debris, Sediment Toxicity due to Wood Decomposition By

products Industrial, Historical

Pulp Mill Activity

Silver Bay was Section 303(d) listed in 1994 for non

- attainment of residues, toxic and other deleterious organic and inorganic substances, and dissolved gas standards for sludge (residues), toxic substances, and dissolved gas ( DO )

. A report titled Final Expanded Site Inspection Report, Alaska Pulp Corporation, Sitka, Alaska

, prepared in Feb ruary 1995

, substantiated water quality exceedances

. Discharges from the mill ceased in March 1993

. Based on a DEC June 1993 Water Quality Assessment, the pollutant parameters of concern were sludge and DO. A contaminated site Remedial Investigation/Feasib ility Study for Silver Bay was contracted by Alaska Pulp Company from July 1996 to February 1999

. DEC issued a Record of Decision ROD in 1999

. The remedial action objective identified by the ROD was natural recovery, with long

- term monitoring

. A TMDL was d eveloped for Silver Bay in 2003, with waste load allocations for residues and sediment toxicity. Monitoring data show that Silver Bay is no longer impaired for DO

. Although DO levels below the limits of the WQS have been observed in deep water between Sawm ill Cove and Herring Cove, no correlation between these levels and the presence of wood waste has been identified , and no current source of DO depression is known. Therefore, the DO pollutant parameter was removed from the Silver Bay listing

, and no TMDL w ill be developed for DO

. In 1999

, a TMDL was completed for residues for the Herring Cove segment of Silver Bay

. A TMDL for residues and sediment toxicity was completed in 2003

. Based o n the 2003 TMDL, Silver Bay was removed from the Section 303(d) list and placed in Category 4a.Alaska’s Final 20 10 Integrated Report

A. Waterbody Categories 2 through 5



### 59 

## Category 4a Waterbodies

Alaska’s 2010 Integrated Water Quality Monitoring and Assessment Report Category 4a Waterbodies

– TMDL has been completed, impaired water.
Region Category Alaska ID

Number Waterbody Location Area of Concern Water Quality

Standard Pollutant Parameters Pollutant Sources

SE Category

4a 10103

- 602 Thorne Bay Prince of Wales Island 7.5 acres Residues Bark & Wood Debris Historical Log Transfer Facility The Thorne Bay historical marine LTF, which consisted of both a nearshore log transfer area and an associated LSA, was Section 303(d) listed in 1994 for non

- attainment of the residues standard for bark and wood debris

. Log transfer and storage activities began in 1962 and caused the accumulation of woody debris on the bottom of the head of Thorne Bay

. L og transfer and storage activities ended in 2000

, and the operator, USFS

, does not plan to resume them; all equipment and facilities have been removed. A key feature of the recovery of the former log transfer and storage area is the Thorne River

, which empties into the bay and deposits sediments onto a large sand and gravel delta

, where they mix with debris and aid in biological recovery. The Log Storage Area: Dive surveys of the LSA conducted in July 2001 and June 2002 documented 1.1 acres of bar k and wood debris on the marine bottom. Dive surveys in 2003 and 2005 detailed the benthic health of 161 acres of the former LSA

. F inding s included the following : ( 1) bark debris wa s mostly decomposed to small fragments and was mixed with natural sediments ; ( 2) the bottom wa s biologically recovered, exhibiting mostly mature ―Stage III‖ biological communities; and ( 3) the site wa s an ―extremely healthy coastal embayment.‖ DEC determined, based on the detailed benthic assessment, that the residues standard is met in the former LSA . DEC removed the LSA from the Section 303(d) list and placed it in Category 2 in 2004. T he LSA remain s in Category 2 with no known impairments. The Log Transfer Facility: Dive surveys conducted in 1988 and 1990 documented approximate ly 55 acres of bark accumulation in the LTF. Dive surveys of the LTF conducted in July 2001 and June 2002 documented 2.6 and 1.1 acres of bark an d wood debris, respectively, on the marine bottom. An April 2004 dive survey of the LTF documented 6.5 acres of bark and woody debris. The former LTF remained on the Section 303(d) list for a defined area of approximately 35 acres between the LTF shoreline and the boundary of the former LSA established in the 2003

- 2005 benthic assessment

. A December 2007 dive

surve y documented a reduced area of impaired marine bottom of only 7.5 acres and the rest of the previous area of impairment as me eting the residues criterion and attaining WQS. Th ese findings suggest that biological recovery is proceeding and is well advanced within the area associated with the LTF. A residues TMDL for the Thorne Bay LTF was completed and approved by EPA on May 8, 2007

. With the completed TMDL for residues , the LTF wa s removed from the Section 303(d) list and placed in Category 4a

.

SE Category

4a 10301

- 017 Vanderbilt Creek Juneau N/A Turbidity Residues Sediment Turbidity, Debris,

Sediment Urban Runoff

This waterbody was placed on the 1990 Section 303(d) list for turbidity, debris, sediment, and with concerns for habitat modi fication. Available file information is insufficient file to correlate habitat modification with effects to designated uses

. A waterbody recovery plan that included a TMDL was prepared during s ummer 1995

. EPA approved the TMDL on September 27, 1995

, and Vanderbilt C reek was removed from the Section 303(d) list in 1996

. Implementation of the waterbody recovery plan began during f

all 1995. A local nonprofit group secured state fiscal year 2009 grant funds to remove debris from Vanderbilt Creek using a youth group. The project will also improve public education and stream stewardship through promotion and implementation of a Stream Cleanup Day. Prior ity actions for this water include implement ing control actions and monitoring as recommended in the TMDL document. The Jun eau Watershed Partnership received ACWA grant funds to evaluate actions and update the recovery plan, develop a water quality monitoring strategy, and conduct a stream cleanup.Alaska’s Final 20 10 Integrated Report

A. Waterbody Categories 2 through 5



### 60 

## Category 4a Waterbodies

Alaska’s 2010 Integrated Water Quality Monitoring and Assessment Report Category 4a Waterbodies

– TMDL has been completed, impaired water.
Region Category Alaska ID

Number Waterbody Location Area of Concern Water Quality

Standard Pollutant Parameters Pollutant Sources

SE Category

4a 10102

- 601 Ward Cove Ketchikan 250 acres Residues Dissolved Gas Pulp Residues, Logs,

Bark & Woody Debris, Low Dissolved Oxygen Industrial

Ward Cove has been Section 303(d) listed since 1990. The waterbody was listed for non

- attainment of the residues and dissolved gas standards from pulp residues, logs, bark and woody debris, and low DO from historical discharges and associated activity from the Ketchikan Pulp Company pulp mill operations. T he pulp mill wastewater discharges ceased in 1997 and consequently color was removed from the listing. Studies indicated that bottom sediments and accumulations of wood debris contribute to seasonal depres sions in DO in Ward Cove

. Discharge monitoring reports that were required by timber processing discharge permits from 1995 to 2000 showed severe DO depressions at certain times and locations during stratification of the waterbody in late summer and fall

. T he deeper layer of water more than 5 to 10 meters was below Alaska water quality criteria for DO. Th ese findings provided evidence of an ongoing DO deficit in Ward Cove

. The seafood processing facility

, which had contributed to DO depressions

, has ceased d ischarging and no new sources or residues from this source are present. A surface DO TMDL for Ward Cove was issued by EPA on May 5, 1994

, while the pulp mill was still discharging

. Since discharges ceased in 1997 surface water DO has been meeting WQS, Ward Cove has remained Category 5/Section 303(d) listed for non

- attainment of the dissolved gas standard for DO below the pinocline (at depth, i.e., for deeper waters) . In 2006 t he toxicity in Ward Cove was more closely reviewed and more accurately described a s ―sediment toxicity‖ from pulp residues, logs, and bark and woody debris operations. An 80

- acre area of concern was removed from the Section 303(d) listing for sediment toxicity and placed in Category 4b because DEC and EPA have determined that the approv ed and final ROD of the Superfund cleanup for the ―Ketchikan Pulp Company, Marine Operable Unit, Ketchikan, Alaska‖ (March 29, 2000) are adequate ―ot her pollution controls‖ for sediment toxicity in Ward Cove. The Superfund cleanup actions subsequently prov ed effective

, and the area that had been previously impaired from sediment toxicity was moved to Category 2. A TMDL for residues and DO was developed and approved by EPA on May 15, 2007. Consequently, Ward Cove has been placed in Category 4a for residues a nd dissolved gas (DO).Alaska’s Final 20 10 Integrated Report

A. Waterbody Categories 2 through 5



### 61 

## Category 4b Waterbodies

Alaska’s 20 10 Integrated Water Quality Monitoring and Assessment Report Category 4b Waterbodies

– Impaired but not needing a TMDL ; expected to meet standards in a reasonable time period

. Region Category Alaska ID Number Waterbody Location Area of Concern Water Quality Standard Pollutant Parameters Pollutant Sources

IN Category

4b 40501

- 001 Cabin Creek Nabesna 1.5 miles Toxic & Other Deleterious Organic and Inorganic Substances Manganese, Arsenic, Iron, Copper & Cadmium Mining

Cabin Creek is located on park lands within Wrangell

- St. Elias National Park and Preserve. This waterbody was Section 303(d) listed in 1996 for manganese from the Nabesna Mine Site

- a patented mining claim area located on private property within the legislative boundary of Wrangell St. Elias National Preserve. The U.S. Geological Survey and National Park Service completed a field sampling component of an environmental geochemical site charact erization study at the Nabesna Mine in 1 997 (results published in USGS PP 1619). National Park Service and DEC staff visited the Site and waterbody in June 1997 to d iscuss specifics of a waterbody recovery plan with the owner of the Nabesna Mine property. Acidic mill tailings located down slope of the mill building (situated on both private and National Park Service

managed lands), may be compromising the water quality of Cabin Creek. Elevated metal levels were detected periodically in the Cabin Creek drainage within the one mile reach below the mill tailings.. In 2002/2003 arsenic, iron, copper and cadmium were added to the 1996 Section 303(d) listing. Recovery plan objectives include re

construction of the existing historic drainage ditches around the tailings to divert stormwater and seasonal snow melt run

- off away from (bypass) the tailings. The NPS implemented a surface water flow mitigation plan in 2004 and re

- directed surface water flows away from the tailings to minimize introduction of metals into Cabin Creek. Visual observations by the N PS indicate that the water flow mitigation work has intercepted 80% of the water that previously flowed across the tailings. Water quality monitoring was conducted during spring run

- off in May 2007. The volume of water flowing across the tailings was subst antially diminished, which resulted in lower volumes of water carrying dissolved metals. Additional water quality sampling was conducted in 2009 and will be used, among o ther things, to validate the effectiveness of the on

- the

- ground

- controls. Cabin Creek meets the Category 4b criteria and was removed from Category 5 (Section 303(d) list) in 2004. A Category 4b rationale has been developed and on record and available upon request. NPS is utilizing the CERCLA process to respond to the release of haz ardous s ubstances at the Nabesna Mine Site. This response consists of performing a non

- time critical removal action (NTCRA). A NTCRA requires the development of an Engineering Evaluation/Cost Evaluation (EE/CA). Through this process, current Site conditions and e xisting data will be duly considered in furthering the removal action selection process. The selected removal action will address unacceptable human health and ecological risks associated with Site contaminants.Alaska’s Final 20 10 Integrated Report

A. Waterbody Categories 2 through 5



### 62 

## Category 4b Waterbodies

Alaska’s 20 10 Integrated Water Quality Monitoring and Assessment Report Category 4b Waterbodies

– Impaired but not needing a TMDL ; expected to meet standards in a reasonable time period

. Region Category Alaska ID Number Waterbody Location Area of Concern Water Quality Standard Pollutant Parameters Pollutant Sources

SC Category

4b N/A Exxon Valdez Beaches Prince William

Sound

- Alaska Peninsula 23 beaches Petroleum Hydrocarbons, Oil s & Grease Petroleum Products Exxon Valdez Crude Oil Spill Exxon Valdez Beaches were Section 303(d) listed as impaired in 1990. The 23 Exxon Valdez affected beaches and adjacent marine waters were later placed in Category 4b because it was believed that a TMDL process would be redundant to the efforts of the Exxon Valdez Trustee Council (EVOSTC) and restoration projects specified in the Exxon Valdez Restoration Plan. In 2007, the EVOSTC funded a pair of projects to identify the areas where oil is most likely to persist and factors responsible for the in situ degradation of oil. The project, Assessment of the Areal Distribution and Amount of Lingering Oil in Prince William Sound a nd the Gulf of Alaska (conducted by Michel et al, 2007.), will produce maps showing the probability of lingering oil. A draft final report for this project has been submitted to the EVOSTC but has not been published at the time of this report. The second project, Factors Responsible for Limiting the Degradation Rate of Exxon Valdez Oil in Prince William Sound Beaches (conducted by Boufadel et al, 2007), found persistent oil in anoxic sediments with low permeability and identified the main f actors limiting biodegradation as oxygen and nitrogen to a much lesser extent. The study recommends pilot studies of in situ remedial efforts involving surface injection of oxygen and nutrients to acceler ate biodegradation. The results of this project have been publish ed in Nature Geoscience; however, a final report will not be available through EVOSTC until summer 2010. This combination of work will assist DEC in more clearly identifying the nature and extent of impairment that still occurs an d help to ensure the EVOS TC targets remedial efforts to effectively work toward meeting WQS. A Category 4b rationale has been developed; it is on record and available upon request. The Exxon Valdez beaches have been placed in Category 4b.

SE Category

4b 10203

- 808 East Port Frederick NE Chichagof

Island 0. 4 acres Residues Bark & Woody Debris Log T ransfer

F acility East Port Frederick was Section 303(d) listed for non

- attainment of the r esidues standard for bark and woody debris. Dive survey information documents a significant exceedance of the bark accumulation level for the interim intertidal threshold ( according to the ATTF Log Transfer Facility Siting, Construction, Operation and Moni toring/Reporting Guidelines , October 21, 1985). The operator submitted a remediation plan

, which DEC approved on March 14, 2005

. The approved remediation plan contains adequate institutional controls to minimize future accumulation of bark and wood waste o n the bottom and is expected to result in reducing continuous cover to less than 1.5 acres within a reasonable pe riod of time. EPA approved removing East Port Frederick from the Section 303(d) list as part of Alaska’s 2004 Integrated Report. A March 4 to 6 , 2008

, bark monitoring survey report documented 1.74 acres of continuous bark debris. A March 24 to 26, 2009

, bark monitoring survey documented in the survey report a reduction in bark debris to 1.31 acres of continuous bark debris. A Category 4b rational e has been developed ; it is on record and available upon request.Alaska’s Final 20 10 Integrated Report

A. Waterbody Categories 2 through 5



### 63 

## Category 4b Waterbodies

Alaska’s 20 10 Integrated Water Quality Monitoring and Assessment Report Category 4b Waterbodies

– Impaired but not needing a TMDL ; expected to meet standards in a reasonable time period

. Region Category Alaska ID Number Waterbody Location Area of Concern Water Quality Standard Pollutant Parameters Pollutant Sources

SE Category

4b 10103

- 031 Fubar Creek Prince of Wales Island N/A Sediment Sediment Timber Harvest In 1993, the Fubar Creek watershed , located on federal National Forest lands

, experienced multiple landslides during heavy rain

. This erosion, which resulted from the impacts of tim

b er harvests in previous years, added more sediment to the creek than could be washed downstream

. This large influx of sediment negatively affe cted the ability of t he creek to sustain anadromous fish populations

. The waterbody was placed in C ategory 4b in 199 6

. No significant commercial harvest activity has occurred within the watershed since the USFS deferred the timber harvest in 1995

, and t he Fubar Creek watershed wa s not considered for entry during the next planning cycle for 10

- year timber sale s

. A comprehensive hydrologic condition assessment of the Harris River Basin was completed in 2003

. It included a road condition survey that identified 1.2 miles of old log ging road that were placed in storage in 2006

. Channel condition monitoring was conducted for a number of years in Fubar Creek

. Monitoring assessed trends in geo morphic indicators to determine progress toward channel equilibrium

. The watershed

- based assess ment and the c hannel condition monitoring helped to guide and prioritize restoration activities in the Fubar Creek subwatershed

. The Craig Ranger District has actively restored vegetation to stabilize landslide areas and the modified the structure and func tion of riparian timber stands to prevent further sediment input

. In 2006 and 2007

, US FS restored about 5

, 500 feet of creek by remov ing large quantities of sediment from the creek bed, reconstruct ing the channel, and reestablish ing large wood jams and pools to enhance anadromous fish habitat and spawning. Completion of the 2006 work allowed the first perennial flows under the highway bridge in the 13 y ears since the 1993 landslides. The last phase of active restoration w as replaceme nt of the floodplain overflow culverts on the Hydaburg Highway in summer 2008

. Monitoring of restoration efforts to restore the anadromous fish habitat included measurement of pool and channel morphology

, smolt counts

, and observations of adult spawning ac tivity in the restored ch annel. A summary of the restoration effort and m onitoring results was published in 2008. A Category 4b rationale has been developed ; it is on record and available upon request.Alaska’s Final 20 10 Integrated Report

A. Waterbody Categories 2 through 5



### 64 

## Category 5/Section 303(d) Listed Waterbodies

Alaska’s 20 10 Integrated Water Quality Monitoring and Assessment Report Category 5 Waterbodies

– Impaired by pollutant(s) for one or more designated uses and requiring a TMDL

. CWA Section 303(d) Listed

. Region Category Alaska ID Number Waterbody Location Area of Concern Water Quality

Standard Pollutant Parameters Pollutant Sources

IN Category 5 Section 303(d) L isted 40506

-

007 Chena River Fairbanks 15 miles Sediment Sediment Urban Runoff

Chena River was Section 303(d) listed in 1990 for turbidity, petroleum hydrocarbons and oil s and grease and for sediment

. The identified pollutant source is urban runoff

. DEC conducted sampling in 2005, 2007

, and 2009 for hydrocarbons and sediment

. Data ha ve shown that the Chena River met WQS for the petroleum hydro carbon standard

. Data are currently being reviewed for the sediment standard , and Chena River remains Section 303(d) listed for sediment.

IN Category 5 Section 303(d) L isted 40506

-

002 Chena

Slough Fairbanks 13 miles Sediment Sediment Urban Runoff

Chena Slough was Section 303(d) listed in 1994 for non

- attainment of the petroleum hydrocarbons and oil s and grease and of sediment standards. Information presented in the 1994 Statewide Water Quality Assessment survey indicated that a petroleum problem existed and is affecting water quality. File assessment information indicates nonpoint source problems result from the surface water runoff , road construction, site clearing, and dewatering activities from gravel operations. Based on best professional judgment of DEC staff

, this water was listed for petroleum products. DEC conducted water quality testing in 2005, 2007

, and 2009. Data ha ve shown that the Chena Slough met WQS for the petroleum hydrocarbon standard

. Data are currently being reviewed for the sediment standard and Chena Slough remains Section 303(d) listed for sediment.Alaska’s Final 20 10 Integrated Report

A. Waterbody Categories 2 through 5



### 65 

## Category 5/Section 303(d) Listed Waterbodies

Alaska’s 20 10 Integrated Water Quality Monitoring and Assessment Report Category 5 Waterbodies

– Impaired by pollutant(s) for one or more designated uses and requiring a TMDL

. CWA Section 303(d) Listed

. Region Category Alaska ID Number Waterbody Location Area of Concern Water Quality

Standard Pollutant Parameters Pollutant Sources

IN Category 5 Section 303(d) L isted 40402

-

010 Crooked

Creek Watershed: Bonanza Creek Crooked Creek Deadwood Creek Ketchem Creek Mammoth Creek Mastodon Creek Porcupine Creek North of

Fairbanks 77 miles Turbidity Turbidity Placer Mining

Crooked Creek watershed was Section 303(d) listed in 1992 for non

- attainment of the turbidity standards. A water quality assessment was completed in August 1995. Monitoring conducted in the early 19 90s documented major improvements in water quality. The as sessment called for the development of a waterbody recovery plan to restore and maintain habitat quality ; however, this plan has not been developed. DEC is currently preparing a monitoring and sampling plan for use in 2011 and 2012

. The monitoring results will provide current data that will determine whether a TMDL is needed for these waters.

IN Category 5 Section 303(d) L isted 40509

-

001 Goldstream

Creek Fairbanks 70 miles Turbidity Turbidity Placer Mining

Goldstream Creek was Section 303(d) listed in 1992 for non

- attainment of the turbidity standard. A waterbody assessment was completed and confirmed the pollutant and pollutant source

. Th e assessment determined that existing controls were sufficient to addr ess the turbidity issue and that a formal TMDL was not needed

. Nevertheless, the water quality assessment was prepared (September 30, 1994) and submitted to EPA for technical review for Goldstream Creek . The assessment contains a section on development of a m anagement p lan and a pollution control strategy . No further sampling has been conducted on this waterbody since the 1996 Section 303(d) listing. Continued monitoring is needed to ensure that existing controls are making progress toward attaining WQS . A monitoring and sampling plan was prepared in 2009 and will be implemented in 2010.Alaska’s Final 20 10 Integrated Report

A. Waterbody Categories 2 through 5



### 66 

## Category 5/Section 303(d) Listed Waterbodies

Alaska’s 20 10 Integrated Water Quality Monitoring and Assessment Report Category 5 Waterbodies

– Impaired by pollutant(s) for one or more designated uses and requiring a TMDL

. CWA Section 303(d) Listed

. Region Category Alaska ID Number Waterbody Location Area of Concern Water Quality

Standard Pollutant Parameters Pollutant Sources

IN Category 5 Section 303(d) L isted 30501

-

002 Kuskokwim

River Red Devil 1,000 feet, 900 downriver and 100 feet upriver from the mouth of Red Devil Creek Toxic & Other

Deleterious Organic and Inorganic Substances Metals

– Antimony ,

Arsenic , Mercury Mining

Ku s kokwim River is placed on the Section 303(d) list of impaired waters in 2010 for non

- attainment of the toxic and other deleterious organic and inorganic substances standard for antimony, arsenic, and mercury. Sampling and data collected in 1971, 1979, 1988, and 1999 have documented exceed ances for the metals antimony, arsenic, and mercury. The Red Devil mine site that is causing this impairment is under consideration for the Superfund National Priorities List.

IN Category 5 Section 303(d) L isted 40506

-

003 Noyes Slough Fairbanks 7 miles Sediment, Petroleum Hydrocarbons, Oil & Grease Residues Sediment, Petroleum

Products Urban Runoff

Noyes Slough has been on the Section 303(d) list for non

- attainment of the sediment, petroleum hydrocarbons and oil s and grease, and residues standards for sediment, petroleum products, and debris since 1994. Numerous water quality violations have been reported. These violations are a resul t of debris dumped into the slough. DEC completed a debris assessment in 2007

. D a ta from the assessment were used to complete a TMDL for residues in 2008. Water quality data collected in 2005, 2007

, and 2009 determine d a TMDL is necessary for the oil s and grease and hydrocarbon impairments. Data are being reviewed for the sediment standard impairment.

IN Category 5 Section 303(d) L isted 30501

-

003 Red Devil

Creek Red Devil 0.5 mile of creek Toxic & Other

Deleterious Organic and Inorganic Substances Metals

– Antimony ,

Arsenic , Mercury Inactive Mine

Red Devil Creek is placed on the Section 303(d) list of impaired waters in 2010 for non

- attainment of the toxic and other deleterious organic and inorganic substances standard for antimony, arsenic, and mercury. Sampling and data collected in 1971, 1979, 1 988, and 1999 have documented exceedances for the metals antimony, arsenic, and mercury. The Red Devil mine site that is causing this impairment is under consideration for the Superfund National Priorities List.Alaska’s Final 20 10 Integrated Report

A. Waterbody Categories 2 through 5



### 67 

## Category 5/Section 303(d) Listed Waterbodies

Alaska’s 20 10 Integrated Water Quality Monitoring and Assessment Report Category 5 Waterbodies

– Impaired by pollutant(s) for one or more designated uses and requiring a TMDL

. CWA Section 303(d) Listed

. Region Category Alaska ID Number Waterbody Location Area of Concern Water Quality

Standard Pollutant Parameters Pollutant Sources

IN Category 5 Section 303(d) L isted 40510

-

003 Slate Creek Denali National Park 2.5 miles Turbidity Turbidity Mining

Slate Creek was Section 303(d) listed in 1994 for non

- attainment of the turbidity water quality standard because of placer mining activities. N o active mining is on Slate Creek is occurring, and current National Park Service ( N P S ) policy will not permit future placer mining. A recovery plan implementation began in August 1997 and continued through 2002. The recovery plan included restoration objectives for 4 acres of disturbed u pland and stream channel areas in the vicinity of the old antimony mine site. Objectives included placement of fill over exposed antimony ore body, reconfiguration of the stream channel, incre as es in the pH of acidic soils, and revegetation of disturbed so ils with willow and alder seedlings. Slate Creek was visited by DEC staff and NPS staff in 2006 for a general site review of the recovery plan implementation that was completed in 2002. The 2006 site visit revealed that the recovery plan was not successful and that in many areas actions implement ed were no longer performing their function s properly. NPS staff visited Slate Creek twice in the 2007 field season to gather information to develop an amended recovery concept plan. The amended plans have been deve loped to address the surface and groundwater drainage for erosion control and acidic mitigation. If funding becomes available

, work will begin in 2010.

SC Category 5 Section 303(d) L isted 20505

-

401 Big Lake Wasilla 1,250 acres Petroleum Hydrocarbons Total Aromatic Hydrocarbons Motorized Watercraft

Big Lake was Section 303(d) listed in 2006 for non

- attainment of the petroleum hydrocarbons (TAH) water quality standard. DEC collected water quality information at Big Lake in the open water months in 2004, 2005 and 2009. Petroleum hydrocarbon (TAH) sampl ing was conducted in the water column at multiple sites, depths, and degrees of motorized watercraft activity throughout the lake. Sampling sites in areas that received heavier use by motorized watercraft consistently exceeded the WQS for TAH and the conce ntrations are likely influenced by a combination of good weather and time of season. The sample events that coincided with th e higher mean air temperatures are likely also prime recreational dates based on the increased motorized watercraft usage at these times. Specifically, the areas of impairment together equal an estimated 1,250 acres and are seasonal in nature, from May 15 to September 15 with particular impairment issues on two hol iday weekends (Memorial Day and Independence Day). The following specif ic areas in the east basin are the areas of impairment: harbors and marinas, launch areas, and traffic lanes. Sampling was conducted outside these specific areas and exceedances were not identified. Two reports support the impairment listing: Big Lake and Lake Lucille Water Quality Monitoring Final Report (September 2, 2004) and Big Lake Water Quality Monitoring Report (June 15, 2006), both prepared by Oasis Environmental, Inc., for DEC. A third report, Water Quality Monitoring, Big Lake (January 2009) is currently being finalized by Oasis Environmental for DEC. Although no water quality samples were collected below 5 meters, it is considered unlikely that petroleum contaminated sediment is a concern. The source of petroleu m is motorized watercraft. Manag ement measures will focus on reducing petroleum hydrocarbon inputs at harbors and marinas, launch areas, and traffic lanes of the e ast basin on busy holiday weekends.Alaska’s Final 20 10 Integrated Report

A. Waterbody Categories 2 through 5



### 68 

## Category 5/Section 303(d) Listed Waterbodies

Alaska’s 20 10 Integrated Water Quality Monitoring and Assessment Report Category 5 Waterbodies

– Impaired by pollutant(s) for one or more designated uses and requiring a TMDL

. CWA Section 303(d) Listed

. Region Category Alaska ID Number Waterbody Location Area of Concern Water Quality

Standard Pollutant Parameters Pollutant Sources

SC Category 5 Section 303(d) L isted 30101

-

50 0 Cold Bay King Cove, Alaska Peninsula 0.01 acre Petroleum Hydrocarbons, Oil s & Grease Petroleum Products Military, Fuel Storage

Cold Bay was placed on the 1998 Section 303(d) list for non

- attainment of the petroleum hydrocarbons, oils and grease standard for petroleum products. Enough evidence exists to indicate that water quality violations occurred on a persistent (though intermittent) basis. Because the cleanup of petroleum contaminated soils at the Cold Bay formally used defense site is considered a high

- priority project, USACE completed an assessment and recovery plan. A release investigation of the seep at the foot of the high sea bluff found high levels of DRO in beach soils (more than 10,000 parts per million) and petroleum contamination in se diments below the high tide line. Four feet of free product was found in a monitoring well in the bluff. The seep weeps a mixture of petroleum and water intermittently alon g 100 to 300 feet of bluff. In the summer of 2002, USACE used a pilot test to evaluate several passive and active technologies for recovering product before it would reach the waters of Cold Bay. The results of this test were used to develop a feasibility study to determine the best solution for the beach seeps. The feasibility study was completed in 2003. In accordance with the Reco rd of Decision document the USACE agreed to dig and treat petroleum contaminated soil to 15 feet. Contaminated soil below 15 feet will undergo in situ treatment. Soil excavation and treatment were conducted in 2006. For the drum disposal and beach seep are a, a two

- phased approach was selected. In summer 2006, soil 15 feet below ground surface and above was excavated and thermally treated. In 2007, USACE installed bioventing, soil vapor extractio n (SVE) and high vacuum extraction (HVE) wells to continue reme diating the area. The amount of contamination discharging to the beach decreased markedly. DEC’s Contaminated Sites Program r eports that the petroleum sheen is getting smaller every time inspections are made on site. The Contaminated Sites receives monthly reports showing the amount of free product recovered and petroleum product degraded as a result of the SVE and HVE systems in operation. In July 2009, the USACE reassessed the petroleum seep at the foot of the beach bluff. They found the longitudinal are a of the seep has reduced by two

- thirds since it was last evaluated in 2007.

SC Category 5

Section 303(d) L isted 20505

-

001 Cottonwood

Creek Wasilla 7 miles Fecal Coliform Bacteria Fecal Coliform Bacteria Urban Runoff, Urban Development
Cottonwood Creek (13 miles) was Section 303(d) listed for non

- attainment of the r esidues standard for foam and debris in 2002/2003. DEC has received numerous complaints about foam in Cottonwood Creek and foam was observed in the creek in 1998, 2000, 2001

, and 2002

. Through grant funds, an intensive water quality evaluation was conducted on Cottonwood Creek beginning in September 2004 and continuing through June 2006 for a TMDL assessme nt. Water quality sampling conducted in 2004 and 2005 indicated that the foam present in Cottonwood Creek is most likely naturally occurring

. However, hydrologic changes within the watershed may be influencing the amount and timing of the foam

. Continued w ater quality sampling in 2006 focused on determining the extent of FC ba cteria and temperature exceedances discovered during the sampling for foam , as well as further investigation of the foam. Foam and temperature were determined to be naturally occurring hence meeting WQS

. FC bacteria exceeded WQS

, and the source(s) is unkno wn. Cottonwood Creek is now in Category 2 for attainment of the residues (foam) standard and impaired for FC bacteria.Alaska’s Final 20 10 Integrated Report

A. Waterbody Categories 2 through 5



### 69 

## Category 5/Section 303(d) Listed Waterbodies

Alaska’s 20 10 Integrated Water Quality Monitoring and Assessment Report Category 5 Waterbodies

– Impaired by pollutant(s) for one or more designated uses and requiring a TMDL

. CWA Section 303(d) Listed

. Region Category Alaska ID Number Waterbody Location Area of Concern Water Quality

Standard Pollutant Parameters Pollutant Sources

SC Category 5 Section 303(d) L isted 30401

-

601 Dutch

Harbor Unalaska Island 0.5 acre Petroleum Hydrocarbons, Oil s & Grease Petroleum Products Industrial, Urban Runoff
Dutch Harbor was Section 303(d) listed in 1994 for non

- attainment of the petroleum hydrocarbons oil s and grease standard for petroleum products

. An EPA study in August 1994, Water Quality Assessment for Greater Unalaska Bay , concluded the waterbody was affe cted by petroleum products

. TMDL assessment began in 2006

. An

e xisting data compilation was completed, and potential risk sources were identified and assigned priorities. Rigorous field sampling events were conducted i n April 2007, September 2007

, and September 2008 and included water column and sediment samples for BTEX, PAH , and TOC

. Results indicate the water column meets WQS, but several sediment results had surface sheening in exceedance of the standard. The area o f impairment has been further refined and reduced as a result of the field sampling and includes two nearshore areas. The area of the harbor that has been found to meet the petroleum hydrocarbons standard has been moved to Category 2. The TMDL for the rema ining impaired areas is scheduled for completion by June 30, 2010

. I mplementation will focus on dock and harbor BMPs to minimize any new petroleum hydrocarbon inputs to the area.

SC Category 5 Section 303(d) L isted 30203

-

001 Egegik River Egegik 0.25 mile Petroleum Hydrocarbons, Oil & Grease Petroleum Products Spills, Fuel Tanks, Under

- ground Fuel Tanks This waterbody wa s Sec tion 303(d) list ed for non

- attainment of the p etroleum h ydrocarbons o il s and g rease standard for petroleum products in 2002/2003

. Contamination from at least three major sources has migrated into the groundwater and through soils into the Egegik River: the former locations of two 10,000 gallon gasoline tan ks, an unlined diesel tank farm, and the underground threaded

- coupling pipeline from the tank farm on the bluff that leaked gasoline in April 2001. The area used to house fuel tanks and was filled from a barge in the river

. E xtensive contamination is suspected. Site characterization of the entire site has not been completed. It is be lieved that the old fuel tanks were in place and active from the 1960s through the 1990s and continue to be a problem

. The river inundates the soils behind the seawall (which are contaminated) regularly when the tide comes up. The monthly high tides usuall y breach the seawall and flood the area. Fuel from the April 2001 gasoline spill reaches the
water continuously

. It appears that the groundwaters are hydrologically connected to the river and that the fuels will continue to migrate to the river. Photo graph ic documentation shows petroleum daylighting into the river and sheen on the water. The problem is likely to remain chronic unle ss the contaminated soils are excavated and free product recovery is completed.Alaska’s Final 20 10 Integrated Report

A. Waterbody Categories 2 through 5



### 70 

## Category 5/Section 303(d) Listed Waterbodies

Alaska’s 20 10 Integrated Water Quality Monitoring and Assessment Report Category 5 Waterbodies

– Impaired by pollutant(s) for one or more designated uses and requiring a TMDL

. CWA Section 303(d) Listed

. Region Category Alaska ID Number Waterbody Location Area of Concern Water Quality

Standard Pollutant Parameters Pollutant Sources

SC Category 5 Section 303(d) L isted 20201

-

401 Eyak Lake Cordova 50 feet of shore

- line Petroleum

Hydrocarbons, Oil s & Grease Petroleum Products, Petroleum Contamination, Sheen Above Ground Storage Tanks, Spills
Eyak Lake was placed on the 2002/2003 Section 303(d) list for non

- attainment of the petroleum hydrocarbons oil s and grease standard for petroleum products. Remedial actions at the Cordova Electric Power Plant on Eyak Lake, including a groundwater pump

- and

- treat system and passive product collection, have been effective at eliminating sheen on the surface of the lak e, which was last observed in 2005. Groundwater treatment and monitoring is anticipated to continue at this site in the future

. In 2005 and 2006

, two water quality studies were completed on the lake

. Although t hese studies showed the lake meeting standards

, local residents expressed other petroleum

- related concerns

. A dditional evaluation was warranted

, and a study

, started in 2009 is expected to be completed in 2010

. When data collection is complete

, a determination about whether a TMDL is required will be made

.

SC Category 5 Section 303(d) L isted 20401

-

412 Hood/Spenard

Lake Anchorage 307 acres Dissolved Gas Low Dissolved Oxygen Urban Runoff, Industrial
Hood/Spenard Lake w as originally Section 303(d) list ed in 1990 and in 199 2 for non

- attainment of the FC bacteria standard and in 2002/2003 for low DO

. T he waterbody

was also placed on the 199 2 Section 303(d) list for FC bacteria , lead, nitrates, and phosphates

. A TMDL was developed for FC bacteria in 1997

, and the waterbody remain ed on the Section 303(d) list (Category 5) for dissolved gas (i.e., low DO ). A later DEC water quality assessment also assess ed the four other pollutants of concern : petroleum, nitrates, lead, and ammonia. However, the data indicated that there are no persistent violations of thes e parameters. Priority actions identified for this water include Ted Stevens Anchorage International Airport (TSAIA) shunting away much of the stormwater from the tarmac and installation of retention ponds to treat
stormwater coming from the parking lots; future construction to improve drainage in the area; track ing of ongoing stormwater rerouting projects and water quality sampling being done by TSAIA; and conduct ing monitoring of nutrients and stormwater BMP effectiveness

. TSAIA submitted and DEC approved a waterbody recovery plan for Hood/Spenard Lake

. The r ecovery plan has t hree components: ( 1) a reduction in the amount and placement of urea, (2) an increase in glycol recovery

, and (3 ) diver sion of stormwater contaminated by glycol and nutrient s stormwate r from the waterbody. Review of water quality data from 2000 to 2009 shows that the waters are meeting the FC bacteria standard and Hood/Spenard Lake is in Category 2 for meeting the FC bacteria standard.Alaska’s Final 20 10 Integrated Report

A. Waterbody Categories 2 through 5



### 71 

## Category 5/Section 303(d) Listed Waterbodies

Alaska’s 20 10 Integrated Water Quality Monitoring and Assessment Report Category 5 Waterbodies

– Impaired by pollutant(s) for one or more designated uses and requiring a TMDL

. CWA Section 303(d) Listed

. Region Category Alaska ID Number Waterbody Location Area of Concern Water Quality

Standard Pollutant Parameters Pollutant Sources

SC Category 5 Section 303(d) L isted 30102

-

602 Iliuliuk

Harbor Unalaska Island Petroleum Hydrocarbons, Oil s & Grease Petroleum Products Urban Runoff

Iliuliuk Harbor was Section 303(d) listed in 1990 for non

- attainment of the petroleum hydrocarbons oil s and grease standard for petroleum products

. An EPA study in August 1994, Water Quality Assessment for Greater Unalaska Bay , concluded the waterbody was affe cted by petroleum products

. TMDL assessment began in 2006

. An

e xisting data compilation was completed, and potential risk sources were identifie d and assigned priorities. Rigorous field sampling events were conducted in April 2007, September 2007

, and September 2008 and included water column and sediment samples for BTEX, PAH , and TOC

. Results indicate the water column meets WQS, but several sediment results had surface sheening in exceedance of the standard

. The area of impairment has been further refined and reduced as a result of the field sampling and includes nearshore areas around docks and harbors

. The TMDL is scheduled for completion b y June 30, 2010

. I mplementation will focus on dock and harbor BMPs to minimize any new petroleum hydrocarbon inputs to the area.

SC Category 5 Section 303(d) L isted 20402

-

001 Matanuska

River Palmer 1⁄2 mile Residues Debris Landfill

This segment of the Matanuska River wa s placed on the 2002/2003 Section 303(d) list for non

- attainment of the r esidues standard for debris. A n active open dump is located on and in the Matanuska River just north of Eagle Drive in Palmer. Numerous derailed railroad cars are vi sible in the river and riparian area. The main site of concern is the active dump. Visible contents of the dump at the time of the inspection were a minimum of 20 vehicles, househo ld refuse and items, fuel cans, possible 55

- gallon drums with unknown conten ts, grass cuttings, and scrap metal and other debris. Debris continues in the river and riparian area upstream for approximat ely 1/2 mile. River channels run through and next to the dump at all times of the year. Visible sheens have been observed in the ri ver. This open dump is not only an immediate threat to the surface water quality of the Matanuska River, but is within the Drinking Water Protection Area for a minimum of three public water systems

. In August 2004

, DEC conducted a site assessment study . Ac tivities included characterizing and quantifying the debris, mapping the site, and conducting surface water, sediment

, and soil samples

. No hazardous or petroleum contamination was discovered

. After characterizing the debris, options were developed for pos sible debris removal as part of the study

. Following subsequent meetings with involved parties, in March 2005 USACE issued a jurisdictional declaration that the railroad cars that are below ordinary high water serve as bank stabilization material

. As such, these items are no longer in violation of WQS

. However, the remaining debris on the slope above ordinary high water has a potential of entering the water column

, and the upper layers are not considered bank stabilization material

. The Alaska Railroad Corp oration

, as the property owner

, needs to work with DEC Solid Waste staff on developing a plan with goals and a timeline delineating its commitment to cleaning up the site.Alaska’s Final 20 10 Integrated Report

A. Waterbody Categories 2 through 5



### 72 

## Category 5/Section 303(d) Listed Waterbodies

Alaska’s 20 10 Integrated Water Quality Monitoring and Assessment Report Category 5 Waterbodies

– Impaired by pollutant(s) for one or more designated uses and requiring a TMDL

. CWA Section 303(d) Listed

. Region Category Alaska ID Number Waterbody Location Area of Concern Water Quality

Standard Pollutant Parameters Pollutant Sources

SC Category 5 Section 303(d) L isted 30101

-

502 Popof Strait East Aleutians Borough 5 miles Residues Seafood Waste Residue Seafood Processor

Popof Strait w as Section 303(d) list ed in 1996 for non

- attainment of the r esidues standard from seafood waste residues. Information provided by the Aleutians East Borough, and verified by DEC staff, included citizen complaints, photographs, and other indicat ions that persistent exceedances of ―seafood residue ‖ occur from a seafood processor operating adjacent to the waterbody. The seafood processing facility located in Sand Point has installed a fish meal plant that reduces the discharge of solid wastes to Popof Strait

. The company is curre ntly under a consent decree for BOD 5 covering this facility (as well as the one in Akutan) where there is a BOD 5 limit for the Sand Point facility. An April 2000 div e survey report document ed 3.0 acres of residues in excess of the permitted facility’s authorized 1

- acre ZOD

. N o more recent dive survey information is available

.

SC Category 5 Section 303(d) L isted 30102

-

409 Red Lake

Anton Road Ponds Kodiak 2.0 acres Toxic & Other Deleterious Organic and Inorganic Substances Metals

- Iron,

Manganese Urban Runoff

Red Lake Anton Road Ponds were placed on the 1994 Section 303(d) list for non

- attainment of the t oxic and o ther d eleterious o rganic and i norganic s ubstances standard for metal. Based on a 1992 memorandum released by DEC Kodiak Field Office, Red Lake lies less than 200 feet from a Navy l andfill

. This landfill was constructed without a liner or leachate collection system

. Landfill waste, which may include solven ts, paints, used oils, and contaminated fuel, occasionally leaches into Red Lake and two other small ponds near Anton Road

. These two ponds are highly colored by bright orange

- red iron precipitates caused by the oxidation of the leachate

. Lake sediment

sam ples were found to contain 8.6% iron

. Chemical pollutants were documented at low levels in the lake and in the bottom sediments. DEC staff reviewed four reports from 1996 and 1997

. The data presented in the reports are the best available

. DEC concluded that (1) Red Lake clearly appears to have exceedances of WQS for iron and
manganese because of human actions ; (2) no existing controls are in place to ensure that the WQS will be met in a reasonable time period ; (3) because the reports did no t present any information showing levels of iron and manganese in groundwater above the landfill

, no information show s that the abandoned landfill is not the source of these metals ; and (4) although there were other parameters of concern observed in previo us sampling, the available information indicates that Red Lake should only be listed for manganese and iron.Alaska’s Final 20 10 Integrated Report

A. Waterbody Categories 2 through 5



### 73 

## Category 5/Section 303(d) Listed Waterbodies

Alaska’s 20 10 Integrated Water Quality Monitoring and Assessment Report Category 5 Waterbodies

– Impaired by pollutant(s) for one or more designated uses and requiring a TMDL

. CWA Section 303(d) Listed

. Region Category Alaska ID Number Waterbody Location Area of Concern Water Quality

Standard Pollutant Parameters Pollutant Sources

SC Category 5 Section 303(d) L isted 20401

-

020 Ship Creek

Glenn Hwy. Bridge

. Down to Mouth Anchorage 11 miles, Glenn Hwy. Bridge

. Down to Mouth Petroleum

Hydrocarbons, Oil s & Grease Petroleum Products Urban Runoff

This segment of Ship Creek was Section 303(d) list ed in 1990 for non

- attainment of the p etroleum h ydrocarbons and o il s and g rease standard

. Based on the FC bacteria monitoring data from 1989 to 1994 provided by the Municipality of Anchorage

, the water quality criteria for drinking water and contact recreation were exceeded at various times

. Petroleum products floating on groundwater are moving from the site toward Sh ip Creek and threaten the waterbody . In 1992

, FC bacteria was added to the Section 303(d) listing as an impairing pollutant . The final FC bacteria TMDL was approved by EPA in May 2004

. Ship Creek remains Section 303(d) listed for petroleum product impairment. EPA currently has a consent decree with the Alaska Railroad Corporation which involves water quality monitoring for petroleum

. The results of the monitoring program will assist will assist DEC in determining the next best recovery actions for Ship Creek

, including the possible development of a TMDL or similar recovery plan. Sampling was conducted in 2005 and 2006 as part of the consent decree.

SE Category 5

Section 303(d) L isted 10203

-

002 Katlian

River N. of Sitka,

Baranof Island 4.5 miles Sediment, Turbidity Sediment, Turbidity Timber Harvest

Katlian River was Section 303(d) listed as impaired in 1998 for non

- attainment of the s ediment and t urbidity standards. Past land use activities have created a number of

concerns about water quality, and fish habitat. The harvest of riparian timber and location and lack of maintenance of the road system created the followin g concerns: decreased channel stability, landslides and small slope failures, increased sediment levels, loss of aquatic habitat, s iltation of holding pools for migrating salmon, and alteration of watershed hydrology. Watershed effects resulted in use impairment for aquatic life. USFS (in cooperation with EPA and DEC) is considering conducting in

depth turbidity monitoring and aquatic habitat condition assessments to determine the validity of the impaired water body listing for this watershed

. If the assessment indicates that the water body was erroneously listed, the water body will be moved to Category 2

. If water quality or habitat impairments are identified in the assessment, restoration plans to establish pollution control requirements will be developed.Alaska’s Final 20 10 Integrated Report

A. Waterbody Categories 2 through 5



### 74 

## Category 5/Section 303(d) Listed Waterbodies

Alaska’s 20 10 Integrated Water Quality Monitoring and Assessment Report Category 5 Waterbodies

– Impaired by pollutant(s) for one or more designated uses and requiring a TMDL

. CWA Section 303(d) Listed

. Region Category Alaska ID Number Waterbody Location Area of Concern Water Quality

Standard Pollutant Parameters Pollutant Sources

SE Category 5 Section 303(d) L isted 10103

-

504 Salt Chuck

Bay Kasaan A rea,

Prince of Wales Island 0.03

square miles Toxic & Other

Deleterious Organic and Inorganic Substances Metals

- C opper Mining

Salt Chuck Bay i s Section 303(d) listed in 20 10 for non

- attainment of the toxic and other deleterious organic and inorganic substances standard for metals. The Salt Chuck Mine was listed on the Federal Agency Hazardous Waste Compliance Docket and published in the Federal Register on June 27, 1997

, because studies indicated physical and c hemical hazardous to the public and environment. At the request of USFS, URS Engineering initiated an Engineering Evaluation/ Cost Analysis of the site in 2002 and conducted additional data collection and investigation in 2006. On September 23, 2009

, the Sa lt Chuck Mine was proposed for addition to the EPA National Priorities List

. Copper concentrations found in the intertidal water column exceed state WQS . In addition sediment/tailings found in the intertidal zone exceed state guidelines for sediment qualit y.

SE Category 5 Section 303(d) L isted 10303

-

601 Skagway

Harbor Skagway 1.0 a cre Toxic & Other Deleterious Organic and Inorganic Substances Metals

- C admium,

C opper, L ead, Mercury,

Z inc Industrial

Skagway Harbor has been on the Section 303(d) list since 1990 for non

- attainment of the toxic and other deleterious organic and inorganic substances standard for metals. A 1984 draft report from USF&WS titled Trace Metals Contamination at an Ore Loading Facility in Skagway, Alaska, indicated that trace metals contamination is due to an ore loading facility in Skagway. Elevated levels of lead, zinc, cadmium, copper, and mercury in marine sediments were foun d to exceed DEC (SPAR) values of the control area. Additionally, in fauna found in the marine sediments were much reduced and a reduction in fauna and biodiversity was correlated with concentrations of lead and zinc in marine sediment. These effects are conside red to be an impairment to the designated use: aquatic life

. Additional sampling in 2008 found metals in the marine sediment to be below recommended action levels and petroleum constituents above action levels. A TMDL is being prepared to a ddress the impa irment.Alaska’s Final 20 10 Integrated Report

A. Waterbody Categories 2 through 5



### 75 

## Category 5/Section 303(d) Listed Waterbodies

Alaska’s 20 10 Integrated Water Quality Monitoring and Assessment Report Category 5 Waterbodies

– Impaired by pollutant(s) for one or more designated uses and requiring a TMDL

. CWA Section 303(d) Listed

. Region Category Alaska ID Number Waterbody Location Area of Concern Water Quality

Standard Pollutant Parameters Pollutant Sources

SE Category 5 Section 303(d) L isted 10103

-

010 Unnamed

Creek, Sweetwater Lake, USFS 3030 Road, ADF&G Stream 3027 (Stream 3) Prince of Wales

Island 0.4 mile Toxic & Other Deleterious Organic and Inorganic Substances Metals

- Aluminum,

Cadmium, Copper, Iron Road Construction

Stream 3 was placed on the 2010 list for Section 303(d) list for non

- attainment of the toxic & other deleterious organic and inorganic substances standard for metals. Studies adopted by the Alaska Department of Environmental Conservation (ADEC) and the Western Federal Lands Highway Division (WFLHD) of the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) indicate high levels of metals leaching into the stream as a result of acid rock drainage from road con struction. Contaminants exceedin g WQS and the NOAA screening benchmarks include aluminum, cadmium, copper, and iron. These exceedances are considered an impairmen t of a designated use.

SE Category 5 Section 303(d) listed 10 1 03

-

012 Unnamed

Creek, Sweetwater Lake, USFS 3030 Road, ADF&G Stream 3021 (Stream 6) Prince of Wales

Island 1.14 mile Toxic & Other Deleterious Organic and Inorganic Substances , Dissolved Inorganic Substances Metals

–

Aluminum, Cadmium, Copper, Iron, Manganese , Sulfate Road Construction

Stream 6 was placed on the 2010 list for Section 303(d) list for non

- attainment of the toxic & other deleterious organic and inorganic substances standard for metals. Studies adopted by the Alaska Department of Environmental Conservation (ADEC) and the Western Federal Lands Highway Division (WFLHD) of the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) indicate high levels of metals leaching into the stream as a result of acid rock drainage from road con struction. Contaminants WQS and the NOAA screening benchmarks include aluminum, cadmium, co pper, iron, and manganese. Sulfate is included in the list of contaminates for this waterbody. These exceedances are considered an impairment of a designated use.Alaska’s Final 20 10 Integrated Report

A. Waterbody Categories 2 through 5



### 76 

## Category 5/Section 303(d) Listed Waterbodies

Alaska’s 20 10 Integrated Water Quality Monitoring and Assessment Report Category 5 Waterbodies

– Impaired by pollutant(s) for one or more designated uses and requiring a TMDL

. CWA Section 303(d) Listed

. Region Category Alaska ID Number Waterbody Location Area of Concern Water Quality

Standard Pollutant Parameters Pollutant Sources

SE Category 5 Section 303(d) listed 10 1 03

-

013 Unnamed

Creek, Sweetwater Lake, USFS 3030 Road, ADF&G Stream 3019 tributary (Stream 7) Prince of Wales

Island 0.3 mile Toxic & Other Deleterious Organic and Inorganic Substances Metals

- A luminum,

C admium, C opper, I ron, M anganese Road Construction

Stream 7 was placed on the 2010 list for Section 303(d) list for non

- attainment of the toxic & other deleterious organic and inorganic substances standard for metals. Studies adopted by the Alaska Department of Environmental Conservation (ADEC) and the Western Federal Lands Highway Division (WFLHD) of th e Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) indicate high levels of metals leaching into the stream as a result of acid rock drainage from road con struction. Contaminants WQS and the NOAA screening benchmarks include aluminum, cadmium, copper, iron, and mangan ese. These exceedances are considered an impairment of a designated use.

SE Category 5 Section 303(d) listed 10 1 03

-

014 Unnamed

Creek, Sweetwater Lake, USFS 3030 Road, ADF&G Stream 3019 (Stream 8) Prince of Wales

Island 0.3 mile Toxic & Other Deleterious Organic and Inorganic Substances Metals

- C admium,

C opper, I ron, M anganese, N ickel, Z inc Road Construction

Stream 8 was placed on the 2010 list for Section 303(d) list for non

- attainment of the toxic & other deleterious organic and inorganic substances standard for metals. Studies adopted by the Alaska Department of Environmental Conservation (ADEC) and the Western Federal Lands Highway Division (WFLHD) of the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) indicate high levels of metals leaching into the stream a s a result of acid rock drainage from road construction. Contaminants WQS and the NOAA screening benchmarks include cadmium, copper, iron, manganese, nickel, and zinc. These exceedances are considered an imp airment of a designated use.Alaska’s Final 20 10 Integrated Report

A. Waterbody Categories 2 through 5



### 77 

## Category 5/Section 303(d) Listed Waterbodies

Alaska’s 20 10 Integrated Water Quality Monitoring and Assessment Report Category 5 Waterbodies

– Impaired by pollutant(s) for one or more designated uses and requiring a TMDL

. CWA Section 303(d) Listed

. Region Category Alaska ID Number Waterbody Location Area of Concern Water Quality

Standard Pollutant Parameters Pollutant Sources

SE Category 5 Section 303(d) listed 10 1 03

-

015 Unnamed

Creek, Sweetwater Lake, USFS 3030 Road, ADF&G Stream 3017 tributary (Stream 9) Prince of Wales

Island 0.8 mile Toxic & Other Deleterious Organic and Inorganic Substances , Dissolved Inrganic Substances Metals

Aluminu m, Cadmium, Copper, Iron, Manganese, Nickel, Zinc , Sulfate Road Construction

Stream 9 was placed on the 2010 list for Section 303(d) list for non

- attainment of the toxic & other deleterious organic and inorganic substances standard for metals. Studies adopted by the Alaska Department of Environmental Conservation (ADEC) and the Western Federal Lands Highway Division (WFLHD) of the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) indicate high levels of metals leaching into the stream as a result of acid rock drain age from road construction. Contaminants WQS and the NOAA screening benchmarks include aluminum, cadmium, copper, iron, manganese, nickel, and zinc. Sulfate is included in the li st of contaminants present on this waterbody. These exceedances are considered an impairment of a designated use.Alas ka’s Final 20 10 Integrated Report

B. W aterbodies R emoved F rom the S ection 303(d) L ist



### 78 

# APPENDIX B Waterbodies Removed From the

Section 303(d) List

Section 303(d) Listed Waterbodies in 20 08 Removed from the List in 20 10

Alaska’s 20 10 Integrated Water Quality Monitoring and Assessment Report Section 303(d) Listed Waterbodies in 200 8

. Removed from the List in 20 10

. Region New

Category Alaska ID

Number Waterbody Location Area of Concern Water Quality

Standard Pollutant

Parameters Pollutant Sources

IN Category 2 40510

- 005 Caribou Creek Denali National Park 16.1 miles Turbidity Turbidity Mining
REASON FOR REMOVAL: No impairment exists from turbidity ; waterbody is attaining water quality standards. Caribou Creek was included on the 1994 Section 303(d) list for turbidity from past mining activity within Denali National Par k and Preserve. The waterbody lost its sinuosity along segments of the watershed

. Currently there is no active mining on Caribou Creek and current National Park Service (NPS) policy will not permit future placer mining. A site visit with NPS, EPA

, and DEC was conducted in 2009 to review the progress of previous reclamation efforts and to assess any areas requiring additio nal reclamation activities. NPS established seven cross sections for floodplain design purposes. Topographic monitoring was conducted before and after the establishment of the seven cross sections. Channel locations and sinuosity were surveyed with a globa l positioning system (GPS) , and water discharge was measured

. Analysis and evaluation of site and data concluded that Caribou creek is meeting the turbidity standard, although further wor k would be beneficial. Therefore, a draft recovery plan has been prep ared to reconstruct the floodplain, rebuild the channel(s), and provide for more natural overbank flooding and deposition. The reconstruction will be followed by a revegetation effort. If funding becomes available, work is to begin in 2010.

IN Category 2 40506

- 007 Chena River Fairbanks 15 miles Petroleum Hydrocarbons, Oil s & Grease Petroleum Products Urban Runoff

REASON FOR REMOVAL: No impairment exists from petroleum hydrocarbons ; waterbody is attaining water quality standards. Chena River was Section 303(d) listed in 1990 for turbidity, petroleum hydrocarbons oil s and grease, and sediment

. The identified pollutant source is urban runoff

. DEC conducted sampling in 2005, 2007

, and 2009 for hydrocarbons and sediment

. Data ha ve shown that the Chena River met WQS for the petroleum hydrocarbon standard

. Data are currently being reviewed for the sediment standard.Alas ka’s Final 20 10 Integrated Report

B. W aterbodies R emoved F rom the S ection 303(d) L ist



### 79 Alaska’s 20 10 Integrated Water Quality Monitoring and Assessment Report Section 303(d) Listed Waterbodies in 200 8

. Removed from the List in 20 10

. Region New

Category Alaska ID

Number Waterbody Location Area of Concern Water Quality

Standard Pollutant

Parameters Pollutant Sources

IN Category 2 40506

- 002 Chena Slough Fairbanks 13 miles Petroleum Hydrocarbons, Oil s & Grease Petroleum Products Urban Runoff

REASON FOR REMOVAL: No impairment exists from petroleum hydrocarbons ; waterbody is attaining water quality standards. This waterbody was Section 303(d) listed in 1994 for non

- attainment of the petroleum hydrocarbons oil s and grease standard and the sediment standard. Information presented in the 1994 Statewide Water Quality Assessment survey indicated that a petroleum problem existed and is affecting w ater quality. File assessment information indicates nonpoint source problems result from the sur face water runoff , road construction, site clearing, and dewatering activities from gravel operations. Based on best professional judgment of DEC staff

, this water was listed for petroleum products. DEC conducted water quality testing in 2005, 2007

, and 20 09. Data ha ve shown that the Chena Slough met WQS for the petroleum hydrocarbon standard

. Data are currently being reviewed for the sediment standard.

SC Category 2 20505

- 001 Cottonwood Creek Wasilla Entire 13 miles Residues Foam & Debris Urban Runoff, Ur ban Development REASON FOR REMOVAL: No impairment exists from residues ; waterbody is attaining water quality standards. Cottonwood Creek (13 miles) was Section 303(d) listed for non

- attainment of the r esidues standard for foam and debris in 2002/2003. DEC has received numerous complaints about foam in Cottonwood Creek

, and foam was observed in the creek in 1998, 2000, 2001

, and 2002

. Foam is a recurring problem, with no existing controls to address it

. Through grant funds, an intensive water quality eva luation was conducted on Cottonwood Creek from September 2004 through June 2006 for a TMDL assessment. Water quality sampling conducted in 2004 and 2005 indicated that the foam present in Cottonwood Creek is most likely naturally occurring

. However, hydrol ogic changes within the watershed may be influencing the amount and timing of the foam

. Water quality sampling in 2006 focused on determining the extent of FC bacteria and temperature exceedances discovered during the sampling for foam

. Additional bacteria and temperature sampling is scheduled for 2007/2008 to determine potential sources and stretches of possible impairment

. Data will be used to develop a recovery plan.Alas ka’s Final 20 10 Integrated Report

B. W aterbodies R emoved F rom the S ection 303(d) L ist



### 80 Alaska’s 20 10 Integrated Water Quality Monitoring and Assessment Report Section 303(d) Listed Waterbodies in 200 8

. Removed from the List in 20 10

. Region New

Category Alaska ID

Number Waterbody Location Area of Concern Water Quality

Standard Pollutant

Parameters Pollutant Sources

SC Category 2 30401

- 601 Dutch Harbor Unalaska Island 0.5 acre Petroleum Hydrocarbons, O il s & Grease Petroleum Products Industrial,

Urban Runoff
REASON FOR REMOVAL: No impairment exists from petroleum hydrocarbons for much of the harbor area ; waterbody is attaining water quality standards. Dutch Harbor was Section 303(d) listed in 1994 for non

- attainment of the petroleum hydrocarbons

, oil s and grease standard for petroleum products

. An EPA study in August 1994, Water Quality Assessment for Greater Unalaska Bay , concluded the waterbody was affe cted by petroleum products

. TMDL assessment began in 2006

. An e xisting data compilation was completed, and potential risk sources were identified and assigned priorities. Rigorous field sampling events were conducted in April 2007, September 2007

, and September 2008 and included water column and sed iment samples for benzene, toluene, ethylbenzene, and xylenes ( BTEX ); polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbon ( PAH ); and total organic carbon ( TOC ). Results indicate the water column meets WQS but several sediment results had surface sheening in exceedance of the standard

. The original area of impairment has been reduced as a result of the field sampling and includes two nearshore impaired areas and some areas of the harbor found to meet WQS. The TMDL for the remaining impaired areas is scheduled for completion by June 30, 2010

. I mplementation will focus on dock and harbor BMPs to minimize any new petroleum hydrocarbon inputs to the area.

SC Category 2 30102

- 602 Iliuliuk Bay Dutch Harbor Petroleum Hydrocarbons, Oil s & Grease Petroleum Products Urban Runoff

REASON FOR REMOVAL: No impairment exists from petroleum hydrocarbons for much of the bay area ; waterbody is attaining water quality standards. Iliuliuk Bay was Section 303(d) listed in 1990 for non

- attainment of the petroleum hydrocarbons

, oil s and grease standard for petroleum products. An EPA study in August 1994, Water Quality Assessment for Greater Unalaska Bay , concluded the waterbody was affe cted by petroleum products

. TMDL assessment began in 2006 with completing an e xisting data compilation and identifying and prioritizing potential risk sources

. Rigorous field sampling events were conducted in April 2007 and September 2007 and included water column and sediment samples for BTEX, PAH , and TOC. All sample results for Iliuliuk Bay indicate the water and sediments are meeting standards for petroleum hydrocarbons

. DEC is removing Iliuliuk Bay from the Category 5/Section 303(d) list based on th ese data in 2010

.

SE Category 4a 10301

- 004 Jordan Creek Juneau 3 miles from tide

water up

stream Sediment ,

Dissolved Gas Sediment, Low

Dissolved Oxygen Land

Development, Road Runoff
REASON FOR REMOVAL: TMDL developed and approved for sediment and dissolved gas (low insterstitial DO). A TMDL was developed and approved by EPA (May 2005) for residues on Jordan Creek. Because the waterbody has an approved TMDL for residues

, Jordan Creek was removed from the Section 303(d) and moved to Category 4a for residues. Also, a TMDL was developed and approved by EPA (October 2009) for dissolved gas

a nd sediment on Jordan Creek.Alas ka’s Final 20 10 Integrated Report

B. W aterbodies R emoved F rom the S ection 303(d) L ist



### 81 Alaska’s 20 10 Integrated Water Quality Monitoring and Assessment Report Section 303(d) Listed Waterbodies in 200 8

. Removed from the List in 20 10

. Region New

Category Alaska ID

Number Waterbody Location Area of Concern Water Quality

Standard Pollutant

Parameters Pollutant Sources

SE Category 4a 10203

- 602 Klag Bay West Chichagof Island 1.25 acres Toxic & Other Deleterious Organic and Inorganic Substances Metals

–

Arsenic, cobalt, copper, lead,
manganese, mercury, silver, zinc Mining

REASON FOR REMOVAL: TMDL developed and approved for metals in the intertidal sediments

. Klag Bay was placed on the 1996 Section 303(d) list for non

- attainment of the toxic and other deleterious organic and inorganic substances standard for metals

. Past mining resulted in the deposition of large amounts of tailings in Klag Bay

. A draft 1985 report ( never finalized ) on Klag Bay , the Klag Bay Study , was prepared by USF&WS and indicated high levels of metals from tailings are leaching into the bay. Cont aminants are mercury, arsenic, cobalt, copper, lead, and silver. These metals caused abnormalities in numerous blue mussels

. These abnormalities are considered an impairment of a designated use. A 1998 preliminary assessment confirmed lead, silver, arsenic and mercury in the intertidal sediments above NOAA screening benchmarks. A TMDL was developed and approved by EPA on June 1, 2009

, for the metals impairments.Alas ka’s Final 20 10 Integrated Report

B. W aterbodies R emoved F rom the S ection 303(d) L ist



### 82 Alaska’s 20 10 Integrated Water Quality Monitoring and Assessment Report Section 303(d) Listed Waterbodies in 200 8

. Removed from the List in 20 10

. Region New

Category Alaska ID

Number Waterbody Location Area of Concern Water Quality

Standard Pollutant

Parameters Pollutant Sources

SE Category 2 10203

- 001 Nakwasina River Baranof Island,

Sitka 8 miles Sediment, Turbidity Sediment,

Turbidity Timber Harvest
REASON FOR REMOVAL: No impairment exists; waterbody is attaining water quality standards. Nakwasina River was placed on the 1998 Section 303(d) list for non

- attainment of the sediment and turbidity standards. Past land use activities had created a number of concerns about water quality and fish habitat. The harvest of riparian timber and the location and lack of maintenance of the road system created the following conditions: decreased channel stability, landslides and small slope failures, increased sediment levels, loss of aquatic habitat, siltation of holding pools for migrating salmon, and alteration of watershed hydrology. Watershed effects resulted in use impairment for aquatic life. The U.S. Forest Service (USFS) submitted a 2

- year Water Quality and Aquatic Habitat Restoration Assessment in February 2009 and recommended removal from the 303(d) list based on its results. The data demonstrate that turbidity levels have decreased below state WQS. The waterbody was mov ed to Category 2 in 2010.

SE Category 4a 10303

- 004 Pullen Creek (Lower Mile) Skagway Lower mile of Pullen Creek Toxic & Other

Deleterious Organic and Inorganic Substances Metals

– Barium,

Lead, Zinc Industrial

REASON FOR REMOVAL: TMDL developed in May 2010 and approved for metals. Pullen Creek has been on the Section 303(d) list since 1990 for non

- attainment of the toxic and other deleterious organic and inorganic substances standard for metals. The lower mile of Pullen Creek was previously Section 303(d) listed with the Skagway Harbor listing

, but was segmented out into its own listing in the 2006 report. A local nonprofit g roup completed an environmental assessment on the creek, collecting baseline monitoring data on water quality, flow

, and sedimentation and develop ed an action strategy for Pullen Creek in 2006. Assessment results found no elevated levels of toxics in the w ater column. Elevated levels of lead, zinc

, and barium have been found i n stream bottom sediments and adjoining banks. Stream banks

, are very stable but elevated levels of metals are found near railroad transport areas where ore was transported in the past

. A waterbody recovery plan with BMPs was completed in 2006 , and major riparian restoration projects were completed in s ummer 2009 . A TMDL was developed in May 2010 and Pullen Creek was removed from the Section 303(d) list and placed in Category 4a.Alaska’s Final 20 10 Integrated Report

C. TMDL S chedule and F actors



### 83 

# A PPENDIX C TMDL Schedule and

Factors

Alaska TMDL Completion Date Schedule (Revised 10/09)
NOTE: The years shown are from July 1 to June 30

. I t is expected that for any given year

, the TMDL will be completed by June 30 of the year that identifies the row in which the waterbody is shown

. During TMDL development, it may be determined that a TMDL is not needed if the waterbody has recovered or adequate restoration actions are ongoing

. Completion D ate Southeast Southcentral Interior/North Slope
2010 Chena River Dutch Harbor Chena Slough Iliuliuk Harbor

2011 Big Lake Noyes Slough (sediment, petroleum hydrocarbons ) Skagway Harbor Slate Creek

Egegik River Eyak Lake Ship Creek (Petroleum) Matanuska River 2012 Katlian River Popof Strait Red Lake/Anton Pond Goldstream Creek Hood/Spenard Lake Cold Bay 2013 Cottonwood Creek 2014 Salt Chuck Bay Crooked Creek Watershed

Coffman Cove Creeks Kuskokwim River Red Devil Creek



## Factors Considered in Alaska ’ s 20 1 0 TMDL Schedule Revision

All Alaska Category 5 Section 303(d) listed waters for the 20 10 Integrated Water Quality Monitoring and Assessment Report are scheduled for development of TMDL between 20 10 and 201 4

. Any Section 303(d) listed waters that are impaired from an active log transfer facility ( LTF ) will be subject to a remediation plan in an enforceable permit to meet the water quality goals of the waterbody. The TMDLs for these w aterbodies are scheduled based on DEC’s consideration of the factors listed below. These factors are not necessarily list ed by priority and may be used in conjunction with one another

, combined with other project management decisions , or both

.Alaska’s Final 20 10 Integrated Report

C. TMDL S chedule and F actors



### 84 Severity and persistence of pollutant sources, exceedances of WQS

, and/or impacts to the beneficial uses of the waterbody Significa nce of the waterbody in terms of public and resource values Degree of public, industry, and agency interest in accomplishing the TMDL so that allocations and required controls or permit limits can be known Applicability of existing pollution controls, wat erbody recovery plans, and NPDES discharge permits Technical feasibility and difficulty of developing the TMDL

. Development of s ome TMDLs require s much more time and resources than for other TMDLs , and agency resources have annual limits of time available for TMDL development

. Factors that increase the amount of time include waterbodies with uncommon types of impairments for which model TMDLs are not available; TMDLs that require complex models and loading calculations; and TMDLs on waters with many stakeho lders who will be significantly affected by loading allocations. Availability and accuracy of water quality information necessary for assessing the water and making loading determinations

. TMDLs for which little data are available are scheduled later so th at essential data can be acquired. Waters where pilot BMPs or other controls are being implemented and monitored. TMDL development on these waters may be delayed so that improved loading allocations can be made based on performance of the controls

. Likelih ood that proposed restoration efforts might occur in a reasonable time period that, if they occur, may make TMDL development unnecessary

D evelopment of stakeholder plans that may satisfactorily substitute for (or supplement) a waterbody’s TMDL. Examples in clude a contaminated site remediation plan or another agency’s assessment and restoration plan

. TMDL development may be scheduled to occur shortly after completion of such plans if they will include information that satisfies what is required in the TMDL. Development of multiple TMDLs as part of a unified effort

. These situations include development of TMDLs that address similar pollutants and approaches, waters in the same watershed or area, same stakeholders, and similar restoration actions.

T he paragrap hs below describe important terms.

TMDL

— A t otal m aximum d aily l oad plan is a ― pollution budget ‖ designed to restore the health of a waterbody. A TMDL calculates the amount of a specific pollutant that a waterbody can receive and still maintain Alaska’s WQS

. TMDL loading allocation

— A loading allocation is the amount of a pollutant allowed at any particular time as part of a TMDL plan for waterbody recovery.Alaska’s Final 20 10 Integrated Report

C. TMDL S chedule and F actors



### 85 NPDES Permits or APDES limits

— National Pollut a n t Discharge Elimination System permit limits and Alask a Pollutant Discharge Elimination System limits are created for the amount of discharge a wastewater facility can send out into the environment and still maintain Alaska’s WQS

. WQS

— The Alaska state water quality standards are guides to help create programs that protect and restore water quality in Alaska. These programs include the impaired water body list and the nonpoint source pollution program. The standards also help set the limits for state and federal discharge permits and cleanup standards for conta minated sites and landfills.Alaska’s Final 20 10 Integrated Report

D . Logic Flow Diagram



### 86 

# A PPENDIX D Logic Flow Diagram

Figure D

- 1 Logic Flow Diagram for Making Category DeterminationsAlaska’s Final 20 1 0 Integrated Report

E. Alaska’s List of Category 5/Section 303(d) Impaired Waters



### 87 

# APPENDIX E List of Alaska’s Category 5/

Section 303(d) Impaired Waters

NOTE: This appendix is an abbreviated and alphabetical list by Alaska regions of the Category 5/Section 303(d) list of impaired waters. The waters are listed alphabetically by region: Interior (IN) , Southcentral (SC) , and Southeast (SE)

.

# Region Alaska ID

Number Waterbody Location Area of Concern Water Quality Standard Pollutant Parameters Pollutant Sources 1 IN 40506

- 007 Chena River Fairbanks 15 miles Sediment Sediment Urban Runoff 2 IN 40506

- 002 Chena Slough Fairbanks 13 miles Sediment Sediment Urban Runoff

3 IN 40402

- 010 Crooked Creek Bonanza Crooked Deadwood Ketchem Mammoth Mastodon Porcupine North of Fairbanks 77 miles Turbidity Turbidity Placer Mining 4 IN 40509

- 001 Goldstream Creek Fairbanks 70 miles Turbidity Turbidity Placer Mining

5 IN 30501

- 002 Kuskokwim River Red Devil 0.2 mile Toxic & Other Deleterious Organic and Inorganic Substances Antimony, A rsenic, M ercury Mining

6 IN 40506

- 003 Noyes Slough Fairbanks 7 miles Sediment Petroleum Hydrocarbons, Oil s & Grease Sediment, Petroleum Products Urban Runoff

7 IN 30501

- 003 Red Devil Creek Red Devil 0.5 mile Toxic & Other Deleterious Organic and Inorganic Substances Antimony, Arsenic, Mercury Mining

8 IN 40510

- 101 Slate Creek Denali National Park 2.5 miles Turbidity Turbidity Mining

9 

### SC 20505

- 401 Big Lake Wasilla 1, 250 acres Petroleum Hydrocarbons Total Aromatic Hydrocarbons (TAH) Motorized Watercraft

10 SC 30101

- 500 Cold Bay King Cove, Alaska Peninsula 0.01 acre Petroleum Hydrocarbons, Oil s & Grease Petroleum Products Military, Fuel Storage

11 SC 20505

- 001 Cottonwood Creek Wasilla 7 miles Fecal Coliform Bacteria Fecal Coliform Bacteria Urban Runoff, Urban DevelopmentAlaska’s Final 20 1 0 Integrated Report

E. Alaska’s List of Category 5/Section 303(d) Impaired Waters



### 88 # Region Alaska ID

Number Waterbody Location Area of Concern Water Quality Standard Pollutant Parameters Pollutant Sources

12 SC 30 102

- 60 6 Dutch Harbor Unalaska Island 0.5 acre Petroleum Hydrocarbons, Oil & Grease Petroleum Products Industrial, Urban Runoff

13 SC 30203

- 001 Egegik River Egegik 0.25 mile Petroleum Hydrocarbons, Oil & Grease Petroleum Products Spills, Fuel Tanks, Under

- ground Fuel Tanks

14 SC 20201

- 401 Eyak Lake Cordova 50 feet of shore

- line Petroleum Hydrocarbons,

Oil s & Grease Petroleum Products, Sheen Above Ground

Storage Tanks, Spills

15 SC 20401

- 412 Hood/Spenard Lake Anchorage 307 acres Dissolved Gas Low Dissolved Oxygen Urban Runoff, Industrial

16 SC 30102

- 602 Iliuliuk Harbor Unalaska Island Petroleum Hydrocarbons, Oil s & Grease Petroleum Products Urban Runoff 1 7 SC 20402

- 001 Matanuska River Palmer 1⁄2 mile Residues Debris Landfill

1 8 SC 30101

- 5 02 Popof Strait East Aleutians Borough 5 miles Residues Seafood Waste Residue Seafood Processor

19 SC 30102

- 409 Red Lake Anton Road Ponds Kodiak 2.0 acres Toxic & Other Deleterious Organic and Inorganic Substances Metals

– Iron, Manganese Urban Runoff

2 0 SC 20401

- 020 Ship Creek Glenn Hwy. Bridge

. Down to Mouth Anchorage 11 miles, Glenn Hwy. Bridge

. Down to Mouth Petroleum Hydrocarbons,

Oil s & Grease Petroleum Products Urban Runoff

2 1 SE 10203

- 002 Katlian River N. of Sitka, Baranof Island 4.5 miles Sediment Turbidity Sediment, Turbidity Timber Harvest

2 2 SE 10103

- 504 Salt Chuck Bay Prince of Wales Island 0.03 square

miles Toxic & Other Deleterious

Organic and Inorganic Substances Metals

- C opper Mining

2 3 SE 10303

- 601 Skagway Harbor Skagway 1.0 a cre Toxic & Other Deleterious Organic and Inorganic Substances Metals

- C admium, Copper, Lead, Mercury, Zinc IndustrialAlaska’s Final 20 1 0 Integrated Report

E. Alaska’s List of Category 5/Section 303(d) Impaired Waters



### 89 # Region Alaska ID

Number Waterbody Location Area of Concern Water Quality Standard Pollutant Parameters Pollutant Sources

2 4 SE 10103

- 010 Unnamed Creek, Sweetwater Lake, USFS 3030 Road, ADF&G Stream 3027 (Stream 3) Prince of

Wales Island 0.4 mile Toxic & Other Deleterious Organic and Inorganic Substances Metals

- Aluminum,

Cadmium, Copper, Iron Road Construction

2 5 SE 10103

- 012 Unnamed Creek, Sweetwater Lake, USFS 3030 Road, ADF&G Stream 3021 (Stream 6) Prince of

Wales Island 1.14 mile Toxic & Other Deleterious Organic and Inorganic Substances, Dissolved Inorganic Substances Metals

– Aluminum, Cadmium, Copper, Iron, Manganese, Sulfate Road Construction

2 6 SE 10103

- 013 Unnamed Creek, Sweetwater Lake, USFS 3030 Road, ADF&G Stream 3019 tributary (Stream 7) Prince of

Wales Island 0.3 mile Toxic & Other Deleterious Organic and Inorganic Substances Metals

- A luminum, Cadmium, Copper, Iron, Manganese Road Construction

2 7 SE 10103

- 014 Unnamed Creek, Sweetwater Lake, USFS 3030 Road, ADF&G Stream 3019 (Stream 8) Prince of

Wales Island 0.3 mile Toxic & Other Deleterious Organic and Inorganic Substances Metals

- C admium, Copper, Iron, Manganese, Nickel, Zinc Road Construction

2 8 SE 10103

- 015 Unnamed Creek, Sweetwater Lake, USFS 3030 Road, ADF&G Stream 3017 tributary (Stream 9) Prince of

Wales Island 0.8 mile Toxic & Other Deleterious Organic and Inorganic Substances , Dissolved Inorganic Substances Metals

Aluminum, Cadmium, Copper, Iron, Manganese, Nickel, Zinc , Sulfat e Road ConstructionAlaska’s Final 20 1 0 Integrated Report

F. Alaska Water Quality Management Programs



### 90 

# APPENDIX F Alaska Water Quality

M anagement Programs

Alaska Water Quality Standards

The protection of surface and groundwater occurs primarily through the development, adoption, and implementation of the water quality standards (WQS)

. The standards specify the degree of degradation that may not be exceeded in a state waterbody as a result of human actions. Alaska WQS were most recently revised on September 19, 2009

.

The Alaska WQS ( published in Title 18 , Chapter 70, of the Alaska Administrative Code [AAC]) designate specific uses for which water quality must be protected

. S even uses for fresh waters and seven uses fo r marine waters are designated . Table F

- 1 identifies these uses.

Table F

- 1 Designated Uses of Fresh W ater and Marine Waterbodies in Alaska Designated Use Fresh W ater Marine 

### Drinking Water √ Agriculture √ Aquaculture √ √
Industrial √ √
Contact Recreation √ √
Non

- contact Recreation √ √ Growth and Propagation of Fish, Shellfish, Other Aquatic Life, Wildlife √ √

Seafood Processing √ Harvesting Raw Mollusks or Other Aquatic Life √

By default, waterbodies in Alaska are protected for all designated uses. The few waterbodies for which

some uses have been removed are listed in the WQS

. Although Alaska does not have any wetland

- specific WQS and neither numeric nor narrative qualitative

c riteria are specific to wetlands

, the Alaska WQS consider wetlands as ―waters of the state‖ ; consequently, Alaska’s WQS apply to wetlands

. State standards specify the pollutant limits, or criteria, necessary to protect the designated uses for a variety of parameters or pollutants for each of the 14 fresh water and marine uses

. Attainment of standards is required for the following 12 pollutants:

Color FC bacteria Dissolved oxygen Dissolved inorganic substancesAlaska’s Final 20 1 0 Integrated Report

F. Alaska Water Quality Management Programs



### 91 Petroleum hydrocarbons , oil s and grease pH Ra dioactivity Residues (floating solids, foam, debris, deposits) Sediment Temperature Toxic substances Turbidity

In the Section 305(b) assessment process for Section 305(b) of the federal CWA , waterbodies are compared to the standards for these parameters to determine whether persistent exceedances of water quality violations occur.

The WQS adopt the state primary drinking water maximum contaminant levels (MCLs) in the Water Quality Criteria Manual for Toxic and Other Deleterious Organic and Inorganic Substances (18 AAC 70.020(b)(11))

. Because the Alaska Drinking Water Program was given primacy by the EPA, the state MCLs have been in full compliance with the National Primary Drinking Water Reg ulations contaminant limits.

Alaska’s WQS also contain provisions for antidegradation, mixing zones, natural conditions, short

- term variances, ZODs

, and carcinogenic risk levels for chemical contaminants

. The antidegradation regulation is identical to fed eral law and requires protection of high quality waters such as waters of a national or state park, wildlife refuge, or a water of exceptional recreational or ecological significance. In a ZOD, a water quality standard may be exceeded under certain permit conditions.

Every 3 years, DEC conducts a comprehensive review of the WQS in 18 AAC 70

. The triennial review is a CWA requirement that helps set pollution limits for Alaska ’ s waters by integrating the most current science and technology. Further informatio n on the triennial review can be found at http://www.state.ak.us/dec/water/wqsar/trireview/trireview.htm

.Alaska’s Final 20 1 0 Integrated Report

F. Alaska Water Quality Management Programs



### 92 

## Alaska’s Clean Water Actions

Alaska’s Approach to Water Resources Manag ement

DEC participates in the implementation of the ACWA policy, which was initiated in 1999

. Through the ACWA process, DEC, DNR , and ADF&G work together to focus state and federal resources to address issues of water quality, water quantity, and aquatic h abitat for the waters with the greatest need

. I nformation about ACWA is available at http://www.state.ak.us/dec/water/acwa/acwa_index.htm

.

The c ooperating agencies have developed a waterbod y nomination and ranking process

. The process

uses established criteria to identify priorities for assessment, stewardship, and corrective action needs for polluted waters and waters at risk of pollution

. These criteria include (1) the statutory criteria , (2) severity of pollution

, and (3) expected uses of the waters, according to CWA Section 303(d)(1)(A).

A n ACWA database uses four tracks to account for the nominated waterbodies: Data Collection and Monitoring, Adequately Protected Waterbodies, Waterbody Recovery, and Protect and Maintain Waterbodies at Risk.

The ACWA criteria were developed to assign a numeric value that identifies relative priority to each successfully nominated waterbody, resulting in the ACWA Priority Ranking

. Waterbodies for which d ata are not sufficient to suggest a current or anticipated problem are placed in the D ata C ollection and M onitoring track

. The waterbodies for which sufficient and credible data are available and for which those data suggest existence of a current water qu ality, water quantity, or aquatic habitat problem or the likelihood of future problems are subject to additional analyses . Those further analyses evaluate agency stewardship effectiveness and determine the persistence of standard exceedance s or of regulati on violations

. Many of these waterbodies are entered in the Protect and Maintain Waterbodies at Risk or Waterbody R ecovery database tracks

. Ranking the waterbodies enables agencies to focus resources on the most important priorities. Information on indivi dual waterbody rankings are found on the web site cited above

. Description of Ranking Criteria

The ACWA ranking criteria include an identical set of six common factors : allocation (refers to the extent to which the water has been obligated for various uses ), condition, protection, future use, present use, and value applied broadly across each of three components:

Water quantity; Water quality; and Aquatic habitat.

Each factor is assigned a high (5), medium (3) and low er (1) rating for each component.

Applic ation of the Ranking Criteria

Professional agency staff review readily available information and data related to a given waterbody and assign a factor rating using their best professional judgment for each factor

. The agency mostAlaska’s Final 20 1 0 Integrated Report

F. Alaska Water Quality Management Programs



### 93 knowledgeable and familiar with the data is responsible for an individual component

. For instance, DNR hydrologists are assigned the responsibility for providing factor

- ratings for water quantity, ADF&G biologists are assigned the responsib ility for providing aquatic habitat factor ratings, and DEC is assigned the responsibility for making water quality ratings

. Waterbodies are ranked in descending order of their assigned ranking score. Numeric thresholds are established

, and each waterbody is assigned a high, medium, or low er priority

. More detailed information on the ranking process is available online at http://www.dec.state.ak.us/water/acwa/acwa_ranking.htm

Funding Priorities

Funding to support high

- priority protection and restoration efforts identified by the ACWA process may come from state agencies such as DEC, DNR, or ADF&G. Each funding source has a unique set of obligations and conditions for use.

A single, int egrated solicitation process that captures the requirements associated with each potential funding source was developed in 2003

. The consolidated solicitation process reduces the burden on applicants by providing a ―one

- stop shopping‖ approach to their fun ding search es

. It facilitates the project evaluation and award process of the agencies by providing, in one process, the ability to optimally match projects with the best funding source and provide all information required to make the funding awards

. Proje ct evaluations and matches to funding sources are accomplished by an interagency team representing all resource management and funding source agencies.
ACWA Priority Actions

ACWA priority water actions (the needed actions on the ACWA

- priority waters) are i dentified for approximately 20 to 30 Alaska’s waters on an annual basis. G rant funds are made available for these
waters

. Seventeen projects were funded for actions from July 2009 to June 2010. Specific information on actions request and grants funded is a vailable at http://dec.alaska.gov/water/acwa/acwa_index.htm

. 

## Alaska Water Monitoring and Assessment Strategy

DEC developed a long

- term Water Quality Monitoring and Assessment Strategy (Strategy) to guide its stewardship of Alaska’s marine and fresh waters

. The complete document presenting the Strategy, which was completed in June 2005

, is available for review at http://www.dec.state.ak.us/water/wqsar/monitoring/DEC_monitoring_strategy_final_2005.pdf

. The Strategy is intended to meet the federal expectations for state water quality stewardship activities enumerated in the CWA in a manner influence d by the unique needs and challenges of Alaska

. The Strategy integrates policy and program elements embodied in the ACWA p olicy and in the EPA Consolidated Assessment and Listing Methodology and Elements of a S tate Water Monitoring Program documents

. The m ajor policies of the ACWA and EPA define specific objectives for the Strategy from state and federal perspectives

. The purpose s of th e Strategy document are to (1) serve as a framework for Alaska resource agency decisions required for assessing and monito ring Alaska’s water resources; (2) support protection andAlaska’s Final 20 1 0 Integrated Report

F. Alaska Water Quality Management Programs



### 94 restoration decisions; and (3) serve as a roadmap for improving state, federal, local, tribal

, and public capabilities and performance over time for monitoring the status and trends of Alaska’s wate r resources.
The Strategy focuses on what can be done with available financial resources , considering the abundance of Alaska’s water resources. Because of this abundance

, Alaska must establish priorities for applying limited state resources for monitoring and assessing state water resources. The Strategy touches on waterbody level monitoring through ACWA and ambient analysis through the Alaska Environmental Monitoring and Assessment Program.

The Strategy is organized around ten elements that mus t be addressed to ensure that monitoring and
assessment activities are conducted on a rational basis and in a manner that ensures information is of good quality and is accessible for resource management decisions

. Th ose elements are as follows :

Monitoring Program Strategy Monitoring Objectives Monitoring Design Core and Supplemental Water Quality Indicators Quality Assurance Data Management Data Analysis/Assessment Reporting Programmatic Evaluation General Support and Infrastructure Analysis

The Strategy en ables DEC to revise monitoring programs based on emerging needs

. For example, the monitoring programs can be adapted to evaluate the impact of global changes on Alaska waters

. DEC recognizes that sources external to Alaska may affect water quality. Informa tion or direction from the Alaska Climate Change Task Force (http://www.climatechange.alaska.gov/) can be incorporated into future waterbody assessments and listing methodologies. The Task Force has direct responsibility for a host of climate change impact s , including the assessment of warming estuaries and fresh water habitat that support fisheries. The Task Force also intends to seek funding for an ocean acidification research and monitoring plan.

In 2006, EPA Region 10 completed a review of and accepted the DEC Strategy.


## Alaska’s Aquatic Resource Surveys

– Probabilistic Assessments

Probability

- based assessments are part of the DEC Water Quality Monitoring and Assessment Strategy

. Seven regional probabilistic assessments of fresh water and marine aquatic r esources (Figure F

- 1) have been conducted since 2002

. The discussion below addresses the 2002 Southcentral coastal , Tanana River Basin

, and Interior Alaska w adeable s tream assessments, for which final reports have been completed

. The full reports are available at http://www.dec.state.ak.us/water/wqsar/monitoring/emap_Map.htm and in the EPA National Coastal Condition Report III (2008)

. Field surveys have been completed on the Y ukon River (2009), Cook Inlet Lakes (2008), Coastal Aleutian Islands (2006 and 2007), and Coastal Southeast Alaska (2004)

. Results of these surveys are not yet available for inclusion in the 2010 report.Alaska’s Final 20 1 0 Integrated Report

F. Alaska Water Quality Management Programs



### 95 Figu re F

- 1 Location Map

Because of the low population density and limited industrial and agricultural activities that characterize the state , Alaska’s aquatic resources are often assumed to be in pristine or near

- pristine condition

. However, long

- range atmospheric and oceanic transport from the mor e populated and industrialized centers are delivering contaminants to Alaska

. The assessments reported on in this appendix utilized ―core national indicators‖ as part of the EPA National Aquatic Resource Survey program

. Currently, t he

core indicators and s ampling design used in Alaska are not designed to assess condition of aquatic

resources related to accumulation of contaminants at the trophic level of the food web nor climate change impacts, such as ocean acidification

.
Southcentral Alaska Coastal Survey

DEC collected data at a total of 55 sites that covered the geographic range from Unimak Island in the southwest study area to the Copper River Delta area in the northeast study area. The target study area included coastal bays and es tuaries in Southcentral Alaska, including the Alaska Peninsula, Kodiak Island archipelago, Cook Inlet, the Kenai Peninsula, and Prince William Sound.

The Southcentral Alaska coastal assessment utilizing the core indicators of the EPA National Coastal Asse ssment (NCA) sample d 55 locations. Based on three of the NCA indices (water quality, sediment quality

, and fish tissue contaminants)

, the overall condition was rated good

. National indices indicating poor conditions for water clarity at some sites did not account for conditions natural to this region, i.e. glacial flour. High levels of chromium and nickel were found at one site near Chrome Bay, for which a subsequent assessment was conducted in 2009 (results pending) to determine if these results represent the natural condition. Because of the lack of current and historic al biological data

, it was not possible to

assess appropriate benthic or coastal habitat indices for this region

. T he percentage of coastal area inAlaska’s Final 20 1 0 Integrated Report

F. Alaska Water Quality Management Programs



### 96 good, fair, poor, and missing categories f or each NCA index and component indicator is shown in the report, which is available at http://www.dec.state.ak.us/water/wqsar/Docs/EMAPSC2%20Report.pdf

.
Tanana River

The Tanana River originates in the Yukon Territory, Canada, flows west, and dis charges into the Yukon River near Tanana, Alaska ( Fig ure 1 above ). The basin covers more than 44,700 square miles and lies south of the Yukon River where discontinuous permafrost has been thawing in recent decades (Jorgenson and others, 2001).

DEC collected water

- quality data from 84 sites along the navigable rivers in the Tanana Basin from Octo ber 2003 through September 2006 as part of a cooperative study between the USGS and DEC Alaska M onitoring and Assessment Program (AKMAP)

. A broad range of chemical analyses were conducted for 93 sets of samples collected at 59 tributaries to the Tanana River and at 25 locations along the mainstem. In situ pH, specific conductance, water temperature a nd DO concentrations were measured

, and samples were analyzed for major ions, dissolved organic carbon, and oxygen isotopes.

The report for the Tanana River Basin Survey can be found at http://www.dec.state.ak.us/water/wqsar/Docs/USGS_ofr20071390.pdf

. This report contains the field
water

- quality constituents and water

- quality data analyzed by USGS from October 2003 to September 20 06

.
Alaska Interior Wadeable Stream Assessment

The Alaska Interior Wadeable Streams Assessment summarizes field data collected during 2004 and 2005 as part of a study designed to assess the ecological condition of wadeable, perennial streams in the Tanana River basin of I nterior Alaska

. This project was c onducted in conjunction with the EPA Wa deable Streams Assessment (WSA). Funded by EPA, the Alaska WSA study was a cooperative effort
among EPA, DEC , the Environment and Natural Resources Institute (ENRI) of the University of Alaska Anchorage , the School of Fisheries and Ocean Sciences of the University of Alaska Fairbanks, and USGS

. Although information from this assessment was not included in the national EPA report, Alaska produced a report summarizing the findings

. Fresh water indices (water quality, sed iment, and biological conditions) are included. Forty

- two Tanana River Basin streams were analyzed, representing 7,754 miles of stream

. The report is available at http://www.dec.state.ak.us/water/wqsar/monitoring/Tanana_Wadeable_Str_Rep_Final.pdf

. Summaries are presented of the most important physical, chemical, habitat, and biological metrics. Preliminary results of a modeling approach for helping detect and diagnose changes in ecological condition at stream sites based on deviations from predicted macroinvertebrate functional feeding group composition are discussed

. 

## Nonpoint Source Pollution Program

Because much of Alaska is undeveloped and relatively pristin e, the primary emphasis of the nonpoint source pollution strategy is prevention

. In populated areas, however, many waterbodies, includingAlaska’s Final 20 1 0 Integrated Report

F. Alaska Water Quality Management Programs



### 97 important salmon streams, have been degraded and need restoration

. Waterbody restoration plans are developed and imple mented for waterbody locations where water quality is impaired

. Restoration strategies for polluted waterbodies consider the entire watershed and include measures to control the sources of pollution to prevent future degradation

. Restoration activities are designed to achieve a water quality condition appropriate to the specific site.

Nine key elements have been identified by EPA as necessary for an effective nonpoint source program in Alaska : Explicit short

- and long

- term goals, objectives, and strategies to protect surface and

groundwater Strong working partnerships and links to appropriate state, tribal, regional, and local entities (including conservation districts), private

- sector groups, citizens’ groups, and federal agencies A balanced approach that emphasizes both statewide nonpoint source programs and on

- the

ground management of watersheds where waters are impaired and threatened Abatement of known water quality impairments resulting from nonpoint source pollution and prevention of significant threa ts to water quality from present and future activities Identification of waters and watersheds impaired by nonpoint source pollution and important unimpaired waters that are threatened or otherwise at risk

. Alaska’s Nonpoint Source Water Pollution Program includes a process of progressively addressing these waters by conducting more detailed watershed assessments, developing watershed/waterbody implementation plan s, and implementing those plans Review, upgrad es , and implementation of all program components and establishment of flexible, targeted, and iterative approaches to achieve and maintain beneficial uses of water, including (1) a mix of programs based on water quality

, technology , or both; (2 ) a mix of regulatory, nonregulatory, financial, and technica l assistance as needed to achieve and maintain beneficial uses of water ; and (3 ) incorporat ion of or cross references to existing baseline requirements established by other relevant federal or s tate laws Identification of federal lands management and activ ities that are not managed consistent ly with the objectives of Alaska’s nonpoint source program
Efficient and effective program management, including necessary financial management Periodic review and evaluation using environmental and functional measures of success in which sources of nonpoint source pollution are assessed and the management program is revised at least every 5 years
These nine key elements have been incorporated and integrated with ACWA policy in the Alaska Nonpoint Source Water Pollution Control Strategy

. This strategy is available at http://www.dec.state.ak.us/water/wnpspc/pdfs/2007_NPSStrategy.pdf

. The fol lowing g eneral sources of nonpoint source pollution are addressed:

Urban and community development Forest practicesAlaska’s Final 20 1 0 Integrated Report

F. Alaska Water Quality Management Programs



### 98 Harbors and marinas Hydromodification Mining Agriculture Road, h ighways, and b ridges

Maint enance of good water quality can only be achieved when all sources of pollution are considered, resources are used for the highest priorities, and people work together to prevent pollution and achieve clean water goals

. Integration of the nine key program elements listed above with the ACWA priorities ensures that stewardship and prevention, monitoring and, when necessary, restoration actions are implemented. 

## Coastal Nonpoint Source Pollution

Strategies for nonpoint water pollution control include implementation of the Alaska Coastal Clean Water Plan, publishe d as a Public Review Draft in August 1995, and the requirements of the Coastal Zone Act Reauthorization Amendments (CZARA) (Section 6217).

Most management measures of CZARA Section 6217 are implemented through existing state programs and authorities, including the following:

S tate certification of federal permits and activities that WQS will be met F ish habitat protection W ater rights appropriations Alaska Coastal and Harbor Design Procedures Manual Harbor m ana gement a greements Forest Resources and Practices Act R egulations and erosion and sediment control plans for dam construction

The management measures are intended to ensure appropriate protection occurs during the efficient use of resources.

BEACH Grant Pr ogram
The goal of the Alaska BEACH Grant Program is to provide funding that helps Alaskan communities monitor the state’s marine beaches for fecal pollution.

DEC surveyed Alaska coastal communities and found that some beaches more likely to have a higher l evel of bacteria l contamination than others. To learn more about the extent of possible sources of the presence of FC bacteria or enterococci bacteria, DEC has entered into an agreement or memorandum of understanding (MOU) with several coastal communities that will be able to apply for BEACH Grant funding. These cooperating communities will work with DEC for water quality monitoring, community notification

, and training.Alaska’s Final 20 1 0 Integrated Report

F. Alaska Water Quality Management Programs



### 99 The BEACH Act of 2000

The Beaches Environmental Assessment and Coastal Health (BEACH) Act was signed into law in October 2000 in response to concerns that people were becoming ill after visiting local shores/beaches, especially when they came into direct contact with the water during recreational activities

. EPA awards grants to state and t ribal authorities to assist with the implementation of beach water monitoring and advisory notification programs

. More information on the EPA b each program can be found at http://www.epa.gov/beaches/

.
Alaska Beach Monitoring Program

W ith the assistance of interested organizations and the general public, DEC has developed a beach monitoring program to evaluate the possible risk to recreational beach users in Alaska

. By notifying the public in the event that a sample exceeds the allowable levels, this program will help prevent illnesses that could result from exposure to contaminated beach water

. Identif ication of Alaska Beaches

The DEC BEACH Grant Program defines a beach as ―any shoreline where recreational activiti es may bring a person into complete or partial body contact with marine water.‖ According to this definition , a beach may include sections of a shoreline that do not appear to look like a sandy beach. A Recreational Beach Survey was performed in 2003 to g ather information from coastal communities about the recreational use of beaches in their area s

. The 60 responses received identified 203 recreational

- use beaches as areas that were used for recreational purposes

. These beaches were located in 53 coastal A laska communities

. C urrent S tatus of the Alaska BEACH Program

DEC fund s monitor ing and develop ment of phases of the BEACH program by local communities and tribal governments through the ACWA/BEACH grant process

. C ommunities ( i ncluding Dillingham, Haines, Juneau

, Naknek

, and Homer ) have monitor ed local recreational beaches for indicator bacteria using funding from the Alaska BEACH Grant Program since summer 2007. The program support s monitor ing of marine water quality adjacent to high

- use beaches. G rantees sample beach water for organisms ( FC s and enterococci bacteria) that indicate the presence of fecal contamination.

Funding for beach monitoring will be made available through the ACWA/BEACH g rant process to communities with high

- priority beaches

. More info rmation about the Alaska BEACH g rant program is available at http://www.dec.state.ak.us/water/wqsar/wqs/beachprogram.htm

. 

## Point Source Pollution Program

Overall Approach

DEC’s point source pollution program covers more than 1,000 permitted facilities and activities throughout the State of Alaska

. DEC’s overall approach to water quality management is to focus staff resources on facilities and activities that pose higher risks to public health or the environment

. Efforts are under way in f

ive broad categories

.Alaska’s Final 20 1 0 Integrated Report

F. Alaska Water Quality Management Programs



### 100 

## Delegation of the Wastewater Permitting Program

In October 2008, EPA formally approved the state’s application to administer the NPDES wastewater permitting and compliance and enfo rcement program for point source discharges of pollution to waters of the United States. The state’s program is called the Alaska Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (APDES) Program.

Authority to administer the federal program will transfer to DEC duri ng 3 years beginning at program approval and ending October 2011. Until authority over a facility transfers to DEC, EPA will remain the permitting and compliance and enforcement authority for that facility

. The phasing schedule and list of facilities in ea ch phase is available for review at the following DEC web page: http://www.dec.state.ak.us/water/npdes/APDESAuthorityTransferSchedule.htm

.
DEC will continue to issue st ate individual and GPs for discharges that do not require an NPDES permit. DEC also will continue to review permits for facilities still under EPA authority for water quality impacts.


## Focus on High

- Priority Permits

Staff focus on improving and updating p ermits for facilities and activities that pose a higher risk to human health or the environment by working on APDES and federal NPDES individual permits for all large

- volume, major dischargers, and by using new or reissued GPs that standardize the review o f similar or lower

- risk projects. DEC also regulates domestic wastewater treatment facilities that are not permitted by the EPA but need a discharge permit and are important to the human health in smaller Alaskan communities. Finally, DEC prioritizes facil ities to be inspected through the use of a risk

- based scoring and ranking model as well as by applying national EPA priorities

. 

## Enhanc ement of Compliance

A facility’s compliance with effluent limits and operational conditions designed to protect water quality is enhanced by assistance from DEC staff, who have extensive experience with a wide variety of local conditions and waste treatment technologies

. Rout ine review of monitoring records submitted to DEC and follow

- up as needed also yield incremental improvements in the ambient water quality.



## Provi sion of Technical Information

Trained and technically competent staff are accessible through various telecommu nication tools that bridge the vast distances that characterize Ala ska. The staff support to permittees and their consultants provide s technical assistance and resource s for information about successful technologies and practices for wastewater treatment a nd discharge. 

## Streamlining of the Permitting Process

Regulatory c ompliance is facilitated by streamlined application, fee payment, and electronic reporting; permit conditions that focus on cost

- effective practices gleaned from statewide experience; and

co nsistent application of requirements across industry sectors on pollutants of concern. Also, a modernAlaska’s Final 20 1 0 Integrated Report

F. Alaska Water Quality Management Programs



### 101 data system provides an analytical tool to support improvements in other aspects of DEC’s water quality program, e.g., improvements to Alaska WQS

. 

## Protec ti on of Subsurface Wastewater

DEC wastewater engineers review plans for onsite wastewater systems (septic systems), wastewater lagoons, and underground injection control (UIC) wells (specifically, EPA Class V injection wells ). Underground disposal systems and i njection wells can pose a threat to groundwater quality and affect drinking water sources. Common examples in Alaska are sumps, drains, drywells, and drainfields that are used to dispose of septic tank effluent and wells for c ommercial waste water , and injection

. Class V wells are also used for the disposal of stormwater and snow melt. C ontaminants associated with injection wells can includ e nutrients, bacteria, viruses, solvents, antifreeze, used oil, and dissolved heavy metals

. These pollutants can de grade groundwater aquifer s that serve as wells for public or private drinking water system s

. DEC reviews ensure that domestic wastewater (septage and sewage) is properly treated, stored, handled, and disposed of in a safe and sanitary manner

. Poorly designed systems can also cause groundwater to migrate to and pollute surface waters, especially in areas with high water table s or near tidally influenced waterbodies.

DEC engineers also review and approve plans for the design and construction of domestic and commercial wastewater treatment, storage, and disposal facilities. Staff also review monitoring reports for treated wastewater discharges to the surface of the land or into the ground that m ay affect the groundwater. Information from the domestic wastewater program is used to create maps that show the location of septic systems, identified UIC wells, wastewater treatment systems, and sewage lagoons when completing public water system source w ater assessments for the drinking water protection program (see Drinking Water section below).


## Regulati on of Stormwater

Stormwater discharges are generated by runoff from land and impervious areas, such as paved streets, parking lots, and building rooftops during rainfall and snow. This runoff often contains pollutants in quantities that could adversely affect water quality.

Authority to administer the Stormwater Program transferred to DEC on October 31, 2009. The point

source stormwater program focuses on two types of stormwater : (1) subject to APDES permitting requirements and stormwater (2) handled by treatment and discharge systems.

Stormwater discharges that require an APDES permit include discharges from constructions sites disturbing 1 or more acre of land, certain industrial facilities, and municipal separate stormwater sewer systems (MS4) in the Anchorage and Fairbanks areas. APDES stormwater permits require proper site control and rainfall and sno wmelt

. Runoff is treated

, and contact with pollutants is prevented with good site design and construction.

Under 18 AAC 72.600, DEC reviews and approves engineering plans for stormwater treatment and discharge systems

. The goal of this review is to ensure that permanent stormwater systems are designed and con structed to meet pollutant removal criteria and BMPs

.Alaska’s Final 20 1 0 Integrated Report

F. Alaska Water Quality Management Programs



### 102 

## Environmental Compliance Program for Commercial Passenger Vessels

In 2001, Alaska passed an innovative pollution prevention law that applies to passenger vessels, including some Alaska Marine Highway System vessels. The law is applicable for both small passenger vessels, serving 5 to 249 people, and large passenger vessels, serving 250 or more people

. The Commercial Passenger Vessel Environmental Compliance Program (Cruise Ship Program) implements the law and ensures that cruise ships and ferries comply with wastewater effluent and visible emission standards

. Effluent limits are set for both graywater (e.g.

, water from showers and dishwaters) and blackwater (e.g.

, to ilet water)

. There have been two changes to the original law

. In 2004, the Legislature revised the law that applied to small passenger vessels. It allowed small passenger vessels to implement BMPs to manage their wastewater discharge ; for example, dischar ging only while underway

. In August 2006, the voters approved a citizen

- sponsored cruise ship ballot initiative

. The new law requires that cruise ships obtain wastewater permits in order to discharge

. It also requires that observers

— Ocean Rangers

— be placed on board cruise vessels while in Alaska waters

. The Cruise Ship Program is in the process of issuing a wastewater discharge GP

. DEC is also in the process of hiring a contractor to place Ocean Rangers on board ships during the 20 10 cruise season

.
The Cru ise Ship Program also conducts scientific research to assess the impact of cruise ship wastewater

on the environment in Alaska and may create additional standards if science and technology warrant

. The state law also addresses the offloading or disposal of nonhazardous solid wastes (besides sewage) and hazardous wastes in Alaska. Vessel owner/operators are required to annually submit a description of the vessel procedures for handling nonhazardous and hazardous waste and to report any deviations from the ve ssel plan to DEC

. The Cruise Ship Program is supported by industry fees.


## Drinking Water Program

The Drinking Water Program consists of four interrelated sections charged with oversight of public water system s (PWS s ) . The sections and additional areas of responsibility are identified below:

Engineering ; Compliance and Monitoring

— PWS compliance and enforcement activities ;
Statewide Technical Services

— Drinking water protection , Alaska PWS Database, PWS security and emergency response planning, and statewide PWS compliance and enf orcement coordination ; and Program Management and Administration

. 

## Public Water System and Drinking Water Compliance

Staff in the Compliance and Monitoring, Engineering, and Statewide Technical Services sections primarily comp ose the Drinking Water Program’s compliance and enforcement group for the Drinking Water Program. These compliance and enfo r cement activities are referred to as the Public Water System Supervision (PWSS) Program

. The Alaska PWSS Program focuses on PWSs that are f ederally regulated

, which are systems that provide drinking water to 25 or more individuals and do not includeAlaska’s Final 20 1 0 Integrated Report

F. Alaska Water Quality Management Programs



### 103 single

- family homes or duplexes with their own private wells

. Alaska has approximately 1,57 0 federally regulated PWSs, according to an October 1, 2009

, inventory . This inventory figure is dynamic, changing frequently in the course of a year

. Some PWSs are seasonal, shutting down for 6 to 9 months of the year

. In addition, many systems are slowly going out of business, disbanding, or being consolida ted into larger systems, and many small community

- type systems are starting up in the areas of rapid growth, such as the Matanuska

- Susitna Valley.

Both the State of Alaska and the federal government classify PWSs based on population served and duration of operation

, regardless of whether the drinking water source is groundwater or surface water

. The federal (EPA) classification s for PWSs are Community Water System s (CWS), Non

- transient Non

community Water System (NTNCWS), and Transient Non

- community Water Systems (TNCWS)

. The State of Alaska adopted the federal nomenclature for PWS classification effective April 2009

. Alaska’s October 200 9 PWS inventory show ed 4 36 C WS

, 2 45 NTNCWS

, and 892 TNCWS.

Alaska is a primacy state for drinking water and has direct oversight of PWSs within the state

. The state is required to complete the timely development or adoption of federal drinking water rules and obtain and maintain prim acy for all drinking water rules and required drinking water initiatives

. A s a primacy state, Alaska is required to implement the state PWSS Program to meet the intent and requirements of the SDWA and its 1986 and 1996 amendments

. The Alaska PWSS Program does not create, measure, or develop data

. Rather, it provides for collection of information routinely sent directly to the Drinking Water Program staff. The information collected and the responsible parties are identified below:

PWS compliance monitoring data , prepared by DEC

- certified laboratories

O perator reports , provided by PWS owners or operators

S anitary survey inspector reports , prepared by DEC Drinking Water Program staff and DEC

certified third party sanitary survey inspectors

Drinking Water Progr am engineering staff also complete component assessments of onsite water system status and comprehensive performance evaluations of Alaska PWS s to confirm that systems were built as approved and to provide information to PWS owners to better optimize syste m performance. Staff review and either approve or disapprove the engineered plans for PWS treatment, storage, and distribution systems. The program requires that PWSs produce treated water that meets the standards set by federal rules and state regulations for the regulated drinking water contaminants

. The program receives, stores, and uses monitoring data on PWS compliance for the regulated drinking water contaminants as well as any specific rule requirements to confirm that the health of the customers being served by a PWS is protected

. The program requires that PWSs be in compliance with SDWA requirements, federal rules, and st ate regulations at all times

. If a PWS i s in noncompliance, Drinking Water Program staff provide technical and compliance assistance . The staff also take appropriate enforcement actions or may refer the PWS to EPA for enforcement.

All PWS location data for Alaska ’ s federally regulated PWSs was p rovided to the EPA approximately 5 years ago (2004)

. Alaska PWS location data for new systems and existing treatment systems, wellhead (groundwater source), and intake (surface water source) are routinely checked during the sanitary survey
process . A ny chan ges in location data are corrected in the state

- maintained PWS Safe Drinking WaterAlaska’s Final 20 1 0 Integrated Report

F. Alaska Water Quality Management Programs



### 104 Information System (SDWIS) database

, which is named SDWIS/State . All routine data for federally regulated PWS s are reported to EPA during monthly or quarterly data transfers

. This information includes the State of Alaska PWS inventory, source types, population s served, latitude and longitude of new treatment systems and source intakes or updated information from existing systems, compliance monitoring data, enforcement action s, and operator reports

. Alaska is also required to submit to EPA a n annual public water system compliance report for its PWSS Program

. First submitted in 1996, t he annual compliance report must be submitted to EPA by July 1 of each year for the previous calendar year

, unless designated otherwise by EPA.


## Drinking Water Protection

The Drinking Water Protection (DWP) component of the statewide Drinking Water Program ultimately focuses on the assessment of water supplies used by Alaska PWS s for drinking water purposes and the protection of groundwater supplies used by public drinking water systems

. Through an extensive public involvement process, Alaska developed its Drinking Water Protection Program

, a combined s ource

w ater a ssessments and Wellhead Protection Program for PWS

, which was approved by EPA on April 4, 2000

. This component of the statewide DWP combines activities and information from PWS source water assessments and W ellhead P rotection M anagement P lans (WPMPs) , and focuses on the protection of drinking water produced and distributed by PWS s that use surface water, groundwater, or combined

sources.

T he initial project to complete source water assessments of Alaska PWS s has been completed

. A total of 1,668 source water assessments we re completed for 1,427 PWS s

. Currently, source water assessments for new PWS s are being completed after the system is built and inventory information is documented in SDWIS/State

. Since July 1, 2004 (the EPA deadline for complet ion of PWS source water asse ssments for existing systems by primacy states )

, and as of October 2009, 257 new PWS source water assessments have been completed . The following activities associated with the source water assessment
process also have been completed: 361 PWS delineations, 281 contaminant source inventories, and 280 vulnerability analyses

. The source water assessment process includes identifying source water (drinking water) protection areas using a series of uniform flow equations and watershed delineations; completing

a co ntaminant source inventory of all potential and existing sources of regulated drinking water contaminants within the protection areas; and completing a vulnerability assessment based on the level of risk associated with identified potential and existing co ntaminant sources

. The goal of completing PWS source water assessments is to identify and prioritize contaminant risks to public water supplies as a basis for protection efforts

. These protection efforts will be largely undertaken at a local level and will be supported by the state through possible regulations, guidance documents, fact sheets, and Wellhead Protection Program activities

. The source water assessments will also be a crucial tool for use by the state in assist ing operators and owners of PWS s in achieving compliance with the EPA Groundwater Rule, promulgated November 8, 2006

. During fiscal year 2004, an interactive CD

- ROM was developed and produced for PWS owners, managers, operators, and communities to use to develop their WPMPs

. The CD directs the users through the information entry process with easy

- to

- use methodology and easy

- to

- understand instructions

. The end product is a written wellhead protection plan specifically designed for a particular public drinking water system or local community

. The completed source water assessment report and the most recentAlaska’s Final 20 1 0 Integrated Report

F. Alaska Water Quality Management Programs



### 105 sanitary survey are then added as appendices to the plan, resulting in a complete and comprehensive WPMP for the system.

DWP staff have continued further development and implementation of a statewide voluntary Public Water System Wellhead Protection Program

. To accomplish this goal, DWP staff assisted communities and PWS owners and operators in developing WPMPs for their systems through t he use of the interactive CD

- ROM (previously described) and completed public outreach through workshops and presentations on wellhead protection tools and strategies

. Additionally, DWP staff assisted the Alaska Rural Water Association (ARWA) Source Water P rotection Specialist in presenting joint workshops on both PWS wellhead protection and source water protection planning

. Community support is essential for an effective local Wellhead Protection Program

, which includes development and implementation of a W PMP

. The Wellhead Protection Advisory Committee recommended to the State of Alaska, DEC Drinking Water Program, that the statewide voluntary Public Water System Wellhead Protection Program be renamed the ―Drinking Water Protection Advisory Committee.‖ The advisory committee recommended and approved the creation of ―Endorsed Drinking Water Protection Plans‖ and redefined the definition of ―substantial implementation,‖ a term used by EPA to measure protection strategies that minimize the risk of contamination of a source of drinking water

. A list of these recommendations can be reviewed on the Drinking Water Program website at http://www.dec.state.ak.us/eh/dw/DWP/WAC.htm

.

As of October 2009, 32 PWS s ha d substantially implement ed a Drinking Water Protection Plan

. These 32 PWS provide drinking water to 338,735 consumers

. More than 50% of the residents and visitors of the State of Alaska receiving water from a PWS receive water from systems with a substant ially protected source of drinking water.

Criteria for the Endorsed Drinking Water Protection Plans were established in conjunction with ARWA criteria for the development of protection plans for which ARWA assists communities with develop ment

. As of Octobe r 2009), ten water systems ha d Endorsed Drinking Water Protection Plans

. It is hoped that new fiscal incentives f r om the ACWA grant program will help facilitate the development of Endorsed Drinking Water Protection Plans

. DWP staff continues to work toward identifying the communities that are currently implementing protection strategies

. The communities that are implementing protection strategies will be recognized and may qualify for future incentives

. In the meantime, DWP staff focus their efforts on comm unities that do have protection strategies in place.

In fiscal year 2009, the Drinking Water Protection Group collaborated with the ACWA grant program

, which is a multi

- agency effort. T he DEC Drinking Water Program, Drinking Water Protection Group, contributed $10,000 from the Drinking Water State Revolving Fund (DWSRF), Local Assistance and Other State Programs set

- aside s

. These funds are to be used toward proposals that promote or develop stewardship strategies leading to increased protection of wa ter sources used for public drinking water supplies

. The first grant , which also incorporated CWA funding, was awarded to Friends of Mat

- Su for fiscal year 2010

. Funding this project allow ed F riends of Mat

- Su to develop an educational outreach program for homes and businesses around Lake Wasilla, where more than 20 PWS wells are located within 2

, 000 feet of the lake

. E ducation outreach is expected to focus on key issues of septic system location and maintenance, proper well construction, well decommissionin g ( abandonment ) procedures, and discontinued use and closure of waste disposal wells for Class V motor vehicle s

. In the future, theAlaska’s Final 20 1 0 Integrated Report

F. Alaska Water Quality Management Programs



### 106 grant program will be used to assist community PWSs develop or implement DEC Endorsed Drinking Water Protection Plans.

V ulne rability assessments of public water supplies , which are part of the source water assessment
process, can serve as a foundation for comprehensive management and protection of Alaska’s groundwater resources . In addition, they can assist a PWS owner using a groundwater source achieve and maintain compliance with the Groundwater Rule and can support future commercial and industrial growth

. Information gathered and generated during the initial years of the source water assessment program for public water suppli es can be used to enhance the protection of lakes, rivers, and streams in populated areas by validating or improving on the TMDL values used to issue permits to discharge
wastes

. This information can also be used to establish TMDLs to manage the discharge of wastes to aquifers; identify critical sole

- source aquifers used as a drinking water supply by a PWS; identify any areas of declining groundwater levels or degrading groundwater quality; and perform unified watershed assessments statewide.

If a PWS provi des drinking water that meets all the health

- based standards set by the SDWA on a consistent and adequate basis, good public health protection is established for the customers served by that PWS

. All activities completed in the Drinking Water Program suppo rt the overall goal of requiring that PWS s provide both a safe and adequate supply of drinking water for the residents and visitors to the State of Alaska.

M ore information on source water assessments, completed assessment reports of PWS source s , and wellh ead protection activities, is available on the DEC Drinking Water Program, Source Water Assessment

, and Wellhead Protection web pages at http://www.dec.state.ak.us/eh/dw/DWP/complete.aspx

. 

## Groundwater Protection

Groundwater Importance: Alaska’s groundwater resources may be among the most abundant in the nation. However, very few of Alaska’s aquifers have been studied (or even located)

, and limited water quality data are available.

Alaska is sparsely populated by approximately 68 6 ,000 residents. Urban development is concentrated in a few main population centers, with the majority of people living in Southcentral Alaska. Nearly one

half of the state’s population lives in the Municipality of An chorage. Other major population centers include Fairbanks

, in interior Alaska

, and Juneau, the state capital, in southeast Alaska. Beyond these major population centers, communities tend to be small and generally not connected by roads.Alaska’s Final 20 1 0 Integrated Report

F. Alaska Water Quality Management Programs



### 107 Figure F

- 2 Ground water Uses

Groundwater is a source of drinking water for about 50 % of the overall state population and for 90 % of the rural residents. Eighty

- three percent of Alaska’s 1,573 public drinking water systems use a groundwater source. The total groundwater with drawn for these PWSs represents only 37 % of the total fresh water used by all Alaska PWSs

. This small amount of fresh water use is due to a small number of PWSs serving a large number of people from surface water sources. Examples of the systems serving many people are those in Anchorage, Cordova, Ketchikan, Kodiak, and Sitka

. Ninety percent of the private drinking water supplies use groundwater

. Of the estimated 63 million gallons of groundwater used in Alaska each day, more than 50 % (34 million gallons per day [ mgd ] ) is used for public water supplies

. Approximately 23 % (14 mgd) is used for industrial, mining, and power production; roughly 10 % ( 6 mgd) is used for domestic water purposes; 14 % (9 mgd) is used for commercial purposes, and les s than 1% (<1 mg d) is used for agricultural purposes

. 1



### Groundwater Water Availability: Groundwater is available in most areas of Alaska, except where permafrost is very deep in the northern part of the state. Southcentral and interior Alaska have the greatest dependence o n groundwater . Water systems in Arctic

, Western , and Southeast Alaska more frequent ly use streams, rivers, lakes, and rainwater catchments. The largest groundwater withdrawals occur in Anchorage, the Fairbanks North Star Borough , Matanuska

- Susitna Borough

, and Kenai Peninsula Borough. Figure F

- 3 shows the distribution of PWSs that use groundwater. Most of Alaska’s aquifers consist of unconsolidated materials derived from glaciers, rivers, and streams

. Producing aquifers are typically unconfined (i.e., not p rotected by a layer of clay or silt), and the depth
to groundwater ranges from a few feet to more than 400 feet statewide.

1 The statistics presented are based on estimates provided by the Alaska Department of Natural Resources. Public Water Supplies, 53.70% Agriculture, 0.30% Private Water Supplies, 9.80% Commercial, 13.70% Industrial,

Commercial & Power Production, 22.50%Alaska’s Final 20 1 0 Integrated Report

F. Alaska Water Quality Management Programs



### 108 Water Quality: Although water quality data are sparse, most of the state’s groundwater is suitable for domestic, agriculture, aquaculture, commercial, and industrial uses with moderate or minimal treatment. Naturally occurring iron, manganese, and arsenic are the most common treatment problems in groundwater systems

. Storage and spills of fuel, along w ith wastewater disposal, primarily from onsite (septic) systems, are common threats to groundwater quality statewide

. Additionally, a range of other activities have potentially or actually affected groundwater quality (e.g., nonpoint source pollution in

ur ban areas, natural resource extraction in remote locations, and a wide range of potential point sources of pollution).

Prevention of human exposure to contaminated groundwater is a main focus of the DEC Contaminated Sites and Leaking Underground Storage T anks P rograms , which remedy new and historic al contamination resulting from leaking underground fuel tanks and other releases of oil and hazardous substances

. Cleanup and remediation efforts have been ongoing since the late 1980s

. Groundwater is known to b e contaminated at 1,330 sites

. Cleanup of groundwater is a lengthy process and is the biggest constraint to complete closure of most contaminated sites

. During the cleanup, primary efforts are focused on prevent ing use of the water for drinking and to monitor the status of contamination

. Alaska contaminated sites include seven Superfund sites where cleanups have been under way for a number of
years.
Cost of Contamination: The cost to clean up (remediate) contaminat ed groundwater can be staggering ; costs typically can run into millions of dollars

, depending on site conditions. Installing and operating groundwater remediation equipment and long

- term groundwater monitoring are common expenses during remediation. DWP an d ARWA staff are coordinating DWP activities to provide education to Figure F

- 3 Distribution of Community & Nontransient/Noncommunity Public Water Systems in Alaska Using GroundwaterAlaska’s Final 20 1 0 Integrated Report

F. Alaska Water Quality Management Programs



### 109 communities . The education is intended to communicate the savings realized when contamination is prevented

. Efforts to Protect Groundwater : Protection of Alaska’s groundwater is largely accomplished through the regulation of contaminated sites, storage tanks, spill response, and specific waste disposal activities under state and federal programs. DEC manages several programs that contribute to the protection of groundwater , including the following: Contaminated Sites, Storage Tank, Prevention & Emergency Response, Industry Preparedness & Pipeline, Solid Waste, Pesticides, Drinking Water, Wastewater, Water Quality, and Facilities . Additionally, ARWA staff

, the EPA Underground Injection Cont rol Program, and several other important EPA programs promote the protection of groundwater quality in Alaska.

Division of Water: Although Water Quality Programs of the Division of Water are focused primarily on surface water pollution

, they are also prot ective of groundwater because surface water quality can have an impact on groundwater quality through infiltration and percolation

. Division activities that protect groundwater quality include the industrial, domestic, and onsite domestic wastewater permit ting programs; water quality protection, stewardship, and restoration projects implemented by the Division or funded through the ACWA grant program; and development of water body recovery plans and TMDL
assessments.

The Facilities Section of the Division o f Water funds the Village Safe Water Program

, which provides grants and engineering assistance to small communities for water, sewer, and solid waste disposal projects

. T hrough the Municipal Matching Grants and Loans (MMG&L) Program, the Facilities Section administers the Alaska Clean Water Fund and the Alaska Drinking Water Fund

, which provide loans and engineering support for drinking water, wastewater (sewer), solid waste, and nonpoint source pollution projects, such as waterbody re storation and recovery

. These loan programs are designed for cities, boroughs, and qualified private utilities

. The Alaska Municipal Water, Sewerage, and Solid Waste Matching Grant Program primarily assist s the larger communities and boroughs in Alaska.



## We tlands

The National Wetlands Inventory of USF&WS estimates that the S tate of Alaska includes 63% of the nation ’ s wetland ecosystems

. Activities in these wetlands and their associated waters are regulated under federal and state law and local ordinances because these ecosystems have been shown to perform vital and valuable physical, chemical, and biological functions

. Alaska’s wetlands function to support the
state ’ s diverse human communities, fish and wildlife populations, water resources, and economy.

In addition to being valuable, Alaska’s wetlands are highly variable

. They include salt and fresh water areas influenced by tides, temperate rain forests, bogs, moist and wet tundra, extensive rivers and streams, large river deltas, and vast areas of black spruce forested wetland

. Table F

- 2 provides a summary of the estimated wetland acreage based on the National Wetlands Inventory.

Table F

- 2 Estimated Wetland Acreage

Alaska’s Wetlands by Major Category with Common ExamplesAlaska’s Final 20 1 0 Integrated Report

F. Alaska Water Quality Management Programs



### 110 Wetland Category a Common Examples Estimated Acres 

### Palustrine All non

- tidal wetlands: muskegs, bogs,

forested wetlands, tundra, open water 172,503,400

Estuarine Bays, salt marshes, beaches 2,131,900 Marine Intertidal Ocean shoreline 48,600 Total Wetlands 174,683,900

a Source: USF&WS

, Cowardin Classification of Wetlands and Deepwater Habitat , 1979


### Although Alaska does not have any wetland

- specific WQS and neither numeric nor narrative qualitative criteria are specific to wetlands, the Alaska WQS (18 AAC 70) consider wetlands as ―waters of the state‖ ; consequently, Alaska’s WQS apply to wetlands.

Wetland Trends

The 174,683,900 acres of wetlands in Alaska compose approximately 43% of state surface area

. By comparison, the entire remainder of the U n ited States contains 103 million acres of wetlands, representing approximately 5% of the surface area

. About half of all Colonial

- era wetland acreage in the lower 48 states has been converted to agriculture, development, or other land uses

. Although there is no statistically reliable data on statewide wetland losses, USF&WS estimates that Alaska has lost 200, 000 acres, or less than 1% of the state’s original wetland acreage.

In urbanized and developed areas of Alaska, such as Anchorage, more than 50% of the wetlands have been developed

. Significant percentages of wetlands in other urbanized areas

, including Juneau, Fairbanks, the Matan u ska

- Susitna Valley

, and the North Slope, have been lost or affected

. Because there is a strong correlation between waterbodi es that are listed as impaired by DEC and areas where wetlands have been affected or developed, wetlands need restoration and mitigation of impacts associated with development . Wetlands also need protection

. Specifically, wetland functions need to be maint ained to enhance or protect water quality for drinking water, spawning, and other uses.

Wetlands Management and Functional Assessment

As the lead state agency for wetland issues, DEC has developed a strategy for managing wetlands that consists of the foll owing major activities:

Permitting and inspections

Us e of a functional assessment and classification system (the hydrogeomorphic approach)

Assist a nce to local government and tribal organizations for wetland protection and mitigation efforts

Permitting and Inspections

DEC participates in the management and protection of wetlands by reviewing and certifying USACE dredge and fill permits under the authority of CWA Section 401

. This review and certification ensures that construction and other activities do not exceed Alaska’s WQS

. The Alaska District of USACE completes more than 1,000 permit actions per year.Alaska’s Final 20 1 0 Integrated Report

F. Alaska Water Quality Management Programs



### 111 For the past 3 years , DEC has reviewed individual USACE dredge and fill permits using a risk

- based priority s ystem. Under this system, DEC waived its right to certify permits for 50% of the projects that were reviewed

. Approximately 50% of projects were certified with or without stipulations that ensure the project will meet Alaska’s WQS

. In addition, DEC reviews preconstruction notifications of USACE GP verifications that do not require a Section 401 certification on a project

- by

- project basis.

Functional Assessment and Classification

To ensure that Alaska’s wetlands are managed wisely, wetland professionals and policy makers need a regionally based, scientifically valid, consistent, and efficient functional assessment tool

. DEC recognized that an assessment tool was needed to help managers and users recognize and distinguish between (1) naturally variable conditi ons and changes in the functioning of Alaska’s wetlands and (2 ) changes that result from human activities. In response to this need, in 1996 DEC initiated a broad

based, statewide effort to develop a functional assessment approach for Alaskan wetlands

.

Th e hydrogeomorphic approach was selected by DEC and other cooperating agencies and organizations because it offers a rapid and reference

- based method of assessment that allows users to recognize human

- induced changes in the functions of wetland ecosystems

. Guidebooks have been developed to implement the hydrogeomorphic approach to assessment and management of wetlands in various regions of Alaska

. Table F

- 3 identifies areas for which the use of guidebooks has provided an assessment tool to begin or complete wetland permitting and planning activity.

Table F

- 3 Wetland Assessment Activity Regions Covered by Guidebooks Wetland Classes Time Frame 

### Interior Flats Completed (1999) Cook Inlet Basin ( including Kenai River Watershed) Slope/Flats Complexes Completed (2003)

Coastal Southeast and Southcentral a. Riverine b. Slope River Proximal Completed (2003)

Near Shore Ecosystems of Southeast and Southcentral Tidal Fringe Initiated, discontinued until further notice Cook Inlet Basin ( including Kenai River Watershed) Riverine Site data collected, discontinued until further notice Arctic Coastal Plain Flats Not i nitiated

Assistance to Local Government and Native Organizations

DEC provides statewide technical assistance to local governments for permitting issues and wetland planning

. Three local governments have delegated authority from USACE to manage their wetlands

. Several other communities (such as the Ketchikan Gateway Borough and the City of Wrangell) are proposing new wetland planning

. DEC is also as sisting the City and Borough of Juneau in developing aAlaska’s Final 20 1 0 Integrated Report

F. Alaska Water Quality Management Programs



### 112 Wetlands Mitigation Bank

. In 2004, DEC, along with federal agencies, successfully helped the Sealaska Native Corporation develop a private mitigation bank.

Tribal Organization Assistance with Wetland M anagement

DEC assists tribal organizations with wetland and watershed planning . It has helped develop wetland work plans with a sound scientific foundation, guided by the wetland a ssessment guidebooks

. Wetland Mitigation Banking

DEC participated in developing the Southeast Alaska Regional Mitigation Banking Instrument of Sealaska Corporation

. In another wetland mitigation banking effort, the Matanuska

- Susitna Borough in collaboration with a private contractor has begun developing a mitigation bank for the Matanuska

Susitna Borough

. DEC participated in the initial meetings and is provid ing technical assistance to the Mitigation Banking Review Team for the wetland functional assessment aspects of the bank.Alaska’s Final 20 1 0 Integrated Report

G. Residues Interpretation



### 113 

# APPENDIX G Interpretation of the

Residues Criterion in Alaska Water Quality Standards for Use in Attainment and Impairment Determinations

RESIDUE CRITERIA

Alaska’s water quality st andard for residues is described in 18 AAC 70.020(b)

. PROTECTED WATER USE CLASSES AND SUBCLASSES; WATER QUALITY CRITERIA; WATER QUALITY TABLE (2) MARINE WATER USES RESIDUES Floating Solids, Debris, Sludge, Deposits, Foam, Scum, or Other Residues (A) Water Supply (i) aquaculture May not, alone or in combination with other substances or wastes, make the water unfit or unsafe for the use. May not cause detrimental effects on established water supply treatment levels. (A) Water Supply (ii) seafood processing May not, alone or in combination with other substances or wastes, make the water unfit or unsafe for the use; cause a film, sheen, or discoloration on the surface of the water or adjoining shoreline; cause leaching of toxic or deleterious substa nces; or cause a sludge, solid, or emulsion to be deposited beneath or upon the surface of the water, within the water column, on the bottom, or upon adjoining shorelines. (A ) Water Supply 

### (iii) industrial May not, alone or in combination with other subst ances or wastes, make the water unfit or unsafe for the use. (B) Water Recreation (i) contact recreation Same as (2)(A)(ii).

(B) Water Recreation (ii) secondary recreation Same as (2)(A)(ii).

(C) Growth and Propagation of Fish, Shellfish Other Aquatic Life, and Wildlife May not, alone or in combination with other substances or wastes, make the water unfit or unsafe, for the use, or cause acute or chronic problem levels as determined by bioassay or other appropriate methods. May not, alone or in combinat ion with other substances, cause a film, sheen, or discoloration on the surface of the water or adjoining shorelines; cause leaching of toxic or deleterious substances; or cause a sludge, solid, or emulsion to be deposited beneath or upon the surface of th e water, within the water column, on the bottom, or upon adjoining shorelines.Alaska’s Final 20 1 0 Integrated Report

G. Residues Interpretation



### 114 (D) Harvesting for Consumption of Raw Mollusks or Other Raw Aquatic Life May not make the water unfit or unsafe for the use; cause a film, sheen, or discoloration on the surfac e of the water or adjoining shoreline; cause leaching of toxic or deleterious substances; or cause a sludge, solid, or emulsion to be deposited beneath or upon the surface of the water, within the water column, on the bottom, or upon adjoining shorelines.



### The application of the water quality standard for residues for permitted facilities is established through the implementation of the narrative criteria (above) in concert with the ZOD provisions (below)

, also within the WQS

. The water quality criteria for residues are narrative criteria with several provisions that are subject to interpretation. As such, it is overly simplistic to characterize the residues standard as ―zero discharge

. ‖ The first sentence of the criteria for most uses provides that resid ues ―[m]ay not, alone or in combination with other substances or wastes, make the water unfit or unsafe, for the use ...‖ [emphasis added] This is a ―use

- based‖ criterion

— meaning, a use impairment determination must be made to trigger a water quality violat ion or a significant non

- compliance situation.

The second sentence within the narrative criteria for some uses states that residues ― may not cause a sludge, solid, or emulsion to be deposited ‖ on the surface, bottom, or shoreline. This prohibition against deposits is the most restrictive provision of the residue criteria. But the prohibition is not treated as a zero discharge standard in all instances. For example, DEC permits ZODs under 18 AAC 70.210

, mixing zones under 18 AAC 70.240

– 270

, and variances u nder 18 AAC 70.200.

In addition, DEC recognizes an implied de minimus exception to the ―no deposit‖ criterion, so that a person skipping a stone or cleaning a fish is not considered to be in violation of state law. To date, DEC has not written any guidance about the scope of that de minimus category, but rather implements it on an ad hoc basis

. EPA and the courts have long recognized the inherent authority of agencies to exempt de minimus activities from the coverage of the law. For example, s ee Ober v. Whi tman, 243 F.3d 1190, 1194

- 95 (9 th 

### Cir. 2001). DEC asserts and exercises such authority in its interpretation and implementation of the residues standard. A use impairment determination based on a narrative water quality criterion is subject to an analysis and a determination by DEC.

The residue standard applies to any residue discharge (whether permitted or unpermitted) ; however, one of the most prevalent applications of the residues standard is to permitted discharges of residues in marine waters from seaf

ood processing facilities and LTFs and the authorization of ZODs for these permits.

Alaska has an explicit provision within its WQS that allows for the authorization of ZOD s for residues in 18 AAC 70. 210.

Seafood processing facilities and LTFs in Alaska are typically issued ZODs in the facility’s permit for the residues discharges . Seafood processing facilities are generally issued a 1

- acre ZOD and LTFs are issued a ―project area‖ ZOD. Additionally, it is important to recognize that exceedance of a ZOD is not equivalent to impairment ; rather, exceedance of 1.5 acres of continuous residues coverage is the impairment standard.Alaska’s Final 20 1 0 Integrated Report

G. Residues Interpretation



### 115 

## ZONES OF DEPOSIT

18 AAC 70.210. ZONES OF DEPOSIT.

(a) The department will, in its discretion, issue or certify a permit that allows deposit of substances on the bottom of marine waters within limits set by the department. The water quality criteria of 18 AAC 70.020(b) and the antidegradation requirement of 18 AAC 70.015 may be exceeded in a zone of deposit. Howeve r, the standards must be met at every point outside the zone of deposit. In no case may the water quality standards be violated in the water column outside the zone of deposit by any action, including leaching from, or suspension of, deposited materials. L imits of deposit will be defined in a short

- term variance issued under 18 AAC 70.200 or a permit issued or certified under 18 AAC 15.

(b) In deciding whether to allow a zone of deposit, the department will consider, to the extent the department determines to b e appropriate,

(1) alternatives that would eliminate, or reduce, any adverse effects of the deposit;

(2) the potential direct and indirect impacts on human health;

(3) the potential impacts on aquatic life and other wildlife, including the potential for bioaccumulatio n and persistence;

(4) the potential impacts on other uses of the waterbody;

(5) the expected duration of the deposit and any adverse effects; and

(6) the potential transport of pollutants by biological, physical, and chemical processes.

(c) The department will, in its di scretion, require an applicant to provide information that the department considers necessary to adequately assess (b)(1)

- (6) of this section. In all cases, the burden of proof for providing the required information is on the person seeking to establish a zone of deposit. (Eff. 11/1/97, Register 143)

T he Zones of Deposit section states, in part, ―(t)he department will, in its discretion, issue or certify a permit that allows the deposition of substances on the bottom of marine waters within limits set by th e department.‖ The ZOD section allows the water quality criteria of 18.70.020 and the antidegradation policy of 18 AAC 70.015 to be exceeded in a ZOD

. The federal WQS regulation in Title 40

, Section 131.13 , of the Code of Federal Regulations authorizes
sta tes to have policies, including variances and ZODs , in their WQS that generally affect the application and implementation of state WQS . The rationale for allowing ZODs or variances from WQS is for a state to maintain standards that are ultimately attainabl e. By maintaining the standard rather than changing it, the state would en sure further progress is made in improving water quality. With the variance provision or ZOD provision

, federal NPDES and s tate permits may be written so thatAlaska’s Final 20 1 0 Integrated Report

G. Residues Interpretation



### 116 reasonable progress is made toward attaining the standards without violating Section 402(a)(1) of the CWA

.

An authorized ZOD is fairly equivalent to a mixing zone (which is also authorized in some cases for discharge permits) in that it is an area permitted to temporarily exceed the residue standard in a limited

area that does not significantly degrade the quality of the waterbody as a whole or the designated uses. Permitted ZODs should be able to recover after discharges cease through biodegradation and/or recolonization of any lingering residues on the marine bottom

. It is not necessarily the solids themselves that are the problem ; the problem is the smothering of the benthi c community. DEC would not permit a residue discharge that resulted in a permanently sterile bottom substrate resulting from toxic contaminants.

It should be noted that the residues water quality standard was identified as a high priority for a forthcoming Triennial Review of the WQS . Any outcomes from that review could result in actual changes to the criterion and possibly affect this residues policy and result in changes to the criteria for the waterbody categories.


## History of the One

- Acre Threshold

In 19 85 Governor Sheffield convened the Alaska Timber Task Force to develop a common set of LTF siting criteria. The Task Force created a Technical Subcommittee that was comprised of stakeholders including EPA

, USFS

, USF&WS , National Marine Fisheries Service, U SACE , Governor’s Office, DEC

, DNR Division of Forestry, ADF&G Habitat Division, United Fisherman of Alaska, representatives of the timber industry, a member of the public

- at

- large, and Sealaska Native Corporation. This group produced the document known as the 1985 Log Transfer Facility Siting, Construction, Operation and Monitoring/Reporting Guidelines

, more commonly know n as the ―LTF Guidelines.‖

T his document establishes the interim intertidal and submarine bark accumulation threshold of 1 acre

. The docum ent states
, ―An interim guideline for threshold bark accumulation levels and cleanup when exceeding those levels is being used due to a lack of information

. Technical data are needed to evaluate practicable threshold accumulation levels and to evaluate tec hnical feasibility of various options for managing accumulation, such as removal or other control procedures‖ (C6. Bark Accumulation: Discussion: paragraph 2 ). Specifically, guideline C6 states:

The regulatory agency(ies) will impose an interim intertidal and submarine threshold bark accumulation level

. When accumulations exceed the threshold level, cleanup

– if any

– will occur at the discretion of the permitting agency(ies)

. The interim threshold bark accumulation level is described as 100% coverage excee ding both 1 acre in size and a thickness greater than 10 cm (3.9 inches) at any point.

The LTF G uidelines include recommended criteria for selecting the location for future LTFs. The siting criteria were designed, in part, to reduce bark accumulation of LT Fs. The LTF Guidelines Committee identified the 1

- acre figure as an ―interim threshold bark accumulation level‖ until additional research could be completed. The discussion section in the guidelines states:Alaska’s Final 20 1 0 Integrated Report

G. Residues Interpretation



### 117 Through siting, transfer system selection and sol id waste management, the amount of bark lost and accumulating in intertidal and submarine areas is prevented or significantly diminished

. Bark accumulation is still expected to occur in some areas promoting the need for this guideline.

The Technical Subcom mittee was tasked with developing LTF guidelines that ―would be beneficial for all parties involved in the permitting, construction

, and operation of LTFs to have a common set of criteria (guidelines) from which to work when designing (emphasis added) faci lities and reviewing permit applications for these facilities‖ (Introduction, page 1, paragraph 3)

. The section titled The Use of Guidelines (page 2, paragraph 2) states

, ―The guidelines are comprehensive and may apply to any site being evaluated for LTF p ermits.‖ It was never the intent of the Technical Subcommittee for agencies to retroactively apply this threshold to existing facilities because they were located and constructed prior to adoption of the guidelines and there was no anticipated permit workl oad associated with existing facilities

. Some of these facilities had been in operation for 20 years prior to the development of siting guidelines without any permit limits on marine accumulation

. Although additional research was not completed as planned, the use of the interim 1

- acre threshold level has continued to be applied routinely in most log transfer and seafood discharge permits.


## Background on General Permits for Log Transfer Facilities

In March 2000, EPA issued two GPs for LTFs. DEC certified the EPA permits, and adopted them as

s tate GPs ; DEC implements the s tate GPs separately from the EPA GPs. The s tate issues a written authorization to the LTF owner to operate under the applicable GP after finding that the authorization is consistent with the Antidegradation Policy (18 AAC 70.015) of the Alaska WQS

. The s tate also approves a project area

- wide ZOD (18 AAC 70.210) following an assessment of the information provided by the applicant.

One of the GPs, referred to as ― pre

- 1985 ‖ GP (AK

- G70

- 0000)

, applies to shore

- based LTFs that received a Section 404 permit from USACE before October 22, 1985

, and never received an individual NPDES permit. The original Section 404 permits never established any limits on the discharge of bark and wood waste into the marine environment. The pre

- 19 85 GP modifie d the terms of the Section 404 permits and for the first time established a permit threshold of 1 acre for accumulation of continuous cover bark for the se facilities. The original 404 permits now comply with all relevant sections of the CWA . A 1

- acre threshold, instead of a 1

- acre permit limit, for continuous cover bark was incorporated into the permit because it was known that some pre

- 19 85 facilities ha d continuous cover bark deposits greater than 1 acre. The GP requires these facilities to complete remediation planning and plan implementation.

The other GP, called the ―post

- 1985‖ GP (AK

- G70

- 1000), applies to the following classes of LTFs :

New LTFs that have not received individual NPDES permits LTFs that have current individual NPDES permits and choose to seek coverage under the GP LTFs that have individual NPDES permits that have expired or have been administratively extended by EPA, and that wish to co ntinue or resume operation

Offshore LTFs and offshore LSAs that existed either before or after 1985, and that wish to continue or resume operationAlaska’s Final 20 1 0 Integrated Report

G. Residues Interpretation



### 118 Individual NPDES wastewater discharge permits issued before adoption of the two GPs contained a fixed 1

- acre (not to exceed 10 cm in thickness at any point) ZOD authorized by DEC.

Bark monitoring is required annually for all permittees whose operations transfer a total of 15 million board feet or more during the life of th e LTF general permit, and that are locat ed in water depths less than 60 feet at mean lower low water

. The majority of LTFs operating under an individual or general NPDES permit are required to submit to DEC and EPA an annual dive survey report documenting the nature and extent of continuous and discontinuous bark residue accumulations at their sites. LTFs transferring less than 15 million board feet of timber volume are not required to conduct annual dive
surveys ; however

, a great majority of the LTFs are required to conduct annual dive surveys.

The two April 2004 EPA GPs for LTFs are substantially different from previous individual permits in terms of the ZODs authorized under the permits

. The GPs adopted a ―project area‖ ZOD , which recognizes and authorizes the deposition of bark residues in the project area

. The project area is defined as the entire marine operating area of an LTF, either shore

- based or offshore, including the following components: shore

- based log transfer devices; shore

- based log transfer, rafting, and storage areas; helicopter drop areas; vessel and barge loading and unloading areas; off

- shore LSA s not adjacent to a shore

- based LTF; bulkheads, ramps, floating walkways, docks, pilings, dolphins, anchors, buoys

, and other marine appurtenances; and the marine water and ocean botto m underlying and connecting these features

. The LTF operator identifies the size of the project area in the Notice of Intent or Notification

. This project area usually coincides with the DNR tidelands lease area.

The s tate GPs also establish a 1

- acre ―thre shold‖ limit for continuous, or 100 % , bark cover within the project area

. If that threshold is exceeded, the operator is required to submit a remediation plan to DEC

, which is intended to reduce continuous bark cover to less than 1 acre

. DEC must approve t he remediation plan, which becomes part of the operator’s s tate GP authorization. The purpose for establishing the project area ZOD in the GP s is to recognize that log rafting and log storage may occupy considerable area, and are expected to cause the accu mulation of discontinuous bark (less than 100 % cover) and trace bark (less than 10 % cover)

. Discontinuous and trace bark are considered to have a minimal impact on marine organisms and habitat, and can occur without limit in the project area.

As a result o f the 2002 final decision in the adjudication of the DEC Section 401 certification of the two EPA GPs, DEC cannot authorize facilities located on Section 303(d) impaired waterbodies to discharge under either GP

. A n LTF on an impaired waterbody must obtain an individual s tate wastewater permit. As part of LTF permitting

, DEC conducts an anti

- degradation review and finding, and makes all findings required under the ZOD regulations for each facility applying for residue discharge authorization.


## Application of Zones of Deposits for Residues to Seafood Processing Facilities

As described above, the 1

- acre ZOD in permits had its initial application through the LTF G uidelines for new facilities in the 1980s. EPA consequently adopted the 1

- acre threshold as a complia nce limit in NPDES permits for LTFs and the EPA NPDES GP for seafood processors (AK

- G52

- 0000) in the mid

1990s.Alaska’s Final 20 1 0 Integrated Report

G. Residues Interpretation



### 119 In 2001, DEC again certified a ZOD of 1.0 acre when this EPA GP for nearshore and shore

- based seafood processing facilities was renewed

. Current ly this GP authorizes approximately 235 processors. Historically, this seafood GP specified that nearshore and shore

- based facilities implement a seafloor monitoring program to ensure compliance with the WQS for settleable residues in marine waters.

It sh ould be noted that individual NPDES seafood permits have authorized residues deposits greater than the 1

- acre threshold found in the AK G52

- 0000 seafood GP

. For example, in the mid

- 1990s DEC issued

a Section 401 certification for a 2

- acre ZOD for an outfal l associated with a seafood processing facility, based on the bathymetry of the bay. For seafood facilities with individual NPDES permits, a case

- by

case determination of an acceptable ZOD size for residues has been the approach used since 1987.

The agenci es have historically made a distinction between newly permitted sites and existing permitted sites in arriving at an allowable ZOD size determination.
Reporting of Dive Survey Acreages

Previous reports of the actual acreage of bark coverage observed in div e surveys and listed in Alaska’s 1998 Section 303(d) report could lead the public to believe that all reported continuous cover was a violation of permit conditions or of the Alaska WQS

. For example, an LTF with 3.1 acres of continuous bark coverage is act ually 2.1 acres over the 1

- acre ZOD threshold for continuous bark coverage. Hence, the 1998 303(d) listing narrative might have stated that ―dive survey information from November 1997 demonstrates a significant exceedance of the interim threshold bark accu mulation level at 3.1 acres of bottom coverage.‖

In Alaska’s Integrated Reports

, DEC report s dive survey acreages as ―exceedances over the one acre ZOD threshold.‖ For example, ―the dive survey information from November 2001 demonstrates an exceedance of 2.1 acres above the permitted bark accumulation level of continuous bark coverage of 1. 0 acre .‖ This reporting approach more accurately portray s actual exceedances of the permitted threshold

. The level of timber harvest is significantly lower than in the past

. Reduced loading associated with reduced volume transferred is likely to act to reduce co ntinuous cover accumulation over time. Limited research to determine the effect of transfer method and volume transferred on bark accumulation has established a weak statistical correlation between volumes transferred and bark accumulation

. A similar corre lation has not been established for the transfer method. As described above, the 1

- acre ZOD in permits had its initial application through the LTF G uidelines for new facilities in the 1980s. EPA consequently adopted the 1

- acre threshold as a compliance lim it in NPDES permits for LTFs and the EPA NPDES GP for seafood processors (AK

- G52

- 0000) in the mid

- 1990s. 

## Criteria for Waterbody Categories

DEC is not proposing to re

- categorize waterbodies previously determined to be impaired for residues associated with L TFs simply because the GP s incorporate a project area ZOD

. The basis for placing waters impaired by bark residues on the 303(d) list in 1998 was the 1

- acre ZOD established in individual NPDES permits. For LTFs in Alaska authorized under the new GPs , the th reshold limit for continuous

cover bark in the GPs remains 1 acre. The project area ZOD effectively applies to continuous, discontinuous and trace bark. The project area ZOD could be a basis for Section 303(d) listing only if significant deposits of bark and wood debris were documented outside of the project area.Alaska’s Final 20 1 0 Integrated Report

G. Residues Interpretation



### 120 For waterbodies associated with LTFs or seafood processing, dive survey protocols and reporting should be in accordance with the requirements contained in the appropriate permits.

In making attai nment determinations on waters associated with a m LTF and where DEC has received a Notification or Notice of Intent to Operate under a General Permit, DEC make s its categorization decision after evaluating the sufficiency and credibility of the dive survey data on file and required under the GPs and the information provided in the Notice of Intent.
Category 1 Waterbody

Category 1 waterbodies are waters attaining water quality standard s

. Waterbodies are placed in this category if data support a determination that the WQS and all of the uses are attained.

Waterbodies are placed in this category when water quality data and information show that all uses are being attained.
Category 2 Waterbody

Category 2 waterbodies are those w aters that are attaining some designated uses and for which insufficient or no data and information are available to determine whether remaining uses are attained:

A waterbody is placed in Category 2 if a determination is made that the waterbody is attaini ng some uses or standards. Waterbodies with re c ent dive survey reports and for which attainment with a 1.0

- acre threshold for continuous coverage of residues has been demonstrated are placed in Category 2

. For a waterbod y associated with residue discharge, if a facility is reporting 1 acre or less of continuous residue coverage the waterbody is placed in Category 2.

A waterbody that was determined to be impaired from residues and for which continuous coverage of residues l ess than 1.0 acre has been documented is placed in Category 2.
Category 3 Waterbody

Category 3 waterbodies are waters with i nsufficient or no data and information to determine if any designated use is attained

. Waterbodies are placed in this category if t he data or information to support an attainment determination for any use is not available

. Alaska has generally reliable information and data on facilities that discharge residues because of dive survey reporting requirements associated with residue disch arge permits.

S upplementary data and information should be developed or monitoring should be scheduled to assess the attainment status of these waters, as needed.

Criteria for P lacing W aters in T

his C ategory

Alaska’s water resources include more than 3 mil lion lakes greater than 5 acres in size, 365,000 miles of rivers and streams, more than 174,000,000 acres o f fresh water wetlands, and 36,000 miles of coastal shoreline. Therefore , Alaska has a large number of waterbodies for which insufficient, inadequate, or little to no data or information exists to support attainment or impairment determinations

. DEC expectsAlaska’s Final 20 1 0 Integrated Report

G. Residues Interpretation



### 121 that the majority of these waters would be in Category 1 (i.e., waters attaining standards for all uses), if sufficient resources existed to assess them

. Category 3 includes waters formerly known as ―open files‖ and waters nominated for assessment through ACWA. Actions that trigger opening a file can include nomination from the public, a public complaint, a newspaper report

, or more rigorou s information, such as water quality reports or assessments. These waters are placed in Category 3

. DEC maintains files on some of these waterbodies , which are identified in Appendix C.
Category 4b Waterbody

Category 4b waterbodies are impaired waters but do not need TMDLs because other pollution controls in place and the waters are expected to attain WQS within a reasonable time period.

A waterbody is placed in Category 4b if LTF dive survey reports document greater than 1.5 acres of continuous residues c overage ; a determination is made that the water is impaired; and there is an approved remediation plan under the LTF GP s or an individual state wastewater discharge permit. Waterbodies that are under EPA compliance orders for seafood residue violations may also be considered for placement in Category 4b

. The requirements for preparing and submitting r emediation p lans , taken from DEC Certificates of Reasonable Assurance for the two LT F GPs

, are identified in the document Guidance For Preparing Remediation Pl ans Under Alaska’s General Permits For Log Transfer Facilities

. Several key details of the requirements are summarized below:

If existing continuous bark and wood debris cover exceeds both 1 acre and a thickness of 10 cm at any point, an operator must submit a r emediation p lan to DEC within 120 days, unless DEC grants additional time. A proposed r emediation p lan must evaluate historical and future log transfer processes and volumes; environmental impacts of existing depo sits of bark and wood debris and the environmental impacts of methods to reduce continuous coverage; and methods to reduce continuous bark coverage, including alternative methods of log transfer and transport, operational practices, and technically feasibl e methods and costs of removing bark.

The r emediation p lan must identify a set of feasible, reasonable, and effective measures to reduce continuous bark cover to both less than 1 acre in area and 10 cm in thickness at any point. If removal of bark is propo sed, the r emediation p lan must specify areas, methods, volume, and timing of removal ; the method of disposal for the removed material, including practices
to en sure meeting WQS ; and the cost of removal by the proposed methods and alternatives considered.

T he plan must include a performance schedule and performance measures for the its implementation. The plan may describe measures that can be implemented in phases, with continued bark monitoring surveys and with future modification of the r emediation p lan b ased upon progress in reducing the continuous coverage.Alaska’s Final 20 1 0 Integrated Report

G. Residues Interpretation



### 122 DEC will approve, approve with modification, or deny a proposed r emediation p lan within 90 days of receipt. An approved r emediation p lan constitutes an enforceable condition of the GP

.

T he LTF GPs do not require EPA approval of the remediation plan

. EPA requires that the LTF operator update the Pollution Prevention Plan to outline additional controls that will be implemented to reduce or eliminate additional residues accumulation

. The revised Pollut ion Prevention Plan will not include measures intended to reduce the current bark accumulation to less than 1.0 acre.

The objective of remediation planning is to implement the most appropriate site

- specific treatment with the goal of reducing the extent of continuous residues coverage to less than 1.0 acre.
Category 5 Waterbody

A waterbody is listed in Category 5 and on the Section 303(d) list when a determination is made that the water is impaired by residues. Category 5 waters require that a TMDL or other equivalent pollution controls are developed to attain WQS

. Section 303(d) of the CWA re quires a list of waterbodies that are not expected to meet WQS without additional controls

. Many Section 303(d) designated waters have not undergone comprehensive water quality assessments to determine either the extent of water quality impairment or wheth er existing controls are adequate to achieve the standards. DEC closely scrutinizes waterbodies to determine whether suspected water quality violations were thoroughly investigated and documented

. This approach is designed to prevent the listing of waterbo dies with only inconclusive or circumstantial data or observations.

For waterbodies with facilities that are permitted to discharge residues , such as a seafood processor or LTF , the impairment standard is 1.5 acres of continuous cover

. If two or more conse cutive dive survey reports adequately document the presence of 1.5 acres or more of continuous residue cover

, the waterbody is placed on the Category 5/Section 303(d) list.

A waterbody with a n LTF that has a current ZOD authorization is placed in Category 5 if two or more consecutive dive survey reports document more than 1.5 acres of continuous residues coverage and greater than 10 cm of depth at any one point

, unless DEC has approved a remediation plan for that waterbody

. A waterbody is placed in Category 5 when a submitter has failed to implement an approved remediation plan (LTF) according to its schedule

. Exceptions may include waterbodies where ZODs were authorized at greater than 1.5 acres.

If DEC approves a remediation plan on a C ategory 5/Section 303(d) listed waterbody that is reporting more than 1.5 acres of continuous coverage of bark on the bottom prior to the next Section 303(d) list, the waterbody is placed in Category 4(b) in the next Section 303(d) list.

A waterbody assoc iated with a facility operating under either of the LTF GPs that is reporting continuous coverage of residues of more than 1.5 acres is considered for Category 5/Section 303(d) listing if one of the following conditions is met: (1) the permittee failed to submit a remediation plan, orAlaska’s Final 20 1 0 Integrated Report

G. Residues Interpretation



### 123 (2) a remediation plan has been submitted, but the permittee is failing to implement or is not meeting milestones set forth in the approved remediation plan.

A waterbody associated with an LTF where there is no currently permi tted or active discharge to the water, but where the last known dive survey reported more than 1.0 acres of continuous residues coverage on the marine seafloor, is placed on the Category5/Section 303(d) list.

A waterbody associated with a seafood process or with a current ZOD authorization with two or more dive survey reports that document more than a 1.5

- acre area of seafood waste is placed in Category 5. Exemptions include waterbodies where ZODs were authorized at greater than 1.5 acres. Waterbodies with legacy site seafood piles (no current dischargers) that are determined to be more than 1 acre of continuous residue coverage may be considered for Category 5/Section 303(d) listing.

For all Category 5/Section 303(d) waterbodies listed for residues after 1 998 based on two dive surveys, the operator must document through two consecutive dive surveys that the ar e al extent of continuous

cover residues has been reduced to less than 1.5 acres to have the waterbody removed from the Category 5/Section 303(d) list. For all Category 5/Section 303(d) waterbodies listed for residues in 1998 or earlier, based on 1 acre and on one dive survey, the operator must document through one dive survey that the ar e al extent of continuous cover residues has been reduced to less than 1 acre in order to be removed from the Category 5/Section 303(d) list. If the areal extent of continuous cover is not declining in size, DEC will initiate permit modification or TMDL development.

The use of a greater than 1.5 acres of continuous coverage impairment standard for log transfer and seafood processing facilities with ZODs is based on several factors:

Permits Establish Limits, not Water Quality Standards

. The fixed 1

- acre ZOD used for previous impairment determinati ons is a permit limit and not a water quality standard

. Alaska’s ZOD regulations (18 AAC 70.210) allow the deposition of substances on the bottom of marine waters within limits set by DEC . However, the standards must be met at every point outside the ZOD

. Permits use the WQS as a basis for setting effluent ―limits‖ or for allowing flexibility from the WQS

. DEC specifies the criteria that can be exceeded in a permit, short

- term variance

, or certification

. If a discharger is granted a ZOD within a permit, the permittee can only exceed the criteria that have been identified in its permit, short

- term variance , or certification

. Confidence of Dive Survey Information

. Although EPA NPDES individual permits contained protocols for dive surveys at LTFs, it appears that dive methods were not implemented consistently

. In addition , NPDES permits included no method for calculation of bark area, which often was overestimated

. These inconsistencies compared to current protocols in the GPs raise the issue of the reliabilit y of dive survey information that resulted in previous listing decisions, and make it difficult to track trends in actual bark accumulation patterns

. For instance, a 1997 dive survey on bark residues that resulted in the 1998 impairment determination and S ection 303(d) listing reported the presence of measurable bark or trace coverage

. The reported 9.5

- acre bark footprint was based on plots with measurable bark rather than continuous

- cover bark.Alaska’s Final 20 1 0 Integrated Report

G. Residues Interpretation



### 124 The dive survey requirements contained in Seafood GPs are base d on seafood waste residue dispersal patterns and seafloor monitoring

. The lack of a perimeter dive survey requirement leads to uncertainty in the impairment determination. Uncertainty in Current Approved Method and Acreage Calculations of Dive Survey Repo rts

. DEC has noted that the current required method of acreage calculation is not used correctly

. As part of the dive survey review

, DEC re

- calculates continuous cover based on dive survey reports

. For facilities that were Section 303(d) listed in 1998

, DE C calculations indicate that five of the seven 2002 dive survey reports for these facilities overstated the extent of continuous cover

. Of all the reports reviewed to date since the inception of the two LTF GPs

, only one report understated the extent of co ntinuous cover

. Because of uncertainty about the extent of continuous cover , and by using an impairment standard of 1.5 acres of continuous coverage, DEC is confident that impairment decisions truly reflect actual impairment.

Natural Reduction of Residues Deposits

. Dive survey reports for LTFs that transferred little or no timber volume over a number of years often showed considerable reduction in the areal extent of continuous coverage

. The reduction was likely due to natural sedimentation and/or current d ispersement

. For example, the areal extent of continuous bark coverage on the bottom of Corner Bay declined from 1.2 acres in 1996 to 0.6 acre in 2001

. No logs were transferred during this period, and no active remediation occurred.

The level of timber har vest is significantly lower than in the past

. Reduced loading associated with reduced volume transferred is likely to act to reduce continuous cover accumulation over time. Limited research to determine the effect of transfer method and volume transferred on bark accumulation has established a weak statistical correlation between volumes transferred and bark accumulation

. A similar correlation has not been established for the transfer method.

A 1.0

- Acre Accumulation Threshold and a 1.5

- A cre Impairment Stan dard

. There is clear and pervasive language within the LTF Guidelines that establishes the 1

- acre ZOD standard as a threshold standard for cleanup, and not for use as an impairment standard. Impacts to the Biological Community

. The use of ZODs has been historically recognized and generally accepted for dischargers of residues to the marine environment in Alaska

. The hearing officer findings, for instance, from the LTF adjudication of the DEC proposed Section 401 certifications of the two federal GPs found that the discharge of bark and wood debris sited and operated in conformity with the permit has limited and localized impacts on the benthic community within the project area

. The hearing officer also asserted that such discharges wo uld have no discernable effect on the benthic environment as a whole in the geographic area covered by the G P s

. Patchy and discontinuous bark residue deposition on the bottom is authorized under the LTF GPs

. Additionally, an antidegradation finding is made for each LTF facility permit.

It is recognized that excessive residue coverage of more than 1.5 acres that is continuous and in excessive depth accumulations can have adverse impacts. Facilities that are operating under permit conditions with ZODs are acc epted as not adversely affecting the biological community or causing irreparable harm.Alaska’s Final 20 1 0 Integrated Report

G. Residues Interpretation



### 125 Under the LTF GPs , exceeding the 1

- acre continuous

- cover threshold triggers the requirement to develop a remediation plan. 

## Removal of Waterbodies from the Category 5/Sec tion 303(d) List Determined to B e Impaired from Residues

The following protocols are applied to all waterbodies associated with a permitted facility and Category 5/Section 303(d) listed for residues

, regardless of an active discharge on site :

For waterbodi es Section 303(d) listed after 1998 and determined to be impaired for residues based on two or more dive surveys:

o DEC require s two consecutive dive surveys documenting that continuous residues coverage is no more than 1.5 acres before the waterbody is elig ible for removal from the Category 5/Section 303(d) list and for placement in either Category 1 or 2.
For waterbodies Section 303(d) listed in 1998 or earlier (based on 1.0 acre) and determined to be impaired for residues based on one dive survey or best p rofessional judgment:

o DEC require s one dive survey documenting that continuous residues coverage is no more than 1.0 acre before the waterbody is eligible for removal from the Category 5/Section 303(d) list and placement in Category 1 or 2.

In addition to consideration of the continuous residues coverage standard of 1.5 acres

, DEC may consider biological assessment information, such as sediment profile imaging, in a determination to remove a water on the Section 303(d) list for residues.Alaska’s Final 2010 Integrated Report

H. A LASKA CLEAN W ATER A CTIONS (ACWA) P RIORITY R

ANKING



### 126 

# APPENDIX H Alaska Clean Water

Actions (ACWA) Priority Rank ing

The following table identifies the rankings assigned to Alaska waterbod i es by the Alaska Department of Fish and Game

, Alaska Department of Environmental Conservation , and Alaska Department of Natural Resources, which are abbreviated as F&G, DEC, and DNR , respectively in the table below

. The final column, labeled ―MAX,‖ identifies the agency that made the highest ranking and that ranking

. Each agency ranked factors for a different component: F&G rated aquatic habitat, DNR rated water qua nt ity, and DEC rated water quality

. Additional column abbreviations are Lwr for lower and Med for medium

. This table was generated in October 2009

. Waterbody Name F&G DEC DNR MAX Akutan Harbor Lwr Med Lwr DEC Med Anchor Pt to Happy Valley Creek Lwr Lwr Lwr F&G Lwr Anchor River High High Lwr F&G High Anvil Creek High High High F&G High Auke Bay Med High Lwr DEC High Auke Creek Med High Med DEC High Auke Lake Med High Lwr DEC High Auke Nu Cove High High Lwr F&G High Auke Nu Creek Med Med Lwr F&G Med Barabara Creek Lwr Lwr Lwr F&G Lwr Bear Cove Lwr Med Lwr DEC Med Bear Creek (Becharof) Med Med Lwr F&G Med Bear Creek (Hogatza) High Lwr Lwr F &G High Bear Creek (Homer) Lwr Med Med DEC Med Bear Creek (Hope) Med Med Med F&G Med Beaver Creek (Kenai) Med Med Lwr F&G Med Beaver Inlet Lwr Med Lwr DEC Med Beaver Lake Med Lwr Lwr F&G Med Bell Flats Med Med Lwr F&G Med Beluga Lake (Homer) Lwr Lwr Med DNR Med Benny Creek Lwr Lwr Lwr F&G Lwr Berners Bay High Med Lwr F&G High Bidarka Creek Lwr Lwr Lwr F&G Lwr Big Lake High High Lwr F&G High Birch Creek (Talkeetna) Med Lwr Med F&G Med Birch Creek, Upper Drainage Med High Lwr DEC High Birch Lake Med Med Lwr F&G Med Black Bear Creek High Med Med F&G High Bodenburg Creek High Med Lwr F&G High Bolio Lake Lwr Lwr Lwr F&G LwrAlaska’s Final 2010 Integrated Report

H. A LASKA CLEAN W ATER A CTIONS (ACWA) P RIORITY R

ANKING



### 127 Waterbody Name F&G DEC DNR MAX Bons Creek Med Lwr Med F&G Med Bradfield River High Lwr Lwr F&G High Bridge Creek Med Med High DEC Med Cabin Creek Lwr Lwr Lwr F&G Lwr Cache Creek Med Med Med F&G Med California Creek Med Med Med F&G Med Campbell Creek High High Lwr F&G High Campbell Lake Med High Lwr DEC High Captains Bay Lwr High Lwr DEC High Caribou Creek Lwr Lwr Lwr F&G Lwr Carlanna Creek High High Lwr F&G High Cedar Bay Lwr Lwr Lwr F&G Lwr Chatanika River Med Lwr Lwr F&G Med Chena River High High Lwr F&G High Chena Slough Med High Lwr DEC High Cheney Lake High High Lwr F&G High Chester Creek High High Lwr F&G High Chilkat River Lwr Med Lwr DEC Med China Poot Bay Lwr Med Lwr DEC Med China Poot Creek Lwr Med Lwr DEC Med Chuitna River High High Lwr F&G High Clear Creek Lwr Med Med DEC Med Clearwater Creek High High Lwr F&G High Clearwater Lake Lwr Lwr Lwr F&G Lwr Cold Bay Lwr High Lwr DEC High Colleen Lake Lwr Lwr Lwr F&G Lwr Colville River/Umiat Lake Lwr Lwr Lwr F&G Lwr Connors Lake Med Med Lwr F&G Med Cooper Creek High Lwr Lwr F&G High Copper River High High Lwr F&G High Corner Bay Lwr Med Lwr DEC Med Cottonwood Creek High High Lwr F&G High Cottonwood Lake High Med Lwr F&G High Crab Bay Lwr Med Lwr DEC Med Crooked Creek Med High Lwr DEC High Crow Creek Med Med Med F&G Med Cube Cove Lwr Med Lwr DEC Med Dark Lake Med Lwr Lwr F&G Med Deep Creek High High Lwr F&G High Deshka River (Kroto Creek) High High Lwr F&G High Diamond Creek Lwr Lwr Lwr F&G Lwr Dog Salmon Creek Med Med Lwr F&G Med Dogfish Bay (Koyuktolik Bay) Lwr Lwr Lwr F&G Lwr Dora Bay Lwr Med Lwr DEC Med Dora Lake Med Med Lwr F&G Med Duck Creek Med High High DEC High Dutch Harbor Lwr High Lwr DEC High Eagle River Med High Lwr DEC HighAlaska’s Final 2010 Integrated Report

H. A LASKA CLEAN W ATER A CTIONS (ACWA) P RIORITY R

ANKING



### 128 Waterbody Name F&G DEC DNR MAX Eagle River Flats Lwr Med Lwr DEC Med East Creek Lwr Lwr Med DNR Med East Port Frederick Lwr High Lwr DEC High Egegik River Med High Lwr DEC High Eklutna River Med Med High DEC Med Eldred Passage Lwr Lwr Lwr F&G Lwr Elfin Cove Med Med Lwr F&G Med English Bay River Lwr Lwr Lwr F&G Lwr Eskimo Creek Lwr Lwr Lwr F&G Lwr Eyak Lake Med High Lwr DEC High Falls Creek Lwr Lwr Lwr F&G Lwr Falls Creek (Gustavus) Lwr Med Lwr DEC Med Falls Creek (Kachemak) Med Lwr Med F&G Med Finger Lake Lwr Med Lwr DEC Med Fire Cove Lwr Med Lwr DEC Med Fire Lake Lwr Lwr Lwr F&G Lwr Fish Creek (Anchorage) Med High Lwr DEC High Fish Creek (Wasilla) Med Med High DEC Med Fortymile Med Med Med F&G Med Fox River High Med Lwr F&G High Freshwater Creek Med Lwr Lwr F&G Med Fritz Creek High Med High F&G High Fubar Creek Lwr Med Lwr DEC Med Funny River High Med Lwr F&G High Furrow Creek Lwr High Lwr DEC High Garrison Slough Lwr Lwr Lwr F&G Lwr Gastineau Channel High Med Lwr F&G High Gibson Cove Lwr Med Lwr DEC Med Glacier Creek High High Lwr F&G High Goldstream Creek High High Lwr F&G High Goodnews River Med Med Lwr F&G Med Goose Bay Med Lwr Lwr F&G Med Goose Creek Lwr Lwr Med DNR Med Goose Lake Lwr Med Lwr DEC Med Granite Creek High High Lwr F&G High Greens Creek Lwr Lwr Lwr F&G Lwr Gulkana River (Lower River) Lwr High Lwr DEC High Gulkana River (upper) Med High Lwr DEC High Gunnuk Creek Med High Lwr DEC High Halibut Cove Med High Lwr DEC High Hamilton Bay Lwr Med Lwr DEC Med Hammer Slough Med Med Lwr F&G Med Harding Lake Med Lwr Lwr F&G Med Harris River Lwr Lwr Lwr F&G Lwr Hatchery Creek Med High Lwr DEC High Hawk Inlet Med Lwr Lwr F&G Med Herring Bay Creek High High Med F&G High Hideaway Lake Lwr Lwr Med DNR MedAlaska’s Final 2010 Integrated Report

H. A LASKA CLEAN W ATER A CTIONS (ACWA) P RIORITY R

ANKING



### 129 Waterbody Name F&G DEC DNR MAX Hoadley Creek High High Lwr F&G High Hobart Bay Lwr Med Lwr DEC Med Hogatza River Med Med Lwr F&G Med Homer Harbor Med High Lwr DEC High Hood/Spenard Lake Lwr High Lwr DEC High Horseshoe/Island Lakes Med Med Lwr F&G Med Hospital Lake Lwr Lwr Lwr F&G Lwr Iliamna Lake Med High Lwr DEC High Iliuliuk Bay Lwr High Lwr DEC High Iliuliuk Harbor Lwr High Lwr DEC High Indian River High High High F&G High Jakolof Bay Lwr Med Lwr DEC Med Jewel Lake Med High Lwr DEC High Jim Creek High High Lwr F&G High Jim Lake High Med Lwr F&G High Johnson Creek Med Med Med F&G Med Jones Lake Lwr Lwr Lwr F&G Lwr Jordan Creek High High Lwr F&G High Juneau Creek Lwr Med Lwr DEC Med Kachemak Bay Lwr Med Lwr DEC Med Kalmbach Lake Lwr Lwr Med DNR Med Kanektok River Med Med Lwr F&G Med Kantishna River Lwr Lwr Lwr F&G Lwr Kasilof River High High Lwr F&G High Kaskanak Creek Lwr Med Lwr DEC Med Katlian River High High Lwr F&G High Kazakof Bay Lwr Med Lwr DEC Med Kenai River High High Lwr F&G High Ketchikan Creek Med High Lwr DEC High King Cove Lwr High Lwr DEC High King Salmon Creek Med Lwr Lwr F&G Med Kitkun Bay Lwr Med Lwr DEC Med Klag Bay Lwr Med Lwr DEC Med Klawock Inlet Lwr Med Lwr DEC Med Kobuk River Lwr High High DEC High Kodiak Landfill Creek Lwr Lwr Lwr F&G Lwr Koktuli River

- North Fork High Med Lwr F&G High Kotzebue Lagoon Lwr Lwr Lwr F&G Lwr Kuparuk River High Lwr Lwr F&G High Kuskokwim River Lwr Med Lwr DEC Med Lab (Labouchere) Bay Med Lwr Lwr F&G Med Lake Clark Lwr High Lwr DEC High Lake Creek High Lwr Lwr F&G High Lake Louise Med High Lwr DEC High Lake Lucille Lwr High Lwr DEC High Lake McDermott Lwr Lwr Lwr F&G Lwr Lake Otis Med Med Lwr F&G Med Lemon Creek High High Lwr F&G HighAlaska’s Final 2010 Integrated Report

H. A LASKA CLEAN W ATER A CTIONS (ACWA) P RIORITY R

ANKING



### 130 Waterbody Name F&G DEC DNR MAX Lilly Lake Med Lwr Lwr F&G Med Little Campbell Creek Lwr High Lwr DEC High Little Campbell Lake Med Lwr Lwr F&G Med Little Creek (South Fork, Nome) Lwr Med Lwr DEC Med Little Rabbit Creek High High Lwr F&G High Little Survival Creek Med High Lwr DEC High Little Susitna River High High Lwr F&G High Little Tutka Bay Lwr Lwr Lwr F&G Lwr Lookout Cove Lwr Med Lwr DEC Med Lost and Found Lake Lwr Lwr Lwr F&G Lwr Lower Fire Lake Lwr Lwr Med DNR Med Lower Talarik Med Med Lwr F&G Med Lutak Inlet Lwr Med Lwr DEC Med Mallard Bay Lwr Med Lwr DEC Med Margaret Bay Lwr Med Lwr DEC Med Margaret Creek Med Med Lwr F&G Med Mariner Creek Lwr Lwr Lwr F&G Lwr Matanuska River Med High Lwr DEC High McClure Bay Med Lwr Lwr F&G Med McKinley Lake Lwr Lwr Lwr F&G Lwr McKinzie Inlet Lwr Med Lwr DEC Med McNeil Creek Med Lwr Med F&G Med McRoberts Creek Med Med Lwr F&G Med Meadow Creek Med High High DEC High Meadow Lake Lwr Lwr Med DNR Med Memory Lake Med Med Med F&G Med Mendenhall River Med High Lwr DEC High Mills Creek Lwr Med Lwr DEC Med Minook Creek Lwr Med Lwr DEC Med Mirror Lake Lwr Lwr Med DNR Med Mission Lake Med Lwr Lwr F&G Med Montana Creek (Juneau) Med High Lwr DEC High Montana Creek (Talkeetna) High High Lwr F&G High Moose Creek Med Lwr Med F&G Med Moose River Med Lwr Med F&G Med Mosquito Lake High High Med F&G High Mud Bay (Homer) Lwr Med Lwr DEC Med Mulchatna River Lwr Med Lwr DEC Med Nahodka Creek Lwr Lwr High DNR High Naknek River Lwr Lwr Lwr F&G Lwr Nakwasina River High High Lwr F&G High Nancy Lake High High Med F&G High Nataga Creek Med Med Lwr F&G Med Nearshore Beaufort Lagoon Lwr Lwr Lwr F&G Lwr Neptune Bay Lwr Lwr Lwr F&G Lwr Nilumat Creek Lwr Med Lwr DEC Med Ninilchik River Med High Lwr DEC High Nome River High Med Lwr F&G HighAlaska’s Final 2010 Integrated Report

H. A LASKA CLEAN W ATER A CTIONS (ACWA) P RIORITY R

ANKING



### 131 Waterbody Name F&G DEC DNR MAX North Twin Lakes Lwr Med Lwr DEC Med Noyes Slough High High High F&G High Nushagak River Med High Lwr DEC High One Mile Creek High High Med F&G High Ophir Creek Med Med Med F&G Med Orca Inlet Med Med Med F&G Med Palmer Creek (Homer) Lwr Lwr Med DNR Med Passage Canal (Whittier Harbor) Lwr Lwr Lwr F&G Lwr Pavlof River Lwr Lwr Lwr F&G Lwr Paxson Lake Lwr Lwr Lwr F&G Lwr Pederson Hill Creek Lwr High Lwr DEC High Peters Creek Med Lwr Lwr F&G Med Peterson Bay Med High Lwr DEC High Peterson Creek High High Med F&G High Pile

- Driver Slough Lwr Lwr Lwr F&G Lwr Point Macartney Lwr Med Lwr DEC Med Popof Strait Lwr High Lwr DEC High Port Clarence Lwr Lwr Lwr F&G Lwr Port Valdez Lwr Med Med DEC Med Port Valdez Small Boat Harbor Lwr Lwr Lwr F&G Lwr Potato Patch Lake Med Med Lwr F&G Med Potter Creek Med Lwr Med F&G Med Pullen Creek High High Lwr F&G High Quartz Creek High High Lwr F&G High Quartz Lake Lwr Lwr Lwr F&G Lwr Rabbit Creek Med High High DEC High Red Devil Creek Lwr Med Lwr DEC Med Red Dog Creek Lwr Lwr Lwr F&G Lwr Red Fox Creek Lwr High Lwr DEC High Red Lake

- Anton Road Ponds Lwr High Lwr DEC High Resurrection Creek (Hope) High High Lwr F&G High Rice Creek Lwr Lwr Med DNR Med Rogge Creek Lwr Lwr Lwr F&G Lwr Rowan Bay Lwr Med Lwr DEC Med Ruby Creek Lwr Med Lwr DEC Med Sagavanirktok River Med Lwr Lwr F&G Med Saginaw Bay Lwr Med Lwr DEC Med Saint John Baptist Bay Lwr Med Lwr DEC Med Saint Paul Island Lagoon Lwr High Lwr DEC High Salmon Creek Med High High DEC High Salt Lake Bay Lwr Med Lwr DEC Med Sawmill Creek (Haines) High High Lwr F&G High Sawmill Creek (Sitka) Lwr Lwr Lwr F&G Lwr Scheffler Creek Lwr Lwr Lwr F&G Lwr Schulze Cove Lwr Med Lwr DEC Med Seldovia Bay High High Lwr F&G High Seldovia Bay (Harbor) Lwr Lwr Lwr F&G Lwr Shaw Creek High High Lwr F&G HighAlaska’s Final 2010 Integrated Report

H. A LASKA CLEAN W ATER A CTIONS (ACWA) P RIORITY R

ANKING



### 132 Waterbody Name F&G DEC DNR MAX Ship Creek

- Glenn H ighway Bridge Down to Mouth High High Lwr F&G High

Shoal Cove Lwr Lwr Lwr F&G Lwr Shoal Creek Med Med Lwr F&G Med Shoemaker Bay Med Med Lwr F&G Med Shovel Creek Med Lwr Lwr F&G Med Silver Bay Lwr High Lwr DEC High Sinuk River Med Lwr Lwr F&G Med Sitka Harbor Med High Lwr DEC High Situk River Lwr High Lwr DEC High Skagway Harbor Lwr High Lwr DEC High Skagway River High Med Lwr F&G High Slate Creek Lwr Med Lwr DEC Med Sleepy Bay Med Lwr Lwr F&G Med Slikok Creek High Med Lwr F&G High Snake River Med Lwr Lwr F&G Med Soldotna Creek Lwr Lwr Lwr F&G Lwr Solomon River Med Lwr Lwr F&G Med Solomon River, East Fork High Lwr Lwr F&G High South Fork Koktuli River High Med Lwr F&G High South Twin Lakes Lwr Lwr Lwr F&G Lwr South Unalaska Bay Med High Lwr DEC High Spring Creek Lwr Lwr Lwr F&G Lwr Stariski Creek High High Lwr F&G High Sundi Lake Med Lwr Med F&G Med Sunshine Cove Lwr Med Lwr DEC Med Sunshine Creek Lwr Lwr Lwr F&G Lwr Suqitughneq River Lwr Lwr Lwr F&G Lwr Susitna River Med High Lwr DEC High Sweeper Cove Med Med Lwr F&G Med Sweeper Creek High Med Lwr F&G High Taku River Med Lwr Lwr F&G Med Talkeetna River Med High Lwr DEC High Tanana River Lwr Lwr Lwr F&G Lwr Thorne Bay Lwr High Lwr DEC High Thorne River Estuary Med Lwr Lwr F&G Med Tisuk River Med Lwr Lwr F&G Med Tolstoi Bay Lwr Med Lwr DEC Med Tongass Narrows Lwr High Lwr DEC High Town (Trout) Lake Lwr Lwr Med DNR Med Troutman Lake Lwr Lwr Lwr F&G Lwr Turnaround Creek Med Med Lwr F&G Med Tuxedni Bay Lwr Med Lwr DEC Med Twelvemile Arm Lwr Med Lwr DEC Med Twitter Creek Lwr Med Lwr DEC Med Two Moon Bay Lwr Med Lwr DEC Med Udagak Bay Lwr Lwr Lwr F&G Lwr Unalaska Lake Med Lwr High DNR HighAlaska’s Final 2010 Integrated Report

H. A LASKA CLEAN W ATER A CTIONS (ACWA) P RIORITY R

ANKING



### 133 Waterbody Name F&G DEC DNR MAX University Lake Lwr High Lwr DEC High Unnamed Creek (City of Kenai) Lwr Lwr Lwr F&G Lwr Unnamed Lake (Chena Hot Springs Rd.) Two R ivers Lodge Lwr Lwr Lwr F&G Lwr

Upper Bonnie Lake Lwr Lwr Lwr F&G Lwr Upper Fire Lake Lwr Lwr Med DNR Med Upper Talarik Creek High Med Lwr F&G High Vanderbilt Creek Med High Lwr DEC High Walby Lake Med Lwr Med F&G Med Ward Cove Lwr High Lwr DEC High Wasilla Creek High High Lwr F&G High Wasilla Lake High High Lwr F&G High West Port Frederick Lwr Med Lwr DEC Med Westchester Lagoon Med High Lwr DEC High Whale Passage Lwr Med Lwr DEC Med Whittier Creek Med Lwr Med F&G Med Willow Creek High High Lwr F&G High Winter Harbor Lwr Med Lwr DEC Med Womens Bay Lwr Med Lwr DEC Med Wood River Med High Lwr DEC High Woodard Creek Med Med Med F&G Med Wrangell Narrows Lwr Med Lwr DEC Med Wrinkleneck Creek

- Swan Lake Lwr Med Lwr DEC Med Wulik River Med High Med DEC High Yukon River Lwr Med Lwr DEC Med Zinc Creek Lwr Lwr Lwr F&G LwrAlaska’s Final 2010 Integrated Report

I. Supplemental Listing Methodology



### 134 

# APPENDIX I Supplemental Listing

Methodology

Guidance for Determining Water Quality Impairments from Residues

NOTE: The information in this section does not provide a complete description of the specific considerations for waters impaired by residues; Appendix G, (Alaska’s Interpretation of the Residues Criterion with Alaska’s W ater Quality Standards Regarding Attainmen t and Impairment Determinations) should be consulted for additional detail that more fully explains the considerations.

A seafood processing or LTF in Alaska is typically issued a ZOD in its permit for the residues discharges. Exceedance of a permitted ZO D is not equivalent to impairment; rather, the impairment standard is exceedance of 1.5 acres of continuous residues coverage.

For Category 5/Section 303(d) listed waters associated with a permitted facility, if the ar e al extent of continuous cover is not declining in size, DEC initiates permit modification or TMDL development. 

## Seafood Processing Facilities

A waterbody associated with a seafood processor that has a current ZOD authorization with two or more dive survey reports that document an area of seafo od waste larger than 1.5 acres is placed in Category 5. Exceptions are waterbodies for which ZODs were authorized at greater than 1.5 acres and situations in which the facility is subject to an administrative action (such as a Compliance Order or Consent O rder by Decree for residues) to ensure attainment of WQS. In the latter instance, the waterbody may be considered for placement in Category 4b. For seafood piles that are legacy sites ( and no t current dischargers) and that are determined to be more than 1 acre of continuous residue coverage , the affected waterbody may be considered for Category 5 listing . This exception condition occurs because at the time the contributing facility was permitted, a 1

- acre impairment standard was in effect and the current 1.5

- acre impairment standard had not been adopted.


## Log Transfer Facilities

A waterbody associated with a n LTF that has a current ZOD authorization is placed in Category 5 if two or more consecutive dive survey reports document more than 1.5 acres of contin uous residues coverage and the residue coverage is greater than 10

- cm in thickness at any one point, unless DEC has approved a remediation plan for that waterbody. A waterbody associated with an LTF is placed in Category 5 when an LTF permittee has failed to implement an approved remediation plan according to its schedule. Exceptions are waterbodies for which ZODs were authorized at greater than 1.5 acre, which are considered on a case

- by

- case basis.

If DEC approves a remediation plan on a Category 5 listed waterbody that is reporting more than 1.5 acres of continuous coverage of bark on the bottom before preparation of the next Section 303(d)Alaska’s Final 2010 Integrated Report

I. Supplemental Listing Methodology



### 135 list, the waterbody is placed in Category 4(b). Moving a Category 5 water to Category 4b requires EPA approval.

A wa terbody associated with a facility operating under either of the GPs applicable to LTFs for which continuous coverage of residues over 1.5 acres are being reported is considered for a Category 5 listing if one of the following conditions is met: (1) the pe rmittee failed to submit a remediation plan, or (2) a remediation plan has been submitted, but the permittee is failing to implement or is not meeting milestones set forth in the approved remediation plan.

A waterbody associated with an LTF for which no cu rrently permitted or active discharge to the water is occurring, but for which the last known dive survey reported more than 1.5 acres of continuous residues coverage on the marine seafloor, is placed on the Category5 list.



## Removal of Waterbodies Determine d to be Impaired from Residues from the Category 5 List

The following protocols are applied to all waterbodies associated with a permitted facility and Category 5 listing for residues, regardless of whether an active discharge is occurring on site.

In add ition to consideration of the continuous residues coverage standard of 1.5 acres, DEC may consider biological assessment information, such as sediment profile imaging, in a determination to remove a water on the Category 5 list for residues.

For waterbodie s placed on the Category 5 list after 1998 and determined to be impaired for residues based on the results of two or more dive surveys:

o DEC requires two consecutive dive surveys documenting that continuous residues coverage is no more than 1.5 acres before the waterbody is eligible for removal from the Category 5 list and for placement in Category 1 or 2. For waterbodies placed on the Category 5 list in 1998 or earlier (based on 1.0 acre) and determined to be impaired for residues based on the results of on e dive survey or best professional judgment:

o DEC requires one dive survey documenting that continuous residues coverage is no more than 1.0 acre before the waterbody is eligible for removal from the Category 5 list and placement in Category 1 or 2.Alaska’s Final 2010 Integrated Report

I. Supplemental Listing Methodology



### 136 

## Guidance for Determining Water Quality Impairments from Turbidity

This listing and assessment methodology for the turbidity pollutant is not a change to the turbidity criterion within Alaska WQS ; however, it does provide direction for implementing the crit erion when making water quality attainment or impairment determinations.



## Parameter

- Specific Criteria

The methodology used by Alaska to evaluate waterbodies for the turbidity criterion specified in 18 AAC 70.020(b)(12) and (24) is described below

. 

## Identification of Natural Conditions

When considering data in an impairment decision, the natural background condition, or reference condition, must be established

. This first step is essential because the term ―above natural conditions‖ is key to the crit eria specified for five of the seven water uses protected from turbidity. Turbidity data collected without an established natural condition sh ould not be considered in any impairment determination. Many of Alaska’s water s have naturally occurring turbid fl ows, especially glacially fed or tidally influenced waters
, and care must be taken to effectively establish a natural condition for reference.

Alaska recognizes that variability in turbidity

— among sites and over time

— complicates the task of determining a n atural or background level for any specified level of discharge.

To collect water samples, a concurrent or an ―upstream, downstream‖ approach is preferred

. This approach entails sampling to establish natural conditions

. M easurements taken upstream (control /natural conditions ) and downstream (treated /impacted ) of a particular pollutant source are compared. It is assumed that any increase in turbidity is due to the source or activity. Because u pstream sampling establish es the natural conditions , readings shou ld be taken upstream of any suspected exceedances of the criteria and of any man

- induced point or nonpoint sources of turbidity.

When it may not be feasible to establish an upstream reference condition, a ―paired watershed‖ approach may be us ed

. In this a pproach, a nearby water with similar hydrology, morphology, aspect, and other characteristics is identified for use in establishing the natural condition

. The u pstream
, downstream approach is the preferred method

, and data using this method may be weighted greater than data gathered through a paired watershed approach

.

S amples taken to establish reference conditions must collected at approximately the same time of year and during the same flows, as when samples are collected for suspected exceedances

.

Bec ause t urbidity can be influenced by natural phenomen a, such as storm events, sampling during or immediately after high

- flow or storm events should be avoided . L ow

- flow, dry

- period sampling also should be avoided

. A ny turbidity data taken during such events should be discounted

. Such data would not be considered less reliable if exceedances and impairment are suspected to be persistently occurring at low

- flow or high

- flow storm events and to be a result of man

- induced activities. For these instances, the pre ferred approach is to gather data at a wide range of flow events.Alaska’s Final 2010 Integrated Report

I. Supplemental Listing Methodology



### 137 Visual Turbidity Observations

Although visual observations of elevated turbidity observations may often be noted and signal criteria exceedances, Alaska does not make impairment determin ati ons, and the associated Section 303(d) list ings, based solely on visual turbidity observations. V isual observations often lead to identification of suspected criteria exceedances . To confirm exceedances, the results of in

- water nephelometric turbidity unit ( NTU ) sampling are compared to an established reference condition.

Minimum Data Requirements and Analysis

Current data (less that 5 years old) are generally used for evaluation of turbidity, although some documentation or data more than 5 years old may b e relevant

. Older data are generally given less significance when reviewing information in an impairment determination.

Collection of 20 or more samples during at least three sampling events , with each sampling event separated by at least 1 week, is requir ed to establish persistent exceedances of the turbidity criteri on

. Larger sample sets are desirable.

Sample locations should be reasonably distributed to avoid bias in any one sampling event

. Sampling is generally obtained for at least two seasons. For exa mple, 20 samples could be collected during the first and third weeks of May and the first week of June to make a determination.

If more than 10% of the samples exceed the turbidity criteria

, the waterbody is considered for assignment to Category 5. Outliers , or results that are numerically distant from other data, are fully scrutinized

, and in certain instances

, such as in a clear storm event situation , they may be discounted

. Outliers are viewed in ―totality‖ of the entire data set. An impairment de termination is not based on outliers alone.

The preferred method for establishing turbidity impairment is to employ the use of continuous sampling data loggers

, which are capable of recording large data sets

. In these instances, statistical analysis may be required

. Before a final decision to add a waterbody impaired by turbidity to the Section 303(d) list, Alaska reviews the data for the basic concepts employed in any listing, including persistence, duration, and magnitude

. T ools such as enforcement and pe rmit limitations should be evaluated for the ability to effectively reduce the exceedances.
Removal of a Water from the Section 303(d) List for Turbidity

The current listing methodology used by Alaska dictates that for removal of a water from the Section 303(d) list

, both the level of data to support the removal determination and the burden of proof are no greater than those used in the initial Section 303(d) listing determination

. For a water that was placed on the Section 303(d) list ( in 200 8 or earlier ) for turbidity impairment based on visual turbidity observations and best professional judgment, a determination to remove the water from the Section 303(d) list may be based on visual turbidity observations and best professional judgment alone.Alaska’s Final 2010 Integrated Report

I. Supplemental Listing Methodology



### 138 

## Guidance for Determining Water Quality Attainment or Impairment from Pathogens

Test methods for pathogens are specified in 18 AAC 70

. The fecal coliform ( FC ) bacteria and enterococci enumeration must be determined by the membrane filter technique or most probable number procedure

, according to the approved edition s of Standard Methods for the Examination of Water and Wastewater , adopted by reference in 18 AAC 70.020 (c)

, or in accordance with other standards approved by DEC and EPA.

Section 303(d) listing d eterminations must be based on a laboratory analysis with an adequate Quality Assurance Project Plan ( QAPP ) for any FC or enterococci samples

. For non

- detect samples, the laboratory minimum detection limits are used to determine the value for a geometric m ean calculation.

It should be established that the FC bacteria levels are from human activies (such as septic systems, domestic animal waste) prior to any consideration of Section 303(d) listing as impaired. A waterbody is not Section 303(d) listed as imp aired if it can be established that the exceedance is due to natural conditions (such as wildlife)

. A determination about natural conditions requires well

- reasoned best professional judgment combined with information or data to validate the condition

. A de cision to not list a waterbody because exceedances are from natural conditions requires, at a minimum, identification of a natural source that is likely responsible for produc ing the exceedances and information to support the absence of human impacts or no human impacts that exceed the allowable limits. Wilderness areas or other areas with no significant human impact are assumed to represent natural conditions. 

## Guidance for Determining Water Quality Impairments from Pathogens for Fresh Water Uses

The numeri c criteri a for six fresh water uses specified in Alaska WQS for FC bacteria ( 18 AAC 70.020 ) all have a n ―in a 30

- day period‖ geometric mean provision and a ―not more than 10% of the samples may exceed‖ provision. Both provisions in the criteria must be met to attain the FC bacteria standard. ( No criterion is specified for the ― Growth and Propagation of Fish, Shellfish, Other Aquatic Life, and Wildlife ‖ fresh water use .)



## Minimum N umber of S amples

For either the 30

- day ―geometric mean‖ or the ―10% of samples ‖ provisions of the criteri a , a minimum of 5 samples is required for determining attainment or impairment however 10 samples are preferred

. D ata sets for 30 days with fewer than 10 samples are less desirable for the purposes of making a determination of WQS attainment

. 

## Assessment and S ampling P eriod

At least two 30

- day sampling period s during a 2

- year period is desired to make attainment or impairment decisions

. 10 samples in each 30

- day sampling period are considered collectively to be an adequate assess ment and sampling period

. In each 30

- day sampling period, the grouping or overlapping of samples should be avoided, and sampling prefera bly should be spread over the 30

- day period

. DataAlaska’s Final 2010 Integrated Report

I. Supplemental Listing Methodology



### 139 sets that do not have two distinct 30

- day sampling periods within a 2

- year period are considered insufficient for listing and delisting purposes

. Two or more samples may be taken on the same day but should not be taken at the same sampling point. A period of sampling may be established for an impairment when exceedances are dependent on seasonal temperature conditions, heavy water use periods, or both.

Sampling during a range of stream flows , if applicable, is a better representation of all conditions and can identify seasonal conditions that are problematic for FC , such as i ce break

- up in the spring

. Sampling during peak flow events, such as spring break

- up or large rain events, is not desirable because it may not represent a persistent human

- caused impact

. If it is deemed necessary to sample during peak flow events or spring break

- up , the sample data set must contain samples collected during a range of stream flow conditions and results should be compared to other flows for comparison

. 

## Approach for D etermining Attainment or I mpairment Caused by F ecal C oliform Bacteria for Fre sh Water Uses

The waterbody is considered impaired (e.g., persistent exceedances) when at least two 30

- day sampling periods demonstrate an exceedance of either provision of the criterion over a two year period

. Samples collected in two or more 30

- day sampling periods are not combined; they are examined separately for comparison with the standard.

The recommended approach is that exceedances found in only one 30

- day sampling be followed with an additional 30

- day sampling period during the same season of the next year to validate the persistence of the water quality impairment over a two year period.


## Guida n ce for Determining Water Quality Attainment or Impairment from Pathogens for Marine Water Uses

FC bacteria cri teria are specified for six of the seven marine water uses. The numeric criteri a for five uses specified in 18 AAC 70.020 (b) for FC bacteria all have provisions for ―in a 30

- day period‖ and a ―not more than 10% of the samples may exceed

. ‖ Both provisions m ust be met to attain the FC bacteria standard. (No criterion is specified for the marine water use for ―Growth and Propagation of Fish, Shellfish, Other Aquatic Life, and Wildlife‖ marine water use.)

A n FC bacteria criterion specified for the ―H arvesting for C onsumption Ra w M ollusks or Other Aquatic Life‖ marine water use is different from the other five marine water uses. In addition, EPA has established additional criteria for enterococci for Alaska for the primary contact recreation use in marine
waters . These criteria are discussed below.



## Minimum N umber of S amples

For either the 30

- day ―geometric mean‖ or the ―10% of samples‖ provisions of the criteri a , a minimum of 5 samples is required for determining attainment or impairment however 10 samples are preferred in a recommended 30

- day period

. D ata sets for 30 days with fewer than 10 samples are less desirable for the purposes of making a determination of WQS attainment or impairment

.Alaska’s Final 2010 Integrated Report

I. Supplemental Listing Methodology



### 140 

## Assessment and S ampling P eriod

At least two 30

- day sampling period s d uring a 2

- year period is desired. As noted earlier, 10 samples in each 30

- day sampling period are considered collectively to be an adequate assessment and sampling period

. In each 30

- day sampling period, the grouping or overlapping of samples should be avo ided, and sampling prefera bly should be spread over the 30

- day period

. Data sets that do not have two distinct 30

- day sampling periods within a 2

- year period are considered insufficient for listing and delisting
purposes

. Two or more samples may be taken o n the same day but should not be taken at the same sampling point. A period of sampling may be established for an impairment when exceedances are dependent on seasonal temperature conditions, heavy water use periods, or both. 

## Approach for D etermining Attainment or I mpairment Caused by F ecal C oliform Bacteria for Marine Water Uses

The waterbody is considered impaired (e.g., persistent exceedances) when at least two 30

- day sampling periods demonstrate an exceedance of either provision of the standard ove r a two year period

. Samples collected in two or more 30

- day sampling periods are not combined; they are examined separately for comparison with the standard

. 

## Criteri on for the “Harvesting for Consumption of Raw Mollusks or Other Aquatic Life” Marine Wate r U se

T he Alaska water quality standard criterion for the ―H arvesting for C onsumption Ra w M ollusks or Other Aquatic Life‖ marine water use is worded as follows : 2



### Based on a 5

- tube decimal dilution test, the fecal coliform median MPN may not exceed 14 FC/100 ml, and not more than 10% of the samples may exceed a fecal coliform median MPN of 43 FC/100 ml. Or based on a 12

- tube single dilution test, the fecal coliform median MPN may not exceed 14 FC/100ml, and not more than 10% of the samples may exceed a fecal coliform median MPN of 28 FC/100 ml.



## Minimum N umber of S amples

A minimum of 15 samples should be collected for assessing attainment of the ―H arvesting for C onsumption Ra w M ollusks or Other Aquatic Life‖ use in remote areas where there is no actual or potential pollution

. The collection of the water samples should generally be planned or scheduled to capture the rainy months and the dry months

, as well as high

- and low

- tide variable s

. Ideally the samples

c aptur e various hydrological and meteorological conditions that might have an impact on the water quality. I n addition to the water sampling , a shoreline survey is required to determine potent ial pollution sources on shore

. A typical water classification survey f or the classification of commercial shellfish growing and harvest areas take s at least 12 months. A minimum of 30 samples should be collected under

2 The abbreviations in the regulatory language are defined as follows: MPN, most probably number; FC, fecal coliform; and ml, milliliters.Alaska’s Final 2010 Integrated Report

I. Supplemental Listing Methodology



### 141 various environmental conditions in growing areas where pollution sources (human habitation or known polluti on potential) may have an impact on the water quality.


## Approach for D etermining I mpairment

A waterbody is considered to not be attaining the FC bacteria standard when either provision of the standard is exceeded for the ―H arvesting for C onsumption Ra w M oll usks or Other Aquatic Life‖ marine
water use.


## Criteria for Marine Water Use for C oastal R ecreation Areas (Primary Contact)

The federal Beaches Environmental Assessment and Coastal Health (BEACH) Act of 2000 specifies the following water quality criteria for coastal recreation (primary contact) in marine waters:

Geometric mean of 35 e nterococci per 100 m l shall not be exceeded

.

Or

A single sample maximum (per 100 ml) of 158 enterococci shall not be exceeded.

This standard was promulgated by EPA for Alaska in 2004 and published in the Federal Register in 69 FR 67217

- 67243.



## Minimum N umber of S amples Required for Attainment or Impairment for Coastal Recreation Areas

At least two 30

- day sampling period s during a 2

- year period

, with a minimum of five samples in each 30

- day sampling period, are necessary to provide an adequate assessment and sampling period for coastal recreation (primary contact) areas in marine waters. In the 30

- day period, samples should not be grouped; instead, they should be reasonably spread over the 30

- day sampling period. However, two samples in one day are acceptable but should not be taken at the same sampling point . When exceedances are dependent on seasonal temperature conditions, heavy water use periods, or both, a seasonal period may be established for the impairment

. Laboratory M ethodology for Enterococci

The standard method (EPA Method 1600) for enterococci analysis must utilize the mEl medium or other method approved by EPA for CWA purposes.

Approach for D etermining I mpairment for the Marine Water Coastal Recreation (Primary Contact) Use Areas

The waterbody is considered impaired (e.g., persistent exceedances) when at least two 30

- day sampling periods demonstrate an exceedance of either provision of the criterion. Samples collected in two or more 30

- day sampling periods are not combined; instead

, they are examined separately for comparison with the standard.Alaska’s Final 2010 Integrated Report

I. Supplemental Listing Methodology



### 142 The recommended approach is that exceedances found in only one 30

- day sampling be followed with an additional 30

- day sampling p eriod during the same season of the next year to validate the persistence of the water quality impairment over a two year period.