October 23, 1997 Joseph A. Uravitch Coastal Programs Division (N/ORM3) Office of Ocean and Coastal Resource Management National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration 1305 East-West Highway Silver Spring, MD   20910 Dear Mr. Uravitch: The State of Alaska appreciates the opportunity to respond to the August 26, 1997 NOAA and EPA Final Draft Alaska Coastal Nonpoint Program Findings and Conditions. After consultation with the Department of Fish and Game, Department of Transportation and Public Facilities, Department of Natural Resources, and the Alaska Coastal Policy Council, the Division of Governmental Coordination and Department of Environmental Conservation have the following comments. The development of Alaska’s Coastal Nonpoint Program has been a challenging and important task. State evaluation of the fifty-five federal management measure that can be used to control sources of nonpoint pollution in coastal waters has been a valuable process for Alaskan’s as we seek to improve upon our existing programs. This effort has strengthened the network and communication among Alaska’s resource professionals who share responsibility for nonpoint pollution control. It has also raised public awareness about potential nonpoint pollution sources. We agree with the laudable goals set forth in the 1993 federal guidance on management measures. However, the mandate by NOAA and EPA that ALL measures be met is unrealistic and does not recognize that states have nonpoint priorities in place. The Department of Environmental Conservation recently completed an exhaustive two-year effort that: 1) identified water bodies in the State impaired by nonpoint source pollution; and the probable sources of the pollution; 2) identified general nonpoint source pollution concerns in the state; and 3) is developing a strategy for addressing those concerns and controlling the nonpoint pollution sources that are impairing the State’s waters. A draft of the State’s nonpoint source pollution control strategy, that includes elements of the Alaska Coastal Clean Water Plan, is attached. There is a noticeable disconnect between what Alaskans have identified as high priority and what NOAA and EPA identified in the conditions as high priority tasks. This is troubling to us. The State is fully engaged applying its resources to work on its own essential water quality priorities. We are committed to working with you to solve our priority problems, but we cannot afford to take on non-essential tasks or implement unfunded federal priorities that have limited benefit in Alaska. In this regard, we appreciate the additional attention NOAA and EPA gave to our research on the significance of agriculture, forest chemicals, forest fires and mechanized reforestation in Alaska’s coastal zone and agreement to exclude further conditions in these subcategories. Finally, we must mention that we cannot guarantee we can meet your implementation schedule. Our performance throughout this "6217 project" has demonstrated our serious commitment to maintaining Alaska coastal clean water. We will continue to make a good faith effort to meet mutually agreed upon conditions and time lines, and look forward to the on going discussion about realistic approaches to controlling nonpoint source pollution in Alaska’s coastal zone. We appreciate your further consideration of the following category specific comments. Forestry Alaska has in place one of the most comprehensive forest practices programs in the country. We are proud of our approach to managing forest practices on State and private land, and of our cooperative, on going, in State effort to improve this program. We appreciate NOAA’s and EPA’s consideration and recognition of the forest practices recommendations of Alaska’s Science and Technical Committee (S/TC) to refine our existing classification and management measures for certain streams. The recommended changes to the classification will result in more specific application of Alaska’s management measures to certain streams. It is important to note the fourth paragraph in your Rationale clarifies that stream side management areas (SMAs), as the term is used in the Section 6217(g) guidance, "do not necessarily have to be managed as no-cut zones." Therefore, the fifth paragraph should be changed to be consistent with this definition. For example, the statement "...[Alaska] do[es] not require . . . SMAs along water bodies that are not catalogued or determined by Fish and Game to contain or exhibit evidence of anadromous fish." is not accurate. Forest Practices Act (FPA) regulations require special management practices for roads, bridges, culverts and other water crossings; road maintenance; road closure; material extraction and disposal sites; and timber harvesting and yarding along all water bodies. In addition, to the required timbered buffers, these practices are important management measures Alaska has in place to control potential nonpoint source pollution from harvest units and roads. It is unclear how this process of preharvest planning fails to meet your management objective. The draft findings do not correctly represent Alaska’s timber harvest notification process. The initial timber Detail Plan of Operation is submitted to the State to notify agencies of harvests planned for private lands. It provides required information, including all known information on water bodies in the harvest area. Implementation of this process will be reviewed by the agencies for improvements. Given the remoteness, inaccessibility, and unfavorable seasonal conditions of Alaska’s forested lands, this early notification provides resource professionals an opportunity to review the proposal, any available agency information, and coordinate subsequent field visits to selected sites. By law, harvesting cannot occur until reasonable access is provided, all water bodies are marked in the field, site visits are coordinated and agency recommendations factored into a final plan. Having all the information up front in the initial notification would be ideal. However, given Alaskan realities, the process to supplement known information with field review before harvesting is allowed is a responsible approach to meet the objective. We would like to work with you to correct your presentation of the Alaska Forest Practices Act notification system. We would also like to discuss extending the proposed time line for implementation. As you may be aware, fulfilling the S/TC recommendations will require both statutory and regulatory actions. Given Alaska’s consensus approach to resolving forestry issues, a three year implementation time line is more realistic. Onsite Disposal Systems (OSDS) The condition that requires Alaska’s coastal nonpoint pollution program to include "enforceable policies and mechanisms to ensure implementation of the new . . . OSDS management measure . . ." is based on the NOAA and EPA finding that "exemptions in Alaska’s [domestic wastewater] program preclude the State from implementing the [new OSDS] measure throughout the 6217 management area." Although the domestic waste water program has been poked, pinched and reorganized over the past several years, it still applies statewide. We are curious how NOAA and EPA came to the conclusion that engineering and permitting requirements vary depending on location. Alaska has been, and is currently, revising the domestic waste water regulations and implementation mechanisms. The Department of Environmental Conservation is committed to protecting public health, but the Department cannot, and should not, be in everyone’s backyards for routine inspections of existing systems. Although the details of the new regulations and implementation procedures aren’t final yet, DEC is proceeding along a four-pronged approach to ensure that onsite disposal systems function safely. 1) Encourage local governments to take on more responsibility in regulating onsite disposal systems. DEC would retain over sight authority of local government programs. 2) Continue to certify installers of OSDS . DEC would continue to provide oversight and quality control. 3) Provide educational programs to onsite system owners directly and through partnering with the Cooperative Extension Service. 4) Provide lending institutions with information they can share with purchasers about what an onsite disposal system inspection, conducted by a state licensed engineer, should cover. DEC’s statutory authority to prevent the discharge of harmful waste water to the ground, surface waters or ground water backs all of these efforts. Because of the revisions to the domestic waste water regulations, some of the information in the Alaska Coastal Clean Water Plan is no longer current. We would like to meet with NOAA and EPA to discuss the direction of Alaska’s domestic waste water program, and how it meets the goal of the Operating Onsite Disposal System Management Measure. As a point of clarification, DEC only certifies septic system installers, not engineers. Engineers are certified by their professional organizations. Hydromodification We appreciate NOAA and EPA dropping the condition on dam maintenance that was in the October 1996 draft Findings. However, we would like to discuss further with you the condition on dam operation. Department of Fish and Game authority under AS 16.05.840 and AS 16.05.870(c)(2), Department of Natural Resources Public Interest Findings (AS 46.15.080) required before State water can be used, and Department of Environmental Conservation Section 401 certification prevent water quality and habitat impacts from occurring during dam operation. The Final Draft Findings says on page 12: "As acknowledged by the State, its program does not include a process to manage the operation of existing dams to protect surface water quality and instream and riparian habitat." We cannot find such a statement in the Alaska Coastal Clean Water Plan. The Department of Environmental Conservation’s water quality statutes, in addition to the Department of Fish and Game’s authority under AS 16.05.840 and .870 address these concerns. In the course of our two year investigation into nonpoint pollution sources in Alaska, no scientist, agency permitter or environmental organization mentioned dam operations as a source of significant nonpoint pollution in Alaska. Dams are being included in the update to the State wide nonpoint source pollution strategy because they are a required component of the Section 6217 program. This condition will require Alaska to use its limited resources on activities that have little water quality or habitat benefits. This ends the State of Alaska’s response to the NOAA and EPA Draft Final Alaska Coastal Nonpoint Pollution Control Program Findings and Conditions. We look forward to working with our federal partners over the next few months to arrive at mutually agreeable solutions to keep Alaska’s coastal waters clean. Yours truly, Diane Mayer Director Division of Governmental Coordination Office of the Governor Michael Conway Director Division of Air and Water Quality Department of Environmental Conservation Enclosure: Draft Alaska Nonpoint Source Pollution Control Strategy cc: Michele Brown, DEC John Shively, DNR Frank Rue, DFGM Robert Fagerstrom, Co-Chair Coastal Policy Council John Katz, Office of the Governor, D.C. Geoff Grubbs, EPA, D.C. Jeff Benoit, NOAA, D.C. Bill Milhauser, NOAA, D.C. Lee Daneker, EPA Region 10 Elbert Moore, EPA Region 10 Kristen Martin, EPA, Office of Wetlands, Oceans and Watersheds

Top of Page
End of Page

November 14, 1997 The Honorable Tony Knowles Governor of Alaska P.O. Box 110001 Juneau, AK 99811 Dear Governor Knowles: The Alaska Forest Association has been monitoring the EPA 6217 nonpoint source pollution program which proposes amendments to AS 41.17, the state’s Forest Resources and Practices Act (FPA). Together with some of our member companies, AFA has raised concerns about the inadequacy of the alleged evidence that the FPA needs significant revision. In fact, as you know, the combined industry and state agency effort on the Science and Technical Committee over the past two years has demonstrated that needed improvements are relatively minor in nature. Overall, the FPA has been very successful in protecting non-timber public resources, such as salmon habitat. I was therefore pleased to read the October 23, 1997, response from the Division of Governmental Coordination and the Department of Environmental Conservation to EPA’s and NOAA’s final draft Alaska Coastal Nonpoint Program Findings and Conditions. The forestry recommendations were accurate and to the point, and AFA concurs with them. You can be proud of the work your administration has done on this very important issue. Especially noteworthy in addressing the issues raised by NOAA and EPA were the efforts of Diane Mayer and Mike Conway. Please pass along to them AFA’s appreciation for their fine work. These are difficult times for the Alaska timber industry, and the problems raised for us by the myriad simultaneous regulatory actions are sometimes bewildering. The state’s help on issues such as this one is critical to keeping the industry viable. AFA is committed to continuing to work with your administration to deal with the various issues as they arise. Sincerely, Jack E. Phelps Executive Director cc: Butch DuRette, President George Woodbury, Issues Chairman John Sturgeon, Koncor Bob Loescher, Sealaska Mark Stahl, Chugach Ed Ward, Leisnoi Sen. Mike Miller Sen. Rick Halford Rep. Gail Phillips Rep. Bill Hudson Carl Portman, RDC

AFA Letter to Knowles
Top of Page