[From the U.S. Government Printing Office, www.gpo.gov]








































       D)AMNES & MOORE



HT
39 3
* A4
D36
1 995



















                 C.S. DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE NOAA
                 COASTAL SERVICES CENTER
                 2234 "3UTH HOESON AVENUE
                 CHARLESTON, SC 29405-2413




                   Property of CSC Library





                             FINAL REPORT
                      CUMULATIVE IMPACTS IN ALASKA:
                   WHERE THEY OCCUR AND HOW AGENCIES
                       AND DISTRICTS ADDRESS THEM

'~J ,GROUP DISCUSSION PROJECT
I



              ( DAMES & MOORE



                 CO ASEPTEMBER 29, 1995







             FINAL REPORT

   CUMULATIVE IMPACTS IN ALASKA:
WHERE THEY OCCUR AND HOW AGENCIES
     AND DISTRICTS ADDRESS THEM

      GROUP DISCUSSION PROJECT





                Prepared for

           Office of the Governor
    Division of Governmental Coordination
          240 Main Street, Suite 500
          Juneau, AK 99811-0030

              ASPS #01-95-011




                Prepared by

         DAMES & MOORE, INC.
           5600 B Street, Suite 100
           Anchorage, AK 99518




       Project Manager, Alison L. Smith
               (907) 562-3366








             September 29, 1995









        I                                 ~~~~~~~Acknowledgements



         Dames & Moore would like to thank all the agency and districts participants for their time and
         contributions to this report. We would also like to acknowledge the time and effort contributed
        by members of the Cumulative Impacts in Alaska Project Management Team.

U       ~~This report was prepared with financial assistance from the Office of Ocean and Coastal
        Resource Management, National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, under the provisions
        of Section 309 of the Coastal Zone Management Act Reauthorization Amendments of 1990. The
        views expressed herein are those of the participants in the group discussions and do not
3       ~~necessarily reflect the views of NOAA or any of its subagencies.




        I~~~~~~~~A







                                EXECUTIVE SUMMARY


The Alaska Coastal Management Program established standards and guidelines for local coastal
planning and review of proposed development projects in Alaska's coastal zone. The Alaska
Coastal Management Act refers to cumulative impacts (CIs) and calls for consideration of CIs
of development. The multi-year CIs Project was designed to define the problem, identify how
other states have approached the problem, and to describe the legal authorities. One phase of
the 1995 project included a formal individual survey of state agency and coastal district (district)
personnel in order to assess the methods presently used to identify, consider, and control CIs
of growth and development.  The Group Discussion component (this report) of the CIs Project
is intended to complement the individual survey portion completed in June, 1995 by HDR
Engineering, Inc. (HDR).

The group discussions provide an additional perspective to the questions asked in the HDR
survey, explore alternatives to better address CIs, and attempt to build bridges among agencies
in order to develop a common understanding of CIs. Thirty-six state agency and district
representatives participated in seven intra-agency and districts meetings. The one interagency/
districts meeting was attended by thirteen participants.

When asked to identify locations of CIs, the intra-agency and districts participants came up with
examples throughout the state, but primarily in the more populated regions. Some impacts, such
as sanitation problems and recreational and subsistence conflicts, occur in rural areas.

All participants were able to identify statutes and regulations which provide direction for
addressing impacts. Most named several other tools currently used to address CIs. There was
consensus that there are many existing tools which allow CIs to be analyzed and planned for,
but there was no consensus on how effective these tools are. The main reasons for failure of
these tools in the cases discussed were that they are not adequately addressing CIs, are not being
implemented, the agencies have not been trained in their application, or politics have intervened
in those cases where appropriate solutions have been proposed and consensus gained.

A general approach to addressing CIs was developed during the interagency/districts meeting.
The basic approach involves encouraging addressing CIs in local planning and appropriate
revisions to plans; updating statutes and regulations to address CIs; project reviews; monitoring
and compliance activities; and establishment of an interagency team to re-review the projects
when unforeseen impacts are discovered. Public education and participation are essential in local
planning, revisions to plans, and project review.







                       TABLE OF CONTENTS


Section                     Title                         Page

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY


1.0 INTRODUCTION ........................................ 1-1
   1.1 BACKGROUND ...................................... 1-1
   1.2 PROJECT DESCRIPTION ............................... 1-1
   1.3 PERSPECTIVES OF GROUP MEETINGS PARTICIPANTS .......... 1-2
   1.4 ORGANIZATION OF DOCUMENT ......................... 1-2

2.0 METHODOLOGY ........................................ 2-1


3.0 INTRA-AGENCY AND DISTRICTS, AND INTERAGENCY/DISTRICTS
   MEETINGS ............................................ 3-1
   3.1 LOCATIONS OF CUMULATIVE IMPACTS .    .      .................. 3-1
   3.2 TYPES OF IMPACTS WHICH COULD BE CUMULATIVE . . ... 3-2
   3.3 ACTIVITIES THAT CAN LEAD TO CUMULATIVE IMPACTS ..... 3-2
   3.4 EXISTING TOOLS USED TO ADDRESS CUMULATIVE IMPACTS .... 3-3
   3.5 DEFINITION AND ITS LOCATION ......................... 3-6
      3.5.1 Intra-agency and Districts Meetings ...................... 3-6
      3.5.2 Interagency/Districts Meeting .......................... 3-7

4.0 IDENTIFICATION OF COMMON THEMES AND AREAS OF
   DISAGREEMENT ........................................ 4-1
   4.1 LOCATIONS AND TYPES OF CUMULATIVE IMPACTS ........... 4-1
   4.2 ACTIVITIES THAT CAN LEAD TO CUMULATIVE IMPACTS . ...... 4-2
      4.2.1 Generic Causes .................................. 4-2
      4.2.2 Complicating Factors ............................... 4-2
   4.3 APPROACHES TO ADDRESSING CIs ....................... 4-3
      4.3.1 Current Approaches ................................ 4-3
      4.3.2 Other Suggested Approaches .......................... 4-4

5.0 PROPOSED APPROACH TO ADDRESSING CUMULATIVE IMPACTS ...... 5-1
   5.1 APPROACH FOR ADDRESSING CIs ........................ 5-1
   5.2 DISCUSSION OF PROPOSED APPROACH .................... 5-1


Cumulative Impacts Project Final Report             September 29, 1995








                           TABLE OF CONTENTS

Section                                     Title                                       Page

        5.2.1  Encourage Consideration of CIs in the Planning Process .......... 5-1
        5.2.2 Update Statutes and Regulations As Needed ................. 5-2
        5.2.3 Project Permitting Reviews ........................... 5-2
        5.2.4 Monitoring and Compliance ........................... 5-3
        5.2.5 Unforeseen CIs .................................. 5-3

6.0 METHODOLOGY EVALUATION AND RECOMMENDATIONS .                                 ......... 6-1
   6.1 POSITIVE ASPECTS OF THE METHODOLOGY ................. 6-1
   6.2 LIMITATIONS OF THE METHODOLOGY ..................... 6-1
   6.3 WHAT WAS LEARNED BY AGENCIES AND DISTRICTS) .......... 6-2
   6.4 FOLLOW-UP ........................................ 6-2

7.0 REFERENCES .......................................... 7-1
   7.1 BIBLIOGRAPHY ..................................... 7-1
   7.2 PARTICIPANTS ..................................... 7-2



                                  TABLES


Table 3-1     Examples of Management Guidance and Implementation Mechanisms
Table 3-2    Is A Definition of CIs Necessary?
Table 4-1     Suggested Approaches to Addressing CIs



                                APPENDICES

Appendix A Agendas for the Intra-Agency and Districts and Interagency/Districts Meetings
Appendix B   Intra-Agency and Districts and Interagency/Districts Meeting Summaries
Appendix C Agency and Districts Comment Letters on the Draft Report









September 29, 1995                                                Cumulative Impacts Project Final Report








                   LIST OF ACRONYMS AND ABBREVIATIONS


AAC          Alaska Administrative Code
ACMA         Alaska Coastal Management Act
ACMP         Alaska Coastal Management Program
BBCRSA       Bristol Bay Coastal Resource Service Area
BMPs         Best Management Practices
DCED         Department of Commerce and Economic Development
DEC          Alaska Department of Environmental Conservation
DFG          Alaska Department of Fish & Game
DGC          Alaska Division of Governmental Coordination
DNR          Alaska Department of Natural Resources
DOT&PF       Alaska Department of Transportation and Public Facilities
CAA          Clean Air Act
CEQ          Council on Environmental Quality
CERCLA       Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act
CIs          cumulative impacts
COE          U.S. Army Corps of Engineers
CSI          cumulative and secondary impacts
EIS          Environmental Impact Statement
EPA          U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
FPA          Forest Practices Act
FS           U.S. Forest Service
KPB          Kenai Peninsula Borough
NEPA         National Environmental Policy Act
NPDES        National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System
PCBs         polychlorinated biphenyls
PSD          Prevention of Significant Deterioration
TMDL         total maximum daily load
USFWS        U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service












Cumulative Impacts Project Final Report                                     September 29, 1995
                                          Ioli



                                                                                                            I

                                                                                                            I
                       TilS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK                                                       I


                                                                                                            I

                                                                                                            I

                                                                                                            I

                                                                                                            I

                                                                                                            I

                                                                                                            I

                                                                                                            I

                                                                                                            I

                                                                                                            I

                                                                                                            I

                                                                                                            I

                                                                                                            I

                                                                                                            I

                                                                                                            I

                                                                                                            I
September 29, 1995                                                      Cumulative Impacts Project Final Report1








                                  1.0 INTRODUCTION


1.1  BACKGROUND

The Alaska Coastal Management Program (ACMP) established standards and guidelines for local
coastal planning and review of proposed development projects in Alaska's coastal zone. The
Alaska Coastal Management Act (ACMA) refers to cumulative impacts (CIs) and calls for
consideration of CIs of development. The multi-year CIs Project was designed to define the
problem of addressing CIs, identify how other states have approached the problem, and to
describe the legal authorities.  One phase of the 1995 project involved surveying state agency
and coastal district (district) personnel in order to assess the methods presently used to identify,
consider, and control CIs of growth and development. The Group Discussion component of the
CIs Project is intended to complement the individual survey portion completed in June, 1995 by
HDR Engineering, Inc. (HDR).


1.2 PROJECT DESCRIPTION


The purpose of this component of the CIs Project was to hold group discussion meetings among
state agency and district personnel to learn more about where CIs occur, what causes them, how
CIs are addressed, potential solutions to better address CIs, and if a regulatory definition of CIs
is needed.  The group discussions were designed to provide followup to a report produced by
HDR as part of the broader effort to deal with the issue of CIs. The HDR report resulted from
a formal telephone survey of state agency and district personnel. The survey was an attempt to
identify what CIs are occurring and where, how districts and agencies currently address them,
and to evaluate the overall effectiveness of existing techniques, as well as provide suggestions
and recommendations on how to further address the issues.  The group discussions addressed
in this report provide an additional perspective to the questions asked in the HDR survey,
explore alternatives to better address CIs, and attempt to build bridges among agencies to
develop a common understanding of CIs.


This project involved interactive discussions on what districts and agencies see as the on-the-
ground issues related to CIs and what can be done to better address them both within and outside
of the ACMP.   The participants included:  the Departments of Natural Resources (DNR),
Environmental Conservation (DEC), Fish and Game (DFG), Commerce and Economic
Development (DCED), and Transportation and Public Facilities (DOT&PF); the Division of
Governmental Coordination (DGC); and the coastal districts. Each agency and the districts
conducted their own internal group discussions, and a interagency/districts meeting was held to


Cumulative Impacts Project Final Report                                           September 29, 1995
                                            1-1







share the results, determine areas of agreement and disagreement, and explore possible1
approaches for addressing Cls.

1.3 PERSPECTIVES OF GROUP MEETINGS PARTICIPANTS

The six state agencies and the coastal districts all bring different perspectives to the group
discussion project. DN-R's mandate is to promote the wise use of the state's land and resources,3
and they acknowledge development of resources does result in unavoidable impacts to qualitative
values. The functions and mandates of DFG and DEC are to enhance and protect fish and
wildlife populations and habitat and to protect land and resources from various forms ofI
pollution, respectively. DOT&PF develops transportation infrastructure for communities,
creating positive and potentially negative impacts in the process. DGC, a coordinating body,1
has an interest in seeing that statutes and regulations are properly implemented. DCED, as a
development-oriented agency, looks at CIs in the context of how they slow development and3
diminish economic opportunities. The districts represent local (district-wide) interests, which,
in Alaska, can include a wide spectrum of values.

An agency's mandate affects how they define Cls and dictates their approach to identifying and
addressing Cls. What an agency or one segment of a community considers a positive impact3
(benefit) may be considered a negative impact (detriment) by other agencies or segments of the
community.3

1.4 ORGANIZATION OF DOCUMEENT

This report describes results of the group discussions. The following topics are covered in this
report.I

      0 Section 2describes project methodology and why this approach was used3
            (purpose and objectives of informal group discussions), the roles of group
            participants, project management team, and consultant, and the format for agency
            and district meetings.I

      0      Section  3  includes  an  overview  of  the  intra-agency  and  districts  and
            interagency/districts meetings and provides a synthesis of the group meeting
            summaries.3





September 29, 1995                       12Cumulative Impacts Project Final Report 






                   *   Section  4  identifies common  themes  and  areas  of disagreement  regarding
                       addressing Cls that emerged from the group discussions.

                   *   Section 5 describes a proposed approach for addressing Cls developed in the
   3                    ~~~~~~interagency/districts meeting.

                   *   Section 6 provides an evaluation of the value of the informal group discussions
   I                  ~     ~~~~~as a method for addressing issues of concern to ACM? participants.


















~~~~~uuaiv  patPrjcFiaReot13Spmbr2,95



                                                                                        I

                                                                                        I
                  THIlS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANKI


                                                                                        I

                                                                                        I

                                                                                        I

                                                                                        I

                                                                                        I

                                                                                        I

                                                                                        I




                                                                                        I

                                                                                        I

                                                                                        I

                                                                                        I

                                                                                        I

                                                                                        I
September 29, 1995                                                    Cumulative Impacts Project Final Report







         1                                 ~~~~~~2.0MEHDLG

I       ~~This section describes the project methodology and why this approach was used; the roles of
         group participants, project management team, and consultant; and the format for the meetings.
3       ~~This chapter also explains how the information derived from the group meetings was used.

5       ~~The project involved informal group discussions within state agencies and districts and a final
         group discussion with representatives from the participating state agencies and two districts. The
         meetings were held to increase understanding of issues both within and outside the ACMP about

         hurdles in addressing Cls. These group discussions were documented and a summary of the
         perspectives of participants was written.
         An agenda for the intra-agency and districts meetings was developed by the Cumulative Impacts
3       ~~Project Management Team. The agenda is included in Appendix A. The emphasis of the intra-
         agency and districts meetings was to explore Cls with discussions of actual impacted sites to gain
         a better understanding of cumulative impact problems and issues. Each management team
I     ~     ~member was responsible for distributing the intra-agency or districts meeting agenda to the
         participants from their agency or the districts, and for facilitating the meeting.

         The participants were expected to prepare for the meeting by thinking about specific sites where

I       ~~there are issues or problems involving Cls and to identify those impacts and their causes.  In
         addition, participants were asked to discuss existing procedures, policies, planning processes,
         and monitoring and compliance programs used to address impacts. They were also asked to
I     ~     ~come up with other potential solutions based on what was learned from the discussions of
         specific sites.

         The consultant assisted (in some cases) in facilitating the meeting, documented the discussions,

I       ~~prepared a written draft summary of the meeting for review by the appropriate management team
         member, and finalized the summary. The intra-agency and districts meeting summaries are
         included in this report as Appendix B.

         The agenda for the interagency/districts meeting, held September 8, 1995, was developed by the
I       ~~consultant with input from the Project Management Team. This agenda is included in Appendix
         A. The revised agenda was distributed to the Project Management Team for their use and

I       ~~conveyance to additional participants from their agencies. The meeting was to be facilitated by
         the consultant. This meeting was primarily designed to flesh out the areas of consensus and

         disagreement among the participants and to explore recommendations for better addressing Cls.


         Cumulative Impacts Project Final Report              21September 29, 1995







A secondary goal was to bring agency and district representatives together to work toward a
common understanding of Cls. The summary of the interagency/districts meeting is included

in Appendix B.

Most meetings were well attended. There were 36 participants in attendance and 14
teleconference attendees for a total of 50 agency/district representatives participating in the seven
intra-agency and districts meetings. The interagency/districts meeting was attended by 13
participants and two consultants. The participants are listed in Section 7.2.

The information from the meeting summaries forms the basis of this report and supports the 
discussion of areas of consensus and disagreement between agencies and districts.   The
summaries have been synthesized into the overview presented in Section 3 and the discussion1
of common themes and areas of disagreement in Section 4.

















                        September 29,    1995    2-2          Cu m ulat~iveIpcsPoetFnlRpr







      I                           ~~~~~~3.0 INTRA-AGENCY AND) DISTRICTS,
                              AND INTERAGENCY/DISTRICTS MEETINGS

         This section includes an overview of the intra-agency and districts meetings, the
3 ~~interagency/districts meeting, and provides a synthesis of the group meeting summaries. The
         main topics include locations of impacts, types of impacts, causes of Cls, and the need and
5       ~~location for a definition.

I ~3.1 LOCATIONS OF CUMULATIVE IMPACTS

         When asked to identify specific impacted areas, the intra-agency and districts participants named
3       ~~examples throughout the state, but primarily in the populated and industrial/commercial regions.
         Some impacts, such as sanitation, recreational conflicts, and subsistence-related Cls, occur in
         rural areas. Erosion problems along the Matanuska River were identified in several meetings.
         Other specific sites of Cls were identified in the following areas.

   I                   ~~~~~~Municipality of Anchorage (wetlands fill1, water and air quality),

   3                   ~~~~~~City and Borough of Juneau (wetlands fill, water and air quality, habitat loss,
                       changes in recreational values),

   I            *      ~~~~~Kenai River (habitat degredation or loss),


   I                   ~~~~~~North Slope (air quality, habitat loss, subsistence),

   3                   ~~~~~~Tongass Narrows (intertidal fill),

   3                   ~~~~~~Communities throughout Alaska (failed septic systems, water quality, resource
                       use),

   1                   ~~~~~~Southeast Alaska - Logging (water quality, loss of recreational values, habitat
                       loss),

                    *  Unalaska Region (water quality), and

   1                   ~~~~~~Interior Alaska - Mining (habitat loss, water quality).




3        ~~Cumulative Impacts Project Final Report               31September 29, 1995








3.2  TYPES OF IMPACTS WHICH COULD BE CUMULATIVE

The following listing of specific types of impacts affecting Alaska was developed as a result of
the seven intra-agency and districts meetings. The list is not segregated by agency/district
because several were mentioned in more than one meeting.


   *  Erosion                                      *  Impacts to the human built
   ï¿½ Water quality degradation                        environment/loss of structures
   ï¿½  Habitat changes               a                 Conflicts between subsistence/
   ï¿½  Loss/degradation of fish and wildlife           recreational/commercial use of
      habitat                                         resources
   ï¿½ Loss of productivity                          *  Soil alteration
   ï¿½  Loss of wilderness                           *  Changes in aquatic habitat
   *  Visual impacts                               *  Air quality degradation
   *  Recreation conflicts                         *  Terrestrial and groundwater
   *  Conflicts of mining/logging with                contamination
      commercial and subsistence fisheries        ï¿½  Water quality violations (high fecal
   ï¿½ Chemical/pollutant releases                      coliform)
   ï¿½ Alteration of local hydrology/flooding        *  Loss of nearshore habitat
   ï¿½ Habitat fragmentation                         *  Noise
   *  Storm water runoff pattern changes           *  Loss of transportation corridors
   ï¿½ Loss of forest land to other uses

3.3  ACTIVITIES THAT CAN LEAD TO CUMULATIVE IMPACTS


The following listing of specific causes of CIs was developed during the meetings. They are not
segregated by agency/district because there were similarities between meetings on the causes of
CIs. It is not meant to be all inclusive, but to reflect information brought out in the intra-agency
and districts meetings.


   *  Shortage of flat (buildable) land            ï¿½  User conflicts
   ï¿½ Wetlands fill                                 ï¿½  Infrastructure construction to support
   ï¿½  Increasing population/use of resources population and     community growth
   ï¿½ Constructing structures in                    ï¿½ Industrial runoff
      inappropriate locations                     *  Soil alteration from road construction
   *  Removal of vegetation                        *  Timber harvest (removal of biomass)
   *  Increased use of recreational resources  ï¿½      Surface runoff




September 29, 1995                                                 Cumulative Impacts Project Final Report








   *  Changes in vegetation composition           *  Poor plumbing practices
      and structure                               *  Lack of maintenance on oil/water
   *  Tree blowdowns resulting in fish kills         separators
      due to lack of shading                      *  Conflicting uses of waterbodies
   ï¿½  Mining                                      *  Competition for ocean resources
   *  Transportation                              *  Introduction of exotic species
   *  Many small fuel spills                      *  Genetic impact of ranched versus wild
   ï¿½  Burning of hydrocarbons for electrical         populations mixing and affecting wild
      generation                                     population survival in natural streams
      Use of wood stoves                          *  Commercial fishing boat discharges
   *  Cruise ship exhaust                         *  Overfishing
   *  Lack of communication between               *  Flight-seeing in wilderness areas
      developers and contractors regarding        *  Log storage
      permit stipulations                         *  Log transfer facilities preclude other
   *  Lack of constant agency presence               use of locations
      throughout construction                     *  Inability of agencies to say no to more
   *  Lack of permitting                             fill
   *  Lack of consensus about what is             *  Mining tailings disposal
      enough loss                                 ï¿½  Road construction and lack of
   ï¿½  Lack of baseline information                   maintenance
   ï¿½  Lack of knowledge about sensitivity of      ï¿½  Placer mining
      biological systems (threshold criteria)     ï¿½  Oil field displacement of subsistence
   ï¿½  On-site sewer systems                          activities
   ï¿½ Seafood processing discharges

3.4  EXISTING TOOLS USED TO ADDRESS CUMULATIVE IMPACTS

All participants were able to identify at least one statute which provides direction for addressing
impacts. Most named several tools currently used to address impacts, with DGC producing a
lengthy list comprised of statutes, procedures, policies, planning processes, and monitoring and
compliance. Table 3-1 lists these tools by agency. There was agreement that there are many
existing processes for analysis of impacts and proactive planning. The reasons given for failure
of these tools in the cases discussed were that the tools were not being implemented, the
agencies have not been trained in their application, or politics have intervened in those cases
where appropriate solutions have been proposed and consensus gained. In some cases, agency
authorities (tools) do not reach through the necessary levels to get to issues which could be
addressed through local land use planning.  A number of participants stated that the existing
tools are not sufficient, even if implemented fully.



Cumulative Impacts Project Final Report                                         September 29, 1995
                                            3-3









                                                                      TABLE 3-1
                    EXAMPLES OF MANAGEMENT GUIDANCE AND IMPLEMENTATION MECHANISMS1


Tools Agency              Statutes                     Procedures                      Policies                Planning Processes             Monitoring &
                                                                                                                                         Compliance
Coastal           Clean Water Act,            Section 404, Title 16, local                                 ACMP District Plans,           Under 404, permits
Districts         ACMP                        wetlands permitting, park                                    Comprehensive Planning,
                                           use, floodplain, 401                                         Wetlands Management
                                                                                                      Planning, Title 29, Capital
                                                                                                      Improvement Planning,
                                                                                                      rezonings, variance
                                                                                                      reviews, drainage
                                                                                                      improvement plans,
                                                                                                      watershed management,
                                                                                                      U.S. Forest Service
                                                                                                      (USFS) Management
                                                                                                      Plans, DNR Area Plans
DNR               Forest Practices Act        AS 38.05.035 Decision-           DOG "G List",               Planning under the FPA,
                 (FPA), Senate Bill 308     Making Process, Project           Professional Judgement    Pre-project Planning,
                 (1994), House Bill 169    Scoping, Public Notice and                                     Reclamation Planning
                 (1995)                     Involvement Process,
                                           Shellfish Farm Permitting
                                           Program, permit review
DEC               National Environmental    ACMP Review Process, Plan    Education of contractors                                         Sampling programs,
                 Policy Act (NEPA),         review, permit review,                                                                       monitoring under the
                 ACMP, Clean Air Act        Interagency review groups,                                                                   PSD program/air
                 (CAA)                      total maximum daily load                                                                     quality, monitoring of
                                           (TMDL), CAA Title V Major                                                                   contractors on large
                                           Source permitting, Prevention                                                               projects, funding
                                           of Significant Deterioration                                                                necessary for
                                           (PSD) Project Review,                                                                       monitoring throughout
                                           Subdivision review, Best                                                                    life of long-term
                                           Management Practices                                                                        projects










                                                                  TABLE 3-1 (Cont.)
                    EXAMPLES OF MANAGEMENT GUIDANCE AND IMPLEIENTATION MECHANISMS1


Tools Agency              Statutes                      Procedures                        Policies                Planning Processes              Monitoring &
                                                                                                                                          Compliance
DGC               FPA, ACMP, Clean             Aerial photo comparison,           Informed consent policy    Municipal Planning, USFS    USFS area-wide
                 Water Act (Section 404)   wetlands fill permitting, Best    of Corps, DFG                   forest plans, Areas             monitoring, NPDES
                                            Management Practices under        interdisciplinary team       Meriting Special Attention    monitoring, ADEC
                                            FPA, stipulations on federal      for early involvement in   plans, Harbor Management    water quality
                                            timber sales, National            NEPA reviews,                Plans, Plans of Operations    monitoring in timber
                                            Pollutant Discharge               professional judgement       for Mining, DNR area            harvest areas,
                                            Elimination System (NPDES)                                     plans, regional hatchery        enforcement
                                            point and non-point source                                     plans, Municipal
                                            permitting, batch processing                                   Comprehensive Plans
                                            mariculture permits, TMDL,
                                            DEC General Permit for float
                                            camps
DCED              ACMP, NEPA                                                      User fees                    Title 29 powers-land use
                                                                                                        planning
DOT&PF            NEPA                                                            CEQ Guidelines

DFG               Resources Planning Act,   DNR permitting
                 National Forest
                 Management Act,
                 NEPA, Clean Water
                 Act (Section 404),
                 Endangered Species Act


              The above mechanisms were identified in the context of the discussions on specific sites and geographic areas, the table is not intended to be a comprehensive list of
              all existing mechanisms.








3.5  DEFINITION AND ITS LOCATIONI


The discussion of a CI definition took place at both the intra-agency and districts meetings andI
the interagency/districts meeting. Because there was an evolution of opinion on this issue, the
results of the meetings are presented in the following two subsections.3


3.5.1  Intra-agency and Districts Meetings3


Almost everyone participating in these meetings agreed that a definition is necessary in
regulation. Table 3-2 illustrates the various opinions regarding a regulatory definition by
agency. DCED disagreed with developing a definition in Alaska law or regulation because one
already exists in federal regulation. They thought that another regulation is probably not3
necessary and additional regulations would tend to constrain an agency's ability to operate.


                                         TABLE 3-2I
                        IS A DEFINITION OF CUs NECESSARY?


  Agency    Definition         In                                   Comments
           necessary?    ACMP?91                                          
   CD          Yes           Yes      The local perspective needs to be integrated into any definition.  If a
                                  definition is adopted into the ACMP, it should allow districts to further
                                  define and develop a framework at the local level.
   DNR          Yes           No       The definition has to mesh with current DNR processes.  Analysis
                                  parameters need to be defined to prevent law suits, but not so strictly
                                  as to reduce flexibility.  DNR's authorities go beyond the geographicI
                                  boundaries of the ACMP.
   DEC          Yes           Yes     There needs to be a regulatory definition of adverse Cls. The ACMP
                                  would contain a minimum standard and the agencies and districts couldI
                                  refine the definition to apply to their responsibilities and to local
                                  interests.
   DGC          Yes           Yes      A definition would need to describe the kinds of Cls, geographic3
                                  scope, watershed, time period, as parameters for project analysis.
  DCED          No           N/A      A definition is already in federal regulation.  More regulations just
                                  constrain agencies ability to operate.I
 DOT&PF          Yes          Yes      A  definition would have to be consistent with the federal CEQ
           DFG  Y    e    s        ~guidelines/definition.3
         DFG   Yes          ~~~Yes    Cls need to be defined in regulation and the ACMP should be used for
                                  a place to house guidelines.







September 29, 1995                                   3-6                     Cumulative Impacts Project Final ReportI







I       ~~The district participants felt that a definition is necessary and thought that if a definition is
         incorporated into the ACMP planning regulations, it should allow districts to further define and
I     ~     ~develop a framework at the local level to reflect the local perspective and value system.  DEC
         felt that land management agencies should be the driving force in controlling CIs. DGC
3 ~~commented that a definition would limit the ability of the court system to define the term
         through case law, and that it would provide sideboards for consideration of CIS during project
5       ~~reviews, resulting in fewer arguments within and among permitting agencies.

         DNR's perspective on the need for a definition was not consistent among the divisions. Some
I       ~~divisions believe that without a specific definition and guidelines, the agency is open to
         litigation, with the courts proceeding to define the parameters involved in the definition. Some
3       ~~believe no definition is necessary because a specific definition of parameters would take away
         flexibility they believe is necessary to be effective.

I       ~~All those who agreed a definition is necessary, except DN-R, think it should reside in the ACMP
         regulations. The divisions within DNR do not agree among themselves that a definition in
3       ~~regulation is necessary, but those who do agree that DNR has administrative authorities which
         extend beyond the ACMP, and DNR's physical authorities cover the entire state, not just the
3       ~~coastal zone.  According to DN-R, the agency with authority to implement change is where
         management of CIs should rest. DNR does not want to see development of another system to
         deal with CIs, adding another layer to the already unwieldy permitting process. The current

         framework should be sufficient.

3       ~~DOT&PF believes that a definition is necessary and they routinely work under the definition
         specified in the Council on Environmental Quality (CEQ) regulations. These regulations are
3       ~~implemented via the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) review process.

         Some participants feel that the CEQ definition would be sufficient, but there is a body of case
I     ~     ~law that would not be included if the State adopted the federal definition.

I       ~~3.5.2  Interagency/Districts Meeting

         The group was not able to come to agreement on whether a definition of CIs is necessary in
         regulation or statute. Most leaned away from the establishment of a definition in ACMP statute
         or regulation. While DNR's perspective of the need for a definition was not consistent among
         divisions, Division of Lands (this meeting's participant) maintains that no definition is necessary,
         and that other state programs already provide for consideration of impacts, including those which



         ICumulative Impacts Project Final Report       3-7                                 September 29, 1995







may be cumulative.  A specific definition would take away flexibility they believe is necessary 
to be effective.

The districts participants felt that a definition is necessary which should allow districts to further
define and develop a framework to reflect the local perspective. One district participant felt that3
a NEPA-like process in state regulations would provide a forum for discussion on a project-
specific basis for the agencies and districts.

DCED felt that there should be an advisory that Cls should be "considered" but that any
guidance should be free of jargon and understandable.  They do not want another layer ofI
regulation when there is already a definition in federal regulation.

One DGC participant felt that guidance and legal direction are both needed for consideration of
Cls, but not necessarily in definition form. This could possibly take the form of an ACMP
standard which could give specific direction to districts and agencies. Another DGC participant
felt that it would be nice to have a definition which could be embellished by districts and
individual agencies and warned that, in the absence of a definition, the courts will eventuallyU
proscribe how Cls are to be addressed.

DFG wondered why a definition should be established for Cls when the term is not used or is
infrequently used in the ACMP statute and regulations. They asked why an ACMP definition
should be developed without clear, substantive guidance in statute or regulation to consider Cls.
They also commented that the relationship of an ACMP definition to other authorities would
need to be evaluated. DEC felt that the federal definition should be adopted. DOT&PF alreadyU
addresses Cls through the NEPA process and has maintained that activities under the ACMP are
also subject to NEPA and therefore the CEQ definition of Cls.I

















September 29, 1995                             3-8                   Cumulative Impacts Project Final Report1







4.0 IDENTIFICATION OF COMMON THEMES AND AREAS OF DISAGREEMENT

Section 4 identifies common themes and areas of disagreement specifically related to locations,
types of CIs, and causes of CIs that emerged from the group discussions. Also discussed are
current tools used by districts and agencies to address CIs, as well as additional suggested
approaches.

4.1 LOCATIONS AND TYPES OF CUMULATIVE IMPACTS


There was general consensus that CIs occur primarily in urban areas and localities where
commercial and industrial activities take place. Some impacts, however, occur in rural areas
and result from activities such as sanitation, recreation, subsistence, and timber harvesting.  In
terms of distribution, CIs occur across the state and in every region. Some types of CIs are
common across regions regardless of how they are measured.


DOT&PF and DCED have different perspectives on CIs from the resource agencies, DGC, and
the districts. DCED commented that they perceive CIs as they relate to conflicting uses, such
as log transfer facilities versus mariculture. Locational aspects of CIs therefore relate to one
economic activity competing with another.  DOT&PF's perspective results from being in a
situation where their agency is proposing projects and they have very specific regulations to
follow due to federal funding of their projects. Those regulations require DOT&PF to determine
significance of possible impacts which can be based on location. The resource agencies, DGC,
and districts identified locations of CIs (DNR uses the term "impacts") as those areas
experiencing growth of the human population and industrial/commercial activities.   Also
identified were areas where harvesting occurs, specifically timber harvest.

All participants agreed that CIs are real and listed types of CIs. Most agreed that CIs are not
being addressed in a manner which achieves any noticeable goal. DNR believes that most CIs
(considered "impacts") are adequately addressed by their current review processes. Issues
related to large projects tend to get attention and are addressed due to public interest but some
may not be adequately addressed. Smaller projects tend to get passed over, or not reviewed at
all, but many small projects can add up to substantial CIs.










Cumulative Impacts Project Final Report        4-1                                  September 29, 1995







4.2  ACTIVITIES THAT CAN LEAD TO CUMULATIVE IMPACTSI


4.2.1  Generic Causes 

The following generic causes of Cls were abstracted from the intra-agency and districts
meetings.

Infrastructure Development: Infrastructure includes docks, wetlands fill, roads, bridges, sewerI
and water systems and associated outfalls, log transfer facilities, and other community support
facilities. 

Industrial Development:  Development of facilities to support industries such as oil and gas,3
seafood processing related facilities, and electrical generation can lead to numerous facilities in
a specific location resulting in Cls.3

Human Disturbances: Damage to the human-built environment (buildings, bridges, etc.) results
when construction occurs in inappropriate locations. The Cls of this type of development have3
a different kind of negative impact (e.g., economic) and are impacts which need to be dealt with
at the local level.3

User Conflicts and Increasing Use of Remote Areas: Conflicts can develop over use of
remote areas when users have competing expectations.  Use of remote locations by boaters,I
commercial and sport fishers, and other recreationalists is increasing and is creating a reduction
in the quality of the wilderness experience.  Conflicts can also occur between recreational and3
subsistence activities and use of resources.

Resource Extraction, Exploitation, and Use: This topic includes mining for minerals and
construction materials, oil and gas, fisheries, agriculture, and forest harvest. Numerous fish
processing facilities at a location or several mines in one watershed can lead to CIs due to
overuse of the area.

4.2.2 Complicating Factors

Resource agencies, DGC, and districts representatives described factors which frustrate their
ability to address Cls. These factors were discussed in the interagency/districts and intra-agency

and districts meetings and are listed and discussed below.




September 29, 1995                            4-2                   Cumulative Impacts Project Final Report







Lack of clarity in statutes and regulations: DFG, DEC, DGC, and the districts agreed that
there is currently a lack of statutory/regulatory authority for addressing CIs. DOT&PF firmly
disagrees that there is no guidance and has described a process of identification of significant
impacts, and analysis of CIs as a subset under those impacts, through the NEPA process. DNR
looks at impacts through their existing statutory and regulatory processes, such as Alaska
Statutes 38.05.035 Decision Making Process, which describes the issue identification, public
involvement, and project analysis process DNR uses to analyze potential permitting and project
approval actions. They say most of the problems in development of resources deal with
qualitative impacts which are difficult to quantify.

Lack of monitoring and compliance activities: All participants agreed by the end of the
interagency/districts meeting that not enough monitoring and related compliance activities are
funded or conducted. These activities need to be realistically designed and be tied to specific
standards or regulations.

Lack of baseline information for understanding causes and effects of CIs specific to a
location or resource: Baseline information is necessary to develop an understanding of impacts
to resources. DEC, DFG, DGC, and the districts agreed that scientific baseline information
provides a basis for defining biological attributes.  This information can then be used for
establishing thresholds.

Lack of regulation or review of some activities: DEC specifically stated in the intra-agency
meeting that numerous smaller activities which may build up to CIs are not required to go
through agency review. Some of these activities are on the A and B lists to expedite permitting
and go through little or no agency review. In the interagency/districts meeting most agencies,
except DEC, agreed that more types of projects need to be included on the A and B lists. This
is a significant disagreement between agencies. DEC, however, also pointed out that General
Permits (GP) for routine activities can increase control by specifying best management practices
and stipulations on activities covered by the GPs.

4.3  APPROACHES TO ADDRESSING CIs

4.3.1  Current Approaches


Table 3-1 presents approaches currently available for use in addressing CIs at the state and
district levels. These were identified in the intra-agency and districts meetings as current
processes for addressing CIs. These processes consist of existing statutes and regulations
utilized as guidance on how to use tools such as procedures, policies, and planning processes.


Cumulative Impacts Project Final Report       4-3                                September 29, 1995








4.3.2  Other Suggested Approaches


Table 4-1 lists other approaches suggested by agency and districts participants during the intra-
agency and districts meetings. Each topic was proposed as a method for addressing impacts and,
more specifically, CIs.


Permitting Checklist: A permitting checklist could consist of a one-page description of issues
which need to be addressed in each review. DEC and DGC both mentioned use of a checklist
in the initial stages of project review as a way to ensure consideration of the range of issues
related to CIs. DOT&PF already uses a checklist as part of their NEPA environmental review
process.

Land Use Planning: Most participants agreed that CIs are best addressed through the planning
process.  This may include comprehensive planning, coastal district planning, or other state,
regional, and local level efforts. Agencies should participate in plan review and revision to
ensure consistency with statutes and regulations, as well as the enforceability of policies.


Best Professional Judgement: An approach should be developed to agree upon the use of "best
professional judgement" to estimate biological thresholds.  In the case of most biological
systems, there is often no measurable indication of an adverse impact (or many) until the system
crashes.  Impact avoidance and minimization is much more effective and cost efficient in
protecting habitat than attempting to reverse damage once it has occurred. DFG and DGC felt
that allowing professionals to use their judgement and experience in projecting impacts during
project review would be an appropriate method of addressing CIs.

Agency Training: Agencies need to train personnel in their departments overall authorities and
develop a knowledge base within their staff. Additional training would result in better
communication, enabling more up-front exchange of information and a clearer understanding of
projects and their impacts. DCED thought that staff training in meeting facilitation and conflict
resolution would improve agencies' ability to present information and develop consensus.

Public Education/Involvement: DFG, DNR, and DGC all agree that local understanding and
support is a necessary component of any approach to dealing with CIs, whether through
involvement in local planning or input into project review. The key to success is to develop
support for any suggested methods for addressing CIs within the local community.  Local
education can also produce a populace that understands CIs, knows how to identify them, and
has a positive input into the process to prevent or control them.



September 29, 1995                           4-4                   Cumulative Impacts Project Final Report








          I                                       ~~~~~~~~~TABLE 4-1
                           SUGGESTED APPROACHES TO ADDRESSING Cls



   3                ~~~~~       ~~Issue  CDI  DNR   DEC   DGC IDCEDIDOTPFI  DFG

           Permitting Checklist                             /        / 

           Land Use Planning/Agency      /                 // 
I       ~ ~~~Participation
           Best Professional Judgement                                                              /

I         ~~~~Agency Training                     X                           V                     /r

           Public Education!/                                        /                              /
           Involvement
           Periodically Review and                          V0 V 
           Update Plans/Agency
           Participation
           Holistic Approach!/                 V              
3         ~~~Interagency Working Groups

           Identify' Development                  V                        v f          V  v
           Thresholds

           Address Cls on Sub-Area       / 
           Basis


         Periodically Review and Update Plans/Agency Participation: Local plans should be
3       ~~periodically evaluated and updated to reaffirmn or modify goals and objectives, and update
         enforceable policies to reflect changes. Agencies should participate in review of updates to
3        ~~ensure consistency with statutes and regulations, as well as enforceability of policies.


         Holistic Approach/Interagency Working Groups: A holistic view could be developed from
3        ~~early identification of issues and public involvement and comment. Interagency working groups
         were identified as one approach. These could provide for pre-planning and information sharing,
         analysis of potential projects from many viewpoints and areas of expertise, and coordination of
         the permitting process.


I        ~~Identify Development Thresholds:  Development thresholds are a level of development that a
         community has decided beyond which impacts from additional development are unacceptable.
         Development thresholds could be implemented at the community level to give developers
         predictability. Threshold criteria for biological systems are difficult to identify, however, and
         once you have developed a threshold, there needs to be clear guidance on how to proceed. A



I        ~~~Cumulative Impacts Project Final Report     4-5                                 September 29, 1995








legal mandate, such as the ability to stop development or specify a maximum number of projects
in a certain area, would need to be in place for action upon reaching the threshold. Until a
substantive legal requirement exists, however, no matter how good the CI analysis is, the
political pressures for jobs and economic development will continue to make control of CIs
ineffective.  DOT&PF commented that this process is already carried out via their review
process and that it is contained in regulations in the CEQ "significance test."


Address CIs on a Sub-Area Basis: DFG stated in their intra-agency meeting that addressing
CIs on a project-by-project basis is a recipe for habitat loss. A proactive approach would
involve identifying the values of a region or area (possibly defined by watershed), establishing
development and protection goals for the area, and determining the mechanisms necessary to
successfully implement these goals. Examples include Areas Meeting Special Attention, Harbor
Management Plans, and Special Areas Studies.


The coastal districts have found that regional planning does not necessarily address issues in
specific areas or sites of concern. CIs are much more effectively addressed on a subarea basis
where there are specific impacts that require more specific management direction. For example,
the DFG has completed a comprehensive survey of CIs along the Kenai River. Habitat along
the river was assessed and existing problems quantified. This study can then be used as a basis
for review and analysis of future development proposals along the river.



























September 29, 1995                            4-6                  Cumulative Impacts Project Final Report







 I            ~~5.0 PROPOSED APPROACH TO ADDRESSING CUMULATIVE IMPACTS

I       ~~This section presents a methodology for addressing Cls developed by the participants of the
         September 8, 1995 Interagency/Districts meeting. The process is first presented in outline form,
I       ~~then each step is described in detail, with comments from participants.

3       ~5.1  APPROACH FOR ADDRESSING Cls

                I .    Encourage Consideration of CIs in the Planning Process
                11.    Update Statutes and Regulations as Needed
                III.    Project Permitting Reviews
                IV.    Monitoring and Compliance
                V.     Unforeseen Cls

I       ~5.2  DISCUSSION OF PROPOSED APPROACH

1       ~~5.2.1  Encourage Consideration of Cls in the Planning Process

         It was the general consensus of the group that addressing CIs at the state level is difficult. CIs
         are best addressed at the local level during planning. Local implementation could be through
         planning, local land use regulations (Title 29) because those who live in an area best know its
         resources and where they are willing to compromise, project review (possibly through a checklist
         used by the coastal district), and through site specific assessments such as the DFG Kenai River
I     ~     ~Study.  Tools available at the local level include the ACMP and comprehensive plans, as well
         as limiting development via zoning and local land use controls.

         Several recommendations came out of this portion of the discussion. Ensuring that any changes
         in plans do not conflict with other applicable plans is crucial. Public education and information
         needs to occur concurrent with plan revisions in order to bring the public into the decision-
         making process. The public has to understand what Cls are and how to identify them, in order
I     ~     ~to assist planners to pro-actively address Cls. Guidance would include techniques on how to
         look for use conflicts, analyzing the sensitivity of where permits are being issued, and listing
I       ~~types of activities known to cause Cls.  The amendment process for district plans should be
         streamlined due to a long time frame. Getting stakeholders involved can reduce or even prevent
         lawsuits.






I        ~~Cumulative Impacts Project Final Report      5-1                                 September 29, 1995







The potential for failure is great if clear implementation mechanisms are not available or
developed. Objectives need to be clearly stated. Enforceable policies should be written so that
permit stipulations can be based upon them and written clearly so as to be enforceable.  LackI
of funds for compliance and monitoring will reduce the effectiveness of any system or process.
Agencies also need to be brought into the plan revision process so that plans are not at odds with1
state and federal statutes and regulations. Different levels of plans should be coordinated, i.e.,
use a strategic coordinated review approach.   Internal agency training would improve
implementation of district, local and state-wide plans.

5.2.2  Update Statutes and Regulations As NeededI

If an agency does not have a adequate authority to address Cls, then they need to pursue changes3
in their statutes and regulations.   Interagency planning should be conducted to result in
coordination of agency plans.3

DEC participants thought DEC might only need to develop a guidance document, in the form
of a mission statement, to bring together the appropriate portions of their enabling legislationI
and regulations.

5.2.3 Project Permitting Reviews

Using local plans as guides for permnitting ensures local expertise and opinions are considered 
in reviews. Public information, participation, and education is an integral component of project
review through input from districts. A dialog needs to be established in "Plain English."' AvoidI
the use of jargon, e.g., cumulative impacts. The education process should include information
required by the lay person to be able to participate in identifying Cls.1

Early participation in and discussion of potential projects by agencies and districts is important.
This can allow for discussion of project impacts early in the review process. Coordination of
the many parts of reviews, as well as follow-up modifications reviews, can also ensure that Cls
are considered in project reviews. DGC suggested using a strategic approach for different levelsI
of review which may allow for more attention being paid to the more complex projects where
there is a possibility of Cls developing. For large projects, there needs to be more upfrontI
planning and issue identification. A mechanism to filter out hot spots at state, regional, and
local levels is necessary. If there is a related development threshold for that site or area, then3





September 29, 1995                           5-2                   Cumulative Impacts Project Final Report 








         only the specified number of projects would be allowed. There would then need to be an
         additional mechanism for reassessment to determine whether an appropriate threshold had been

         established.

3       ~~Including more routine project reviews on the A and B Lists would free-up reviewers' time for
         more complex reviews. Coordination of review processes, including timing, such as is done for
         the NEPA and the U.S. Army Engineer District Section 404 processes, could provide a more
         comprehensive review of projects and allow for inclusion of Cls analysis at the start of project
         review.


         5.2.4 Monitoring and Compliance


         Several participants noted that a significant problem in addressing CIs often lies not with
         requirements being adequate, but with the agencies' inability to provide adequate monitoring and

         compliance to enforce the requirements.

I       ~~Monitoring programs need to be established based on expectations of what agencies can
         realistically implement. Monitoring requirements need to be based on specific regulations.
3       ~~Coordination of monitoring and compliance visits among agencies can save time and money.
         Use of a database linking the agencies would improve monitoring.

I       ~~5.2.5  Unforeseen Cls


I       ~~If unanticipated Cls show up, an interagency team (including district representatives) would be
         called together to re-review the site or problem and make recommendations. This would provide
3       ~~a mechanism to bring together the agencies who can then develop an approach to dealing with
         the problem. Once this interagency team reports their revised approach, it would be taken back
3       ~~to the local level and the local plan revised to address the problem.
















         ICumulative Impacts Project Final Report    5-3                               September 29, 1995



                                                                             I

                                                                             I
                THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANKI


                                                                             I

                                                                             I

                                                                            I

                                                                            I

                                                                            I

                                                                             I

                                                                             I

                                                                             I

                                                                             I

                                                                            I
                                                                            .I

                                                                             I

                                                                             I

                                                                             I

                                                                             I

September 29, 1995                     5-4               Cumulative Impacts Project Final Report  I







                   6.0 METHODOLOGY EVALUATION AND RECOMMTENDATIONS

I       ~~This section provides an evaluation of the value of the informal group discussions as a method
         for addressing issues of concern to ACMP participants.

         6.1 POSITIVE ASPECTS OF THE METHODOLOGY

         The meeting process complemented the survey approach used in the HDR report.

I       ~~The participants thought that it was useful for them to hear each other's opinion of the topic in
         person. It was a positive experience for the agency personnel, discussions are more direct and
3       ~~interplay was very positive.  Attendees discovered they were not alone in dealing with Cls. A
         group discussion allows participants to brainstorm ideas and to discover where participants
3       ~~agreed or disagreed.  Meeting with other staff helps to reinforce concepts and to develop the
         collective agency thought. One participant thought the meeting was "medicinal". Another
         participant was overwhelmed and somewhat pessimistic about the difficulties involved in defining
         Cls. Most were appreciative that they had the opportunity to talk about the issue in person and
         that their perspective could be voiced.

         Overall, the process of face-to-face small group discussions is quite valuable in terms of the
3        ~~direct interchange of ideas and information, voicing ones' opinions, and learning about other
         views within one's agency. This could be a valuable approach for analysis of other ACMP
*        ~~issues as well.

         The meetings explored a number of solutions. Several approaches were discussed in the two
3        ~~types of meetings resulting in a proposed approach for addressing Cls.

3        ~6.2 LIM[ITATIONS OF THE METHODOLOGY

         Several meetings had teleconference attendees. Since the meetings were supposed to be face-to-
I      ~     ~face,  this  was  a  negative  aspect  of those  particular  meetings.    Meetings  involving
         teleconferencing left a lot to be desired; it was difficult for teleconference attendees to participate
3        ~~in the discussions.  Prior to the end of one of the meetings, all of the teleconference attendees
         had hung up.

U        ~~DFG felt that the methodology fell short of fully achieving its goal to develop consensus and
         identify solutions. DGC feels that a survey is more scientific and allows individuals to speak

         their minds without repercussions. The survey also reached a larger group of participants. A

         ICumulative Impacts Project Final Report       6-1                                  September 29, 1995







possible limitation of group discussions is that a small representation of an agency or the districts 
could interject their own opinions without relaying the broad spectrum of opinions within an

agency or the districts.

ADOT&PF felt that the approach used put a negative aspect on Cls. It commented that "rules
of the game" should have been established and the relevance of determination of "significance"
identified. Then examples should have been developed in the context of how they should be
handled.

6.3 WHAT WAS LEARNED BY AGENCIES AlND DISTRICTS?U

Several participants learned that they were not alone in their views on CIS. Others learned about3
different views within their own agency, as well as confinning their own understanding of Cls.
Some participants agreed that a face-to-face meeting was an effective way to learn more about
Cls and to improve the information base from which they are working.

6.4 FOLLOW-UPI

A follow-up in one year was thought to be appropriate. A suggestion was made that more public
and agency education be conducted. Glenn Gray said he will. track other states 309 program
progress.  Additional recommendations regarding issues raised in the discussion were providedU
to Dames & Moore by DFG. These are part of DFG's comment letter dated September 21,
1995 and are included in Appendix C.












                       September 29, 195    6-2                 CumulativeImpcsPoetFnlRpr









                                 7.0 REFERENCES


7.1 BIBLIOGRAPHY

Federal Highway Administration, Project Development Branch, HEP-31, 1992. Position Paper:
      Secondary and Cumulative Impact Assessment in the Highway Project Development
      Process.

HDR Engineering, Inc.  1995. Cumulative Impacts in Alaska: Where they Occur and How
      Agencies and Districts Address Them, Final Report. Prepared for Office of the
      Governor, Division of Governmental Coordination, and the Cumulative Impacts in
      Alaska Management Team. Anchorage, Alaska.


State of Alaska, Department of Fish and Game, Habitat and Restoration Division.  1994. An
      Assessment of the Cumulative Impacts of Development and Human Uses on Fish Habitat
      in the Kenai River. Technical Report 94-6. Prepared by Gary S. Liepitz. Anchorage,
      Alaska.

State of Alaska, Department of Fish and Game, Habitat and Restoration Division. 1995. The
      Continued Assessment and Management of Cumulative Impacts on Kenai River Fish
      Habitat. Prepared by Glenn A. Seaman. Anchorage, Alaska.


State of Alaska, Department of Natural Resources, Division of Land, Southcentral Regional
      Office. 1994. Cumulative and Secondary Impacts and The Alaska Coastal Management
      Program. Prepared by Rob Walkinshaw. Anchorage, Alaska.

State of Alaska, Office of the Governor, Division of Governmental Coordination. 1993.
      Regulation of Cumulative and Secondary Impacts in Alaska. Prepared by Glenn Gray.
      Juneau, Alaska.













Cumulative Impacts Project Final Report   7-1                              September 29, 1995








7.2   PARTICIPANTS


Coastal Districts:


Chuck Degnan, Bering Straits CRSA           Harriet Wegner, Kenai Peninsula Borough
Sue Flensburg, Bristol Bay CRSA             Jan Caulfield, C/B Juneau
Linda Freed, Kodiak Island Borough          Beth McKibben, C/B Yakutat
Ken Hudson, Matanuska-Susitna Borough       George Owletuck, Cenaliuriit CRSA
Thede Tobish, Municipality of Anchorage     Lynn Steen, City of Cordova


Natural Resources:


Rob Walkinshaw                              Dick LeFebvre
Rick Thompson                               Al Samet
Mitch Henning                               Kerwin Krause
Dave Wallingford                            Janet Burleson Baxter
Kim Kruse                                   Ron Swanson


Environmental Conservation:


Fran Roche                                  Jim Baumgartner
Joyce Beelman                               Keven Kleweno
Kevin Hanley                                Steve Wright
Doug Redburn                                Amy Crook


Governmental Coordination:


Glenn Gray                                  Gabrielle LaRoche
Kerry Howard                                Chas Dense
Lorraine Marshall                           Maureen McCrea


Commerce and Economic Development:


Tom Lawson                                  Dick Swanbank
Wendy Wolf                                  Mary Marshburn
Veronica Slajer





September 29, 1995                     7-2                Cumulative Impacts Project Final Report








Transportation and Public Facilities:


Nate Johnson                                 Dave Bloom
Bill Ballard                                 Jerry Ruehle
Mike Tinker


Fish and Game:


Wayne Dolezal                                Janet Schempf
Carl Hemming                                 Lana Shea
Don McKay                                    Dave Hardy
Glenn Seaman






































Cumulative Impacts Project Final Report  7-3                           September 29, 1995



                                                                          I

                                                                          I
               THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANKI

                                                                          I

                                                                          I

                                                                          I

                                                                          I

                                                                          I

                                                                          I

                                                                          I

                                                                          I

                                                                          I

                                                                          I

                                                                          I

                                                                          I

                                                                          I

                                                                          I

                                                                          I
September 29, 1995                 7-4             Cumulative Impacts Project Final Report  I




A
p
p
E
N
D

x

A



I

I

I

I

                               APPENDIX A
                AGENDAS FOR THE INTRA-AGENCY AND DISTRICTS
     I ~~~~~AND INTERAGENCY/DISTRICTS MEETINGS

I

I

I

I

I

I

I

I

I
I

I

I









                        INTRA-AGENCY AND DISTRICT MEETINGS AGENDA

         Agency:

U       ~~Meeting Date:

         Meeting Location:

         i.     Brief Introduction:  Attendees & purpose/goals of meeting

         H.     Major points of discussion:

                A. Using specific sites and examples discuss issues or problems that must be addressed
                in Alaska. What are the significant impacts in each region of the state?

                B. What specifically are the causes of the impacts creating the problem?

                C.   What  existing procedures,  policies, planning processes,  and  monitoring and
 *             ~~~~compliance programs exist to control the causes of these impacts?

                       i. Use of procedures
   *                    ii~~~~. Other mechanisms
                       iii. Consequences of inaction

 I             ~~~~D.  What are possible solutions that should be considered to address the problems or
                issues that have been identified?

   I                    i.~~~~ ACMP authorities
                       ii. State agency authorities

                E. Is a regulatory definition of cumulative impacts needed? If so, identify why a
                definition would be helpful and if it would address any of the problems identified during
                the discussion.

 I             ~~~~Note:  the term "cumulative impacts' is currently included in statutes, regulations and
                enforceable policies of coastal districts, but not everyone agrees that there is a mandate
                to consider cumulative impact.

                F. Wrap up/conclusions








CUMULATIVE IMPACTS IN ALASKA: WHERE THEY OCCUR AND HOW AGENCIES
                         AND DISTRICTS ADDRESS THEM
                          GROUP DISCUSSION PROJECT

                   INTERAGENCY/DISTRICT MEETING AGENDA

I.   INTRODUCTION

      1. BRIEF Background and Project Description

          A.     Project Methodology
          B.     Purposes and objectives of informal group discussions

                i.     Purpose of project: to learn more about where cumulative impacts
                       occur, their causes, how agencies address them, possible solutions to
                       better address them, and whether a regulatory definition is needed.
                 ii.    Meetings were held to increase internal agency understanding of
                       cumulative impacts issues.
                 iii.    Identify areas of consensus and disagreement among agencies and
                       districts.

11.    DISCUSSION

      1.  Common themes, areas of agreement and disagreement

                 i.     Range of types of Cumulative Impacts - What are they?

                 ii.    Variety of causes

                 iii.    Discuss  existing  procedures,  policies,  planning  processes,  and
                       monitoring and compliance programs: are they adequate, if not, what
                       then?

                 iv.    How can the state improve its approach to considering cumulative
                       impacts? Is a definition of cumulative impacts necessary, if so, where
                       should it be located?

[IE.  RECOMMENDATIONS

      1. Develop a list of realistic recommendations.
      2. Should there be any follow-up to this project? If so, discuss format.

IV.  GROUP DISCUSSION METHODOLOGY EVALUATION

      1. What are positive and negative aspects of the intra-agency/district and
          interagency/district group discussions methodology?
      2.  Has your agency/district learned from the group discussions? If so, elaborate.


















A
p
p
E
N
D

x

B



I

I

I

I.

I
      I ~~~~~~~~APPENDIX B
                   INTRA-AGENCY AND DISTRICTS
     I ~~~~~~AND INTERAGENCY/DISTRICTS

     I ~~~~~~MIEETING SUMM'ARIES

I

I

I

I

I

I

I

I

I

I

I








     I                               ~~~~~~~TABLE OF CONTENTS



E   ~~Coastal Districts ....................July 28, 1995


I      ~~Department of Natural Resources ..............August 9, 1995

      Department of Environmental Conservation ...........August 16, 1995

      Division of Governmental. Coordination ............August 17, 1995

      Department of Commerce and
           Economic Development...............August 17, 1995

      Department of Transportation and
 I          ~~~~Public Facilities .................August 23, 1995

3    ~~Department of Fish and Game ...............August 25, 1995

3      ~~Interagency/Districts Meeting...............September 8,1995







                            COASTAL DISTRICTS


                            MEETING SUMMARY


                                July 28, 1995




LOCATION:        Dames & Moore Conference Room

ATTENDEES:

         Chuck Degnan, Bering Straits Coastal Resource Service Area (CRSA)
         Sue Flensburg, Bristol Bay Coastal Resource Service Area (CRSA)
         Linda Freed, Kodiak Island Borough
         Ken Hudson, Matanuska-Susitna Borough
         Thede Tobish, Municipality of Anchorage
         Harriet Wegner, Kenai Peninsula Borough

TELECONFERENCE ATTENDEES:

         Jan Caulfield, C/B Juneau
         Beth McKibben, C/B Yakutat
          George Owletuck, Cenaliuriit CRSA
          Lynn Steen, City of Cordova

CONSULTANTS:

          Alison Smith, Dames & Moore
          Gwendo-Lyn Turner, Dames & Moore








                                   1.0 INTRODUCTION


Sue introduced all the attendees once the teleconference operator connected all the lines.  She
explained that the purpose of the meeting was to provide a followup to the HDR Report as part
of a broader effort to deal with the issue of cumulative impacts. The HDR Report resulted from
a formal survey that was conducted by telephone. The survey was an attempt to identify where
cumulative impacts (CIs) were occurring or may likely occur, what districts and agencies have
done to address them, and to evaluate the overall effectiveness of those techniques and provide
suggestions and recommendations on how to further address and deal with the issue. A different
approach was taken with this group discussions project. It involves an interactive discussion on
what districts and agencies see as the on-the-ground issues related to cumulative impacts and
what can be done to better address them both within and outside of the Alaska Coastal
Management Program (ACMP). Other agencies will be conducting their own internal group
discussions, and then an interagency/district meeting will be held to share the results and to
determine areas of agreement and disagreement. Linda and Sue are facilitators for this meeting,
to keep it free-flowing and interactive. The emphasis is to explore CIs with actual sites and peel
off the layers as best as possible to gain a better understanding of cumulative impact problems
and issues from a district perspective.

Sue asked for five minute overviews of the projects/sites which each person wanted to discuss.
The basic information to be presented by each coastal district representative should include:


       o      A brief description of the site or project;


       *      Significant impacts of each site of concern and why;


       *      Specific causes of impacts identified;


       0 *    Existing procedures, policies, planning processes, and monitoring and compliance
              programs that exist to control the causes of these impacts, and why they were or
              were not used; and

       ï¿½ Why the mechanisms were successful or unsuccessful.


Several examples would be chosen for more detailed analysis. Finally, there was to be a
discussion of possible solutions to address the problems identified including whether a regulatory
definition of cumulative impacts is needed.


CUMULATIVE IMPACTS PROJECT                                                      SEPTEMBER 29, 1995
COASTAL DISTRICTS MEETING SUMMARY              1








                              2.0 DISTRICT PROJECTS


2.1  THEDE TOBISH, MUNICIPALITY OF ANCHORAGE


Issue: Klatt Bog has undergone loss of critical wildlife habitat, alteration of local and bogwide
hydrology, habitat fragmentation, local water quality degradation, and storm water runoff pattern
changes. The central core of the bog was identified as critical wildlife habitat by U.S. Fish and
Wildlife Service (USFWS) and, due to development, the viability of the habitat has been
compromised. It is an area with obvious CIs. Drainage changes as a result of past influences
and degradation of water quality due to upstream industrial development are significant issues.
All these are combined to cause a series of cumulative impacts.


Mechanisms of Control: The Anchorage Bowl Comprehensive Plan, Anchorage Wetlands
Management Plan, Anchorage Coastal Management Plan (CMP), Anchorage Capital
Improvement Program, and permit reviews, rezonings, variance cases, drainage improvement
plans.  Control generally focuses on permitting (Section 404 primarily).


Monitoring has been inconsistent and is carried out by the Municipality of Anchorage (MOA)
Code Enforcement, MOA Coastal District Coordinator, and by the U.S. Army Engineer District
(USAED). Some mitigation has been required as a condition of permit receipt, but there has
been no success in addressing cumulative impacts.


2.2  CHUCK DEGNAN, BERING STRAITS CRSA


2.2.1  U.S. Air Force Cleanup of Past Military Sites

The impacts of military activities are just now being recognized. It is difficult to deal with
military sites because information is not forthcoming.  There are impacts due to the initial
operations as well as the cleanup resulting from those activities.


2.2.2  Timber Creek Trapping Cabin


A proposed trapping cabin in an area that is used by several villages raised concerns about the
impacts on subsistence resources and conflicts with traditional trapping practices. The initial
decision to issue a trapping cabin permit was found to be consistent with the Bering Straits
Coastal Management Plan (BSCMP), despite district objections to a permanent structure and
their recommendation to allow only a temporary structure. The permit was determined by the



SEPTEMBER 29, 1995                                                        CUMULATIVE IMPACTS PROJECT
                                            2                   COASTAL DISTRICTS MEETING SUMMARY








Department of Natural Resources (DNR) to comply with the Northwest Area Plan. Differences
over local and state interpretations of the policies in the BSCMP were the basis for the elevation
proceedings and petition process that followed. The BSCRSA filed a lawsuit after the Coastal
Policy Council concurred with the commissioner's determination. Due deference under the
ACMP is a key issue that will be addressed in the Superior Court Decision.

2.3  JAN CAULFIELD, CITY AND BOROUGH OF JUNEAU


Issue: A potential project is in the planning stage to move lower Duck Creek to create uplands
development space for expansion of the Juneau Airport. Duck Creek is an anadromous fish
stream and an impaired waterbody, and water quality impacts need to be taken into consideration
during project development.


Mechanisms of Control: Section 404 Permitting, Local Wetlands Permit, and Title 16. The
airport expansion project is a Borough initiated project.   Although the Borough has the
opportunity to improve the stream, it would be the result of moving forward with the airport
project.

Problems with addressing impacts center mainly on the lack of data about past effects on the
creek and whether relocating the stream will create further impacts to or benefit the stream.
Another major concern is whether the CBJ can afford what should be done to restore the creek.


2.4 KEN HUDSON, MATANUSKA-SUSITNA BOROUGH


Issues: A major issue in the Matanuska-Susitna Borough (MSB) is that of wetlands fill and
riverbank erosion resulting in cumulative impacts from development along an active and dynamic
river system. CIs in this discussion were those affecting and causing damage to the built
environment (homes) rather than the natural environment. Some of the housing development
impacts the natural environment, but damage to the human-built environment results when
construction occurs in inappropriate locations. The CI of development has a different kind of
negative impact and is definitely a coastal impact that needs to be dealt with.


Mechanisms of Control: Flood Damage Prevention Ordinance, planning under the ACMP, land
use planning and regulations, subdivision regulations, Federal/State permits, and watershed
management.





CUMULATIVE IMPACTS PROJECT                                                     SEPTEMBER 29, 1995
COASTAL DISTRICTS MEETING SUMMARY             3








A watershed study is underway with the Resource Conservation Service to establish a watershed-
wide planning program to determine the risks of continued floodplain development and to make
recommendations regarding long-term use and management of the entire watershed. Particular
attention is being paid to those areas subject to erosion.

All mechanisms used to date have been inadequate in addressing cumulative impacts.


2.5  HARRIET WEGNER, KENAI PENINSULA BOROUGH


2.5.1  Example Project 1

Early planning and pro-active involvement of all interested parties in larger projects have
produced positive results with minimal impacts. Section 404 and Title 16 permits were
necessary for an after-the-fact dredge and fill project adjacent to the Kenai River (Kenai River
312). In the CIs study on the Kenai River, "Assessment of Cumulative Impacts of Development
and Human Uses on Fish Habitat in the Kenai River" (Alaska Department of Fish and Game
(DFG) Technical Report 94-6), the DFG assigned a value for habitat, so data existed for each
property involved, and impacts related to habitat value could be assessed. The following is a
listing of significant impacts, specific causes of those impacts, and the review process used to
permit the project.


Significant impacts:

              loss of shoreline habitat important for salmon, especially rearing juvenile chinook;
              loss of wetlands;
              increase in the amount of waterborne sediment; and
              changes to circulation and drainage patterns.


Specific causes:


              dredging of nearshore area to create two boat basins;
              fill placement in high value wetlands;
              removal of nearshore vegetation; and
              shoreline development on numerous lots within the subdivision.







SEPTEMBER 29, 1995                                                      CUMULATIVE IMPACTS PROJECT
                                             4                  COASTAL DISTRICTS MEETING SUMMARY







Existing Process (current project, at proposed finding stage):


          *  Section 404/10 violation, after-the-fact permit and an ACMP review;


          I  Project also requires an Alaska Department of Environmental Conservation
              (ADEC) 401, DFG Title 16, Alaska Department of Natural Resources (DNR)
              Park Use permit and a Kenai Peninsula Borough (KPB) Floodplain permit.

The DFG Technical Report 94-6 was used to establish habitat units for project area and to
classify waterfront habitat.  The proposed ACMP consistency determination found the project
inconsistent based on 6 AAC 80.130 and KPB Coastal Management Plan (KPBCMP) 2.4
Dredging and Filling, 2.6 Mitigation, 2.7 Cumulative Impacts and 12.1 Priority Use.  Habitat
and soils data provided sound resource information for the basis of the finding.


Good resource data and an incentive grant for potential restoration and reclamation activities
produced above average success in attaining consensus in the ACMP review. An applicant
willing to work with the agencies also helped produce positive results.


2.5.2  Example Project 2


In the case of Kachemak Bay 114, resource data was available but the decision upon which it
was based was overruled by the Commissioner upon elevation. Homer has a wetlands General
Permit (GP) and resource data was available, but the final decision was based on political
considerations.

Kachemak Bay 114 entailed a modification to an expired 404 permit for placement of additional
wetlands fill on private property to provide a staging area and maintenance yard for heavy
equipment during the construction season, instead of a boat storage pad as originally proposed.
Much of the property consists of wetlands, although roughly two-thirds of the lot has now been
filled, and is part of a large contiguous tract of land that was later identified as high-value
wetlands for a major tern colony in the Homer Wetlands Plan. The tern colony is a major
tourist attraction but has been impacted by the Exxon Valdez oil spill and the Homer airport
expansion project.  Although the applicant's property borders the tern colony and is within an
area identified as high-value wetlands, it is one of several private but undeveloped lots that have
been zoned for commercial use by the City of Homer.





CUMULATIVE IMPACTS PROJECT                                                       SEPTEMBER 29, 1995
COASTAL DISTRICTS MEETING SUMMARY              5








The project was initially found inconsistent with the ACMP because of concerns about further
impacting the declining tern population and their habitat requirements. Detailed resource data
in Homer's Wetlands Plan was available to help support this decision. The finding was elevated
and eventually overturned by the Commissioners of the resource agencies.   The final
Commissioner's determination required a reduction in the area of allowable fill, fencing and
revegetation, and a buffer zone between the lot lines and the tern colony. These mitigation
measures were fashioned after the conditions stipulated for the airport expansion project.
Although Homer's Wetlands Plan contained detailed resource data and identified the project site
as high-value wetlands, a wetlands permit was eventually issued to the applicant because the
original project was approved prior to the wetlands study and because of the city's zoning
ordinance.

Issue: Politics versus use of good resource data.

Mechanisms of Control: There is no land use plan for the KPB, only two small zoning areas.
Title 29 and ACMP interface is problematic.  The Title 29 floodplain program is used quite a
bit and the floodplain ordinance required analysis of cumulative impacts of development to the
100-year flood event prior to approval of a floodplain permit.


2.6 BETH McKIBBEN, CITY AND BOROUGH OF YAKUTAT


Issue: Situk-Lost River user group conflicts and the potential for overuse of the resource, due
to an increase in use of the river system.  Conflicts are highest between commercial setnetters
and sport fishermen, but also occur to a lesser extent between guided and unguided sport
fishermen and with subsistence users. The Situk is accessible by road and usage has increased
significantly in the last several years.

Mechanisms of Control: U.S. Forest Service (USFS) Situk River Management Plan. This plan
was originally not completed but in an effort to restart the management planning process a
carrying capacity study was completed by USFS one and one-half years ago, but the study
methods have been questioned. Various user groups differ in how they want the area managed;
the Native groups want a lower threshold that continues past patterns of use, the guides want
higher use levels to accommodate the growing sportfishery.  A new ranger was hired and the
planning process was restarted.







SEPTEMBER 29, 1995                                                        CUMULATIVE IMPACTS PROJECT
                                             6                   COASTAL DISTRICTS MEETING SUMMARY








                     3.0 MORE DETAILS ON A FEW PROJECTS


The group decided to focus on one urban site and one project in the planning stage for a detailed
discussion of CIs, where they occur, the causes, and possible solutions.

3.1 KLATT BOG


The main issue in the Klatt Bog example is that the Municipality identified the area for
expansion of residential development without knowing the values of the bog. Early identification
of environmental impacts is essential for preventing the accumulation of impacts. These include
flood prevention, water quality issues related to industrial fringe development and loss of habitat.
There are only approximately 400 acres left from an area that was originally over 1500 acres.
All of the fringe has been developed with residential and related infrastructure. Future actions
necessary are to: 1) stop adverse impacts, and 2) reintroduce groundwater to protect habitat.
The following is a summary of impacts, causes, procedures, and control mechanisms.


Significant Impacts of the Site: Loss of critical wildlife habitat, alteration of local and bogwide
hydrology, habitat fragmentation, local water quality, and storm water runoff issues.


Specific Causes  of Cumulative  Impacts:   Direct wetland fills related to residential
development, local road and utility infrastructure, changes in up-gradient runoff and drainage
patterns, industrial runoff, and noise and human disturbances.


Existing Procedures, Etc.: Klatt Bog was identified as a Coastal Habitat Preservation Area in
Anchorage's CZM Plan and as critical wildlife habitat by the USFWS. Since the late 1970's
the Municipality has identified the Klatt area as one of the key undeveloped sections of the
Anchorage Bowl available for residential expansion. Since that time the Comprehensive Plan
and the Municipality's CIP programs have identified and encouraged utility, roads, and school
infrastructures for the Klatt area in anticipation of this expansion and infilling. The permit
process has permitted many large 404 actions for subdivisions and roads and the core of Klatt
Bog and the critical wildlife areas have been severely impacted.

Mechanisms:  Anchorage Bowl Comprehensive Plan, Anchorage Wetlands Management Plan,
Anchorage Coastal Management Plan (CMP), Anchorage Capital Improvement Program, etc.
and permit reviews, rezonings, variance cases, drainage improvement plans, etc. Monitoring has
been inconsistent and is carried out by the Municipal Code Enforcement, the MOA Coastal
District Coordinator, and by the USAED.


CUMULATIVE IMPACTS PROJECT                                                     SEPTEMBER 29, 1995
COASTAL DISTRICTS MEETING SUMMARY             7








These mechanisms have been partly successful, however they are often in conflict with each
other, and therefore work against protecting the bog and wetland resources. Many of these plans
are not used consistently and even the permit review process does not adhere consistently to the
policies set forth in the Anchorage CMP. The Anchorage Bowl Comprehensive Plan has a
strong environmental component that includes reference to both the Wetlands and CMP but
neither developers, the Municipality itself or the permit agencies consistently adhere to the
polices and regulations.  The bottom line is that Klatt Bog has less than half of the original
wetland acreage left as a result of cumulative wetland fills. The Corps process has limited the
extent of wetland acres filled but permits continue to be issued and mitigation and avoidance
have only been partially successful in offsetting lost resources.

Privately owned land inhibits the ability to control development, for which there continues to
be a push. The currently available mechanisms are ineffective. The Anchorage CMP's
enforceable policies are inadequate and the 404 process isn't designed to stop development, the
USAED continues to issue permits in the area. The MOA has not been interested in applying
eminent domain to protect remaining habitat.  Conservation in Anchorage, like most local
entities, is influenced by politics.

3.2  DUCK CREEK RESTORATION

Duck Creek, in the Mendenhall Valley in Juneau is a "classic urban stream" that has been
reshaped, moved, and generally impacted over the last 30 years. The creek is the mouth of a
larger system that has been impacted by long-term development. The entire riparian area in this
system is identified as wetlands in the CBJ Wetlands Plan. Further development in the area is
anticipated in the plan. The project would relocate what is presently the most natural portion
of the stream, which runs through airport property, to allow for more wetlands fill to expand
the airport. The City and Borough of Juneau (CBJ) wants to look at the larger context of the
watershed for issues such as water balance and flooding, not just the portion of the stream to be
directly impacted.


The mechanisms are available for correcting 30 years' worth of cumulative impacts, and the CBJ
has the opportunity to remedy past, and prevent future, impacts. These mechanisms include the
Interagency Relocation Group, the City Wetlands Review Board (with local wetlands permitting
authority), the CBJ Planning Commission, and the Duck Creek Restoration Committee. They
can all work toward positive watershed planning and restoration. There exist opportunities for
improving a heavily impacted stream. Ultimately, the cost of restoration will have to be
balanced with how much development space the CBJ gains. This decision will be influenced by



SEPTEMBER 29, 1995                                                      CUMULATIVE IMPACTS PROJECT
                                             8                  COASTAL DISTRICTS MEETING SUMMARY








the amount of public awareness and support for using public monies to fund the project. So far
there is no community agreement that there is a problem, although the CBJ is working on
developing measures to help gain public support for the project.  The Interagency Relocation
Group has not reached agreement on the basic hydrology and objectives of the project, or the
final project design.


3.2  TIMBER CREEK TRAPPING CABIN

The Northwest Area Plan (NAP) produced by the DNR discourages permanent trapping cabins
to avoid conflicts with subsistence patterns and traditional trapping practices, but does not
explicitly prohibit permits for permanent structures within the boundaries of the Bering Straits
CMP (BSCMP). A hunting guide from outside the region applied for a trapping cabin in the
Koyuk River drainage, which is in a permit notification zone in the BSCMP due to the
importance of this area for subsistence and traditional uses. The Bering Straits Coastal District
recommended that a permanent cabin be found inconsistent with the BSCMP because of
competition for subsistence resources and the potential for a permanent structure to draw
additional users into the area, creating further competition for resources.   The district
recommended the permit be conditioned to allow a temporary tent structure based on subsistence
policies in their plan, which are also recognized in the NAP. The NAP also recommends that
trapping cabin construction permits not be issued if conflicts with existing trapping and
subsistence activities can not be avoided or minimized. The DNR felt that the district's concerns
could be mitigated through permit stipulations, such as prohibiting use of the cabin for hunting
purposes and issued a permit for a permanent structure. The District elevated the Regional level
decision. The Director level finding, which stipulated a temporary structure, was elevated by
the applicant and overturned in the Commissioner's determination. The District filed a petition
with the Coastal Policy Council (CPC), where the District's petition was dismissed on the basis
that the permit was properly issued. The District exhausted all administrative remedies, and has
filed in Superior Court.


Locally, there is consensus about potential impacts from permanent cabins, and about
competition for subsistence resources. Differences in interpretation of and due deference on the
policies of the BSCMP and the actual intent of the NAP guidelines were evident during the
appeals process.  These differences are mainly due to a lack of understanding of rural/native
values by adjudicators that live in urban areas.


Mechanisms for control of CIs include the DNR NAP and the BSCMP.  The primary control
mechanism here is the regulatory review via the ACMP/BSCMP and the legal review via the


CUMULATIVE IMPACTS PROJECT                                                       SEPTEMBER 29, 1995
COASTAL DISTRICTS MEETING SUMMARY              9







court system. Success, in the district's perspective, will not be determined by the outcome of
the court case. The process here was successful because the overall goal was to educate people
about the local view of resource use, and to show that they can advocate for themselves. The
court's ruling will Riely have major implications on how "due deference" is applied under the
ACMP.I



                                   4.0 SOLUTIONSI

The suggestions below reflect a common-sense approach to addressing some of the problems 
identified by group participants.

             Be specific about problems, about who is affected, and how. Specific resource
             inform-ation needs to be used. Also local consensus and locally established goals
             are necessary.

It is difficult to gain support for addressing a problem when generalities are used to describe the 
situation. The specific problem and impacts of concern must be clearly defined and described
in "real" terms that can be understood.  The consequences of not taking action to address theI
problem also must be explained. It is important to identify who is directly and potentially
affected by the problem and proposed solution, and to deal upfront with those opposed. Baseline
data on existing resources and information on impacts is necessary to demonstrate the extent of
proposed actions (including a possible no-action alternative) and must be clearly stated and
understood, especially by decision-makers.   Public awareness and support are especially
important when local funding is involved. Management goals and objectives must have local
acceptance and provide clear direction to those responsible for implementing them.  The toolsI
to implement this management direction must also be available and effective.

The Kachemak Bay 114 project (expanded wetlands fill on private property for a heavy
equipment staging area) in Homer illustrates the importance of having clear management goals
and objectives and policies that are consistent with other management schemes. The project was
initially determined inconsistent with the ACMP based on KPBCMP enforceable policies and
available resource information, including Homer's Wetlands Plan which identified the projectI
site as within a high-value wetlands area. This designation was construed at the local level to
indirectly mean a "no development zone." The city's zoning ordinance however, which was
enacted prior to the wetlands plan, identified the project area as part of a commercial use zone
and was never amended to reflect the management intent for high value wetlands. The


SEPTEMBER 29, 1995                                                       CUMULATIVE IMPACTS PROJECTI
                                           10                  COASTAL DISTRICTS MEETING SUMMARY







I       ~~Commissioner level determination under the ACMP also found that the project could be made

I ~~consistent by requiring on-site mitigation measures based on KPBCMP enforceable policies.

                   *  Cumulative impacts must be addressed on a sub-area basis, not a district-wide
   I                  ~~~~~approach.

         District coastal management plans typically cover large areas and include general resource
         information and broad performance standards that apply to the entire area. This approach does
         not work well to address specific areas or sites of concern. Cumulative impacts are more
I     ~    ~effectively addressed on a sub-area basis where there are specific impacts that require more
         specific management direction.

         The Klatt Bog site in Anchorage is an example of where a sub-area approach would be more
         effective in determining acceptable and unacceptable impacts. Conflicting management direction
         in the municipality's coastal management plan, comprehensive plan, and CIP programs over the
         years has contributed to the piece-meal development scenario at Mlatt Bog. A more focused
         approach would involve identifying the remaining values of the bog, pinning down the
         municipality's development and protection goals for the area, and determining the mechanisms
         necessary to successfully implement these goals.

                a Deal with politics and be ready to compromise.

         Planning processes, permit reviews and other implementation actions will always be influenced
         to some extent by politics. Posturing rarely works; it is important to be reasonable and reach
         a negotiated settlement whenever possible and to have other alternatives that achieve the same
         objectives.

                *      Periodically review and update plans as necessary.

         Local plans should be periodically evaluated and updated to reaffirmn or modify goals and
I     ~     ~objectives and policies to reflect environmental and socio-economic changes.

                0      Provide a regulatory definition of cumulative impacts.

         There was general agreement that a definition of cumulative impacts would mean something
         different to each area. A general definition of CIs is probably necessary to define what is meant
        by the concept since the ACMP and some district plans reference cumulative impacts. If a


         CUMULATIVE IMPACTS PROJECT                                                     SEPTEMBER 29, 1995
         ICOASTAL DISTRICTS MEETING SUMMARY            11








definition is incorporated into the ACMP planning regulations, it should allow districts to further
define and develop a framework at the local level to reflect the local perspective and value
system. A definition was considered by some to be a defense mechanism to deal with
developers who question local decisions that may be based on cumulative impacts. The need

to strike a balance between environmental values and socio-economic values was also stressed.


                             5.0 GENERAL COMEMENTS

      *      All the planning/permitting mechanisms are worth little when the review process 
             becomes political.

      0      Issues related to bigger projects tend to get attention and are addressed due to
             public interest. Smaller projects tend to get passed over, but many small projects
             can add up to substantial Cls.

      *      There is a missing link between Title 29/local planning and the ACMP, Section 
             404, and Title 16. It is procedural in terms of regulatory authority, and in

             perception.

      a Solutions need to be very specific, not generic.I


      *      Cls occur across the state, and in every region. Some types of Cls are commonI
             across regions regardless of how they are measured.

      *      Cumulative impacts are better addressed through the planning process, not case-I
             by-case permit reviews. It is difficult to "shoe-horn" cumulative impacts in
             during the permit review process as a way to address areas that already haveI
             problems.

          *  Local plans need to reflect both area-wide values (for example, specific watershedI
             and biophysical boundaries) and future potential impacts in order to evaluate and
             plan for cumulative impacts.  Long term management goals need to be part ofI
             that process.I







SEPTEMBER 29, 1995                                                        CUMULATIVE IMPACTS PROJECT
                                          12                  COASTAL DISTRICTS MEETING SUMMARY








             Many of the problems identified, such as ineffective policies and the whole issue
             of "due deference," are programmatic in nature and not necessarily specific to
             cumulative impacts.


             It appears that cumulative impacts are addressed to some extent through existing
             mechanisms, even though the term "cumulative impacts" is not used.



                          6.0 METHODOLOGY CRITIQUE


Generally the face-to-face meeting was quite valuable. Attendees discovered they were not alone
in dealing with CIs, learned about some issues, and considered this a positive learning
experience.


Meetings involving audio conferencing leave a lot to be desired, it is difficult for teleconference
attendees to participate in the discussions. Prior to the end of the meeting, all of the audio
representatives had left. Face-to-face meetings are preferable.































CUMULATIVE IMPACTS PROJECT SEPTEMBER 29, 1995
COASTAL DISTRICTS MEETING SUMMARY 1  3







               DEPARTMENT OF NATURAL RESOURCES


                         MEETING SUMMARY


                             August 9, 1995




LOCATION:       Frontier Building, Suite 1080

ATTENDEES:

        Rob Walkinshaw
        Rick Thompson
        Mitch Henning
        Dave Wallingford
        Kim Kruse
        Dick LeFebvre
        Al Samet
        Kerwin Krause

TELECONFERENCE ATTENDEE:

        Janet Burleson

CONSULTANTS:

        Alison Smith, Dames & Moore
        Gwendo-Lyn Turner, Dames & Moore







                                  1.0 INTRODUCTION


Rob Walkinshaw of the Department of Natural Resources (DNR) started the meeting with
introductions and gave a description of the 309 Program and related monies and reports which
need not be summarized here. He then explained that the purpose of the meeting was to provide
a followup to the HDR report and to answer some questions remaining unanswered after
completion of the HDR report.



                                    2.0 DISCUSSION


There are several avenues for addressing cumulative and secondary impacts other than the
Alaska Coastal Management Program (ACMP). Participants believe that under existing statutes
regulations, and procedures, cumulative impacts (CIs) are being addressed. In addition, two
recent pieces of State of Alaska legislation, House Bill 169 (1995) and Senate Bill 308 (1994),
address cumulative impacts (CI). A DNR Task Force (established as a result of SB 308) is also
is currently studying the issue. These activities have come about as a result of judicial decisions.
Any effort to address CIs must incorporate existing processes, or be able to be meshed with
what currently exists. Those involved in implementation of the ACMP, including the Division
of Governmental Coordination (DGC), were perceived as not understanding that other processes
are ongoing related to defining CIs.


DNR is of the opinion that the ACMP is not where the issue of CIs should be defined and
managed.  The DNR project review process is broader than the ACMP process. More area is
covered than that within the coastal zone, and agency authorities go beyond the topics covered
by the ACMP.  The agency with authority to implement change is where management of CIs
should rest.


Addressing CIs requires clearly defined parameters, and definition of the boundaries within
which the parameters are addressed. These parameters are best determined specifically for each
project. Parameters should describe where CIs apply, and be tailored to the authorities of the
permitting agency. Parameters of CIs include, at a minimum, timeframe, project boundaries,
and the required level of detail. If parameters are not defined or are too open ended (or
unrealistic), then the agency is vulnerable to litigation. Specific definition of these parameters
in legislation or regulation however, would take away flexibility the agency thinks is necessary
to be effective.




CUMULATIVE IMPACTS PROJECT                                                     SEPTEMBER 29, 1995
NATURAL RESOURCES MEETING SUMMARY             1








Participants at the meeting agreed that a definition should not be included in the ACMP. The
divisions within DNR don't agree whether a statutory or regulatory definition is necessary within
each agency's authorities. Some believe that without a specific definition and guidelines, the
agency is open to litigation, with the courts to defining the parameters. Others believe that
divisions already address CIs under existing statutes, and nothing more is needed at the statutory
or regulatory level. Regardless of what the position on statutory and regulatory definition, it
was agreed that a generic solution would pose real problems. What may work for the Division
of Lands (flexibility) may not work for Division of Oil and Gas and Mining (a specific listing
of impacts to be considered and their related parameters).


It was agreed that the parameters for defining how CIs are addressed and considered should be
agency driven.  In a current case-by-case determination of parameters, as part of a project
review, one must outline the issues, then determine any changes that are necessary in the
project.   A  list of parameters is already delineated in Federal statute via the National
Environmental Policy Act (NEPA).


Currently, DNR has the following processes and tools for assessment of project impacts:


              "035" Decision Process
              Major Project Scoping
              Legislation
              Public Notice Process
              Division of Oil and Gas "G List"
              Shellfish Farm Program
              Forest Practices Act
              Professional Judgement


DNR personnel feel that CIs are addressed via the DNR permit review and approval process.
Identified impacts can be mitigated for by these processes. DNR does not want to see
development of another system to deal with CIs, adding another layer to the already unwieldy
permitting process. The current framework should be sufficient to work within.

Cumulative versus secondary impacts are not always clearly conceptualized. Measurable impacts
(air pollution, water pollution, etc.) to natural resources can be and are mitigated for under
current federal and state regulations through DNR permitting processes. Most of the problems
in development of resources deal with qualitative impacts (visual, wildlife, recreational use,




SEPTEMBER 29, 1995                                                        CUMULATIVE IMPACTS PROJECT
                                              2                  NATURAL RESOURCES MEETING SUMMARY







etc.), which are difficult to quantify.  What may be a positive impact to one person may be a
negative impact to someone else.

DNR looks at impacts, in the context of a project, whether these are cumulative impacts is a
matter of definition. For instance, it would be allowable for a dozen mines to operate on a
watershed, as long as each mine was meeting water quality discharge criteria, and cumulative
impacts would not develop as long as each mine is meeting these criteria.  The visual and
wildlife impacts from each mine would be looked at and mitigated for, but not necessarily the
impact of each additional mine.

Adding to the problem of addressing CIs are the different functions of the various agencies.
DNR's mission is to provide for the controlled use of the state's resources with consideration
of the environment. There was consensus among DNR personnel that development of resources
does result in unavoidable impacts to qualitative values, and that anytime something is done in
the natural environment, the environment is affected, i.e., individual natural resources cannot
be developed without impacting other resources. In contrast to DNR, the Alaska Department
of Fish and Game's (DFG) function is to manage wildlife to optimize the wildlife resource,
which a mining or logging operation would impact. There can be agreement, acknowledgement,
and identification of CIs. The problem comes when a decision is required to be made regarding
an action. General impacts are mitigated as a matter of course. This, however, often does not
go far enough for agencies or districts with a different mission than DNR.



                               3.0 SPECIFIC EXAMPLES


3.1  FORESTRY


Dave Wallingford introduced the topic of cumulative effects in forestry. He provided a written
summary which is attached (Attachment 1).


3.1.1  Specific Issues or Problems


              Soil alteration from road construction and use, and timber harvest, all cause some
              erosion, water quality degradation, debris avalanches, and changes in aquatic
              habitat. These are the primary impacts from timber harvest.





CUMULATIVE IMPACTS PROJECT                                                     SEPTEMBER 29, 1995
NATURAL RESouRCES MEETING SUMMARY             3








      0      Removal of excess quantities of biomass, i.e., high utilization combined with
            short rotations, results in accelerated leaching and reductions in down and dead
            wood. Cumulative and secondary impacts would result from numerous timber
            sales in one area, or from use of roads for access to fishing areas, and resultant
            overfishing, trampling of vegetation, and associated water quality degradation. 

      *      Changes in the composition and structure of vegetation results in loss of habitat.

3.1.2  Causes of the Problems3

Physical disturbance of soil causes erosion and resultant water quality degradation.


3.1.3 What procedures, policies, planning processes, and monitoring and compliance
      programs are used to prevent or mitigate?3

The basic planning process comes from the Forest Practices Act which also specifies monitoring
and compliance. The timing of harvests is an important tool for minimizing soil disturbance.
Baseline information needs to be identified for each issue, with the followup of research.
Improvements in administration of agency programs and interagency cooperation are needed.3

3.2  JACKALOF BAY QUARRY AND DOCK3


This was a high profile project proposed for the Kachemak Bay State Park and Critical Habitat
Area.I

3.2.1  Specific Issues or Problems3

The specific problems are related to loss of wilderness and potential degradation of water quality3
in the project vicinity.

3.2.2  Causes of the ProblemsU

The proposed project created a conflict with other users of the area, i.e., boaters, commercial 
and sport fishers, and adjacent landowners.






SEPTEMBER 29, 1995                                                      CUMULATIVE IMPACTS PROJECT
                                        4                 NATURAL REsouRCEs MEETING SUMMARYI







U       ~~3.2.3  What procedures, policies, planning processes, and monitoring and compliance
                programs are used to prevent or mitigate?

         Existing procedures, policies, and planning processes for dealing with the conflicts were
         hearings, the planning process, and public involvement in the review process.

         3.3 FORT KNOX MMN

         A proposed mine in the Fairbanks area.

         3.3.1 Specific Issues or Problems

         The specific problems are typical of large mine developments.   These include possible
         degradation of air quality and fish habitat.

         3.3.2 Causes of Problems

         The causes of problems would be related to development of and production from the mine.

         3.3.3 What procedures, policies, planning processes, and monitoring and compliance
 3             ~~~~programs are used to prevent or mitigate?

         Existing procedures, policies, etc. include pre-project planning and involvement of the public
I     ~     ~in the decision-making process.   Pre-project planning included defining parameters and
         identifying the scope of impacts to address, including some that could be defined as cumulative
3       ~~or secondary. A reclamation plan was required and approved. Section 404, State Air Quality,
         Solid Waste and Fish Habitat permits were also required. Typical stipulations related to
3       ~~monitoring were placed on pen-nits.

         3.4 GENERIC MINING


         Mining came up as a generic issue.

         3.4.1 Specific Issues or Problems

N       ~~The specific issues are related to surface disturbance, visual impacts, and loss of habitat. Often
         several mines occupy the same watershed and impacts accumulate.


         CUMULATIVE IMPACTS PROJECT                                                     SEPTEMBER 29, 1995
         INATURAL RESOURCES MEETING SUMMARY            5








3.4.2  Causes of Problems

Causes of CIs are the mine operations.

3.4.3  What procedures, policies, planning processes, and monitoring and compliance
       programs are used to prevent or mitigate?

Existing procedures, policies, and planning processes for dealing with impacts include NPDES
permits and the related review, the permit review process through DNR, and the requirement
that each mine meet specific numerical standards.

Other control mechanisms include closure of mines for non-compliance.

3.5 BELUGA COAL MINE

DNR attempted to permit the mine in phases, leaving out the road, port, camps, etc. for later
review.  DNR was sued and had to look at the project as a whole.

3.5.1  Specific Issues or Problems

Phasing of a project does not allow for analysis of CIs on the whole project.

3.5.2  Causes of Problems

The cause of the administrative problem was that review of the mine was separated from review
of the rest of the project.

3.5.3 What procedures, policies, planning processes, and monitoring and compliance
       programs are used to prevent or mitigate?

Existing procedures come from Federal and State regulations, and required analysis of the entire
project. The primary issue revolved around the procedural question of phasing a project.

3.6    ISSUE SUNLMMARY

The examples presented above illustrate several problems in addressing CIs (and impacts
generally).  Erosion, water quality degradation, habitat changes, loss of wilderness, and visual


SEPTEMBER 29, 1995                                                      CUMULATIVE IMPACTS PROJECT
                                             6                 NATURAL RESOURCES MEETING SUMMARY







N        ~~impacts can all result from the types of projects discussed. Impacts are addressed, and a variety
          of tools are used to address them. The tools are tailored to the situation and specific statutes and
I      ~ ~authorities under which each activity must be managed.  Identification of impacts is not as
          difficult as dealing with implementation issues such as non-compliance, user conflicts, and the
3        ~~lack of funding and staff time for inspections.



         U                                     ~~~~~~~~4.0 SOLUTIONS

I        ~~Several suggestions were offered as solutions to the problems of implementation.  These deal
          largely with practical aspects of addressing Cls, and do not focus on statutes or regulatory
3        ~~changes.

                 1.     Use of forest roads can be controlled. This manages the situation and produces
   I                 ~    ~~~~~a positive impact.  If there is no site management,  negative impacts result.
                        Authorities for control are primarily the Forest Practices Act.

                 2.     Solutions in the case of the Fort Knox Mine include:

                        0      Good pre-planning of project review;
                        0      Involve the public early on with pre-project planning;
                        0      Look at the project as a whole;
                        *      Coordinate the permitting process; and
   3                    *~~~~~~ Allow for a discussion of impacts from the whole project.

 5             ~~~~3.   The mitigation process can also address problems, and provide a useful tool, if
                        enforcement follows. Enforcement is a function of funding, which must depend
   3                   ~~~~~~on the public being willing to pay for environmental quality.

                 4.     A holistic view of project impacts is difficult to develop, but this view can be
                        developed from early identification of issues, and public involvement and
                        comment (bringing new information to the process). This can be done within the
   I                   ~~~~~~existing process.







         CUMULATIVE IMPACTS PROJECT                                                        SEPTFMBER 29, 1995
I      ~ ~~NATURAL RESOURCES MEETING SUMMARY              7








                            5.0 GENERAL COMMENTS


Political decision-making and motivation is a very important factor in the process of land
management.



                          6.0 METHODOLOGY CRITIQUE


The process of face-to-face meetings is more direct, closer to reality, and brings out more details
than a telephone survey. This is definitely a better method than telephone interviews, where
participants could only respond to the set questions. Also, there was no control of how the
information was used in the telephone interviews.


The participants thought that it was useful for them to hear each other's opinion of the topic in
person. It was a positive experience for the agency personnel.


"Whether the process is useful in the long run, only time will tell. If it is just another discussion,
we've wasted everyone's time. If there is meaningful change and an increased understanding
of the issue, and DNR's perspective, it is helpful."




























S EPTEMBER 29, 1995 CUMULATIVE IMPACTS PROJECT
                                          8 NATURAL RESOURCES MEETING SUMMARY



           *                                      ,xf~~~kwiiAa nCmet 


     Cumulative effects in forestry

     defined as:
I   ~Changes to the environment caused by the interaction of natural
     ecosystem processes with the effects of two or more forest
     activities.   Interaction between the effects of the multiple
     activities have to take place for cumulative effects to occur.
     All environmental changes caused by man are either individual or
     cumulative effects. individual effects may never be cumulative if
     they don't interact with another forest activity.
     Cumulative effects are either temporary or persistent. Most forest
     activities are temporary - they're back to natural baseline within
     the rotation.   Persistent go on until the forest activity is
I   ~changed or stopped.

     There are three groups of forest activities that have potential for
     causing cumulative effects;

I   ~Activities that physically disturb or alter the soil, principally
     roads and harvest,
       example: soil disturbance leads to erosion, increased frequency
     of debris avalanches, water quality degradation and change in
     aquatic habitat.

U - Activities that remove excessive quantities of biomass, principally
     high utilization combined with short rotations and site prep,
        example: whole tree harvest, prescribed fire, short rotations
     removing nutrients, accelerate leaching, and reduce amount of down
     and dead wood material.
    -Activities that change the composition and structure of vegetation
I   ~principally harvest and short rotations.
        example:   converting  unmanaged  to  managed  forest,   type
     conversion,   even-aged  management,   artificial   regeneration,
3~selective harvest(high grading).

     Ninety percent of the cumulative ef fects problem will be associated
     with forest road construction, maintenance and use. Erosion, waste
I   ~water run-off, soil loss through mass wasting, drainage blockage,
     water quality degradation, habitat loss upland and aquatic. These
     are persistent activities whose effects can be mitigated.

     Most other forest activities are temporary and can be prevented and
     mitigated to be non-issues especially in Alaska at this point in
3    ~time.

     What about timing and duration of the activities as to their impact
     on cumulative effects?   Are the cumulative effects positive,
I   ~negative or neutral does it make a difference?
     What are the significant cumulative effects issues? Presently I








don't believe there exist any in forest activities particularlyI
under ACI4P.

DNR might list significant cumulative issues in order of priority,3
decide the magnitude and extent of the problem, will this problem-
continue into the future, what's the cause and effect of the
problem.   1.0. baseline for each issue.  Determine the research3
needs. Make the best use of existing and new data. Improve 
administration of agency programs and interagency cooperation which
address the issues.








     Controls can be described as "preventive" or "mitigative" according to
the mode of application. Preventive controls apply to the pre-implementation
phase of an operation.  These controls involve stopping or changing the
activity before the soil-disturbing activity has a chance to occur.
Mitigative controls include vegetative or chemical measures or physical
structures which alter the response of the soil disturbing activity after It
has occurred.  Table I illustrates some of the major characteristics of the
two types of controls and provides some examples.

              TABLE 1.  CLASSIFICATION OF CONTROL METHODS WITH EXAMPLES



              Mitigative                              Preventive


A.  Surface protection:                   A.  System design and maintenance

    1.  Access:  Seeding, mulching, 1.  Access:  Minimize cuts and
        riprap, or mat on cut-and-fill            fills, roadway widths and
        slopes                                    slopes; control road density

    2.  Timber harvest:  Maintenance of       2.  Timber harvest:  Minimize soilj
        vegetative cover; distribution           compaction from equipment
        of slash                                 operation; use site-compatible
                                                 log removal system; control
    3.  Cultural treatments:  Seeding;            harvested volume within a
        planting; fertilization                  watershed; limit harvest on
                                                 unstable slopes
B.  Flow diversion and energy:
                                            3.  Cultural treatments:  Minimize,
    1.  Access:  Berms above cut                 re-entry disturbances; fire
        slopes; benches on cut slopes;           control
        checkdams in ditches; drop
        structure at culvert ends;       B.  Timing:
        water bars on road surface;
        flow diversion from potential        1. Access:  Closure of temporary
        mass failures or at mid-slope             roads; limited access; closure
                                                 during adverse conditions
    2.  Timber harvest:  Buffer strips;
        water bars on skid trails            2.  Timber harvest:  Limit
                                                 operation during adverse
    3.  Cultural practices:  Plowing,             climatic conditions; site
        furrowing, bedding                       preparations during favorable
                                                 conditions
C.  Access design modification
                                             3. Cultural treatments: Inten-
                                                 sive and number of thinnings







        DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL CONSERVATION


                        MEETING SUMMARY


                            August 16, 1995




LOCATION:       410 Willoughby, Juneau, Alaska

ATTENDEES:

        Fran Roche
        Joyce Beelman
        Kevin Hanley
        Doug Redburn
        Jim Baumgartner
        Keven Kleweno
        Steve Wright
        Amy Crook

CONSULTANTS:

        Alison Smith, Dames & Moore
        Gwendo-Lyn Turner, Dames & Moore







                                 1.0 INTRODUCTION


Fran Roche of the Department of Environmental Conservation (DEC) started the meeting with
introductions and gave an overview of the Cumulative Impacts (CI) project. Alison Smith
discussed the role of Dames & Moore and what the rest of the project entails.



                      2.0 EXAMPLES OF PROJECTS WITH CIs


2.1  REOPENING OF A.J. MINE


The reopening of the A.J. Mine in Juneau touches on numerous issues.


2.1.1  Specific Issues

             Loss of productivity in Gastineau Channel
             Loss of other uses

2.1.2 Causes


Reopening the mine would require discharge in Gastineau Channel on top of tailings left over
from gold mining 50 years ago.  Possible impacts include:


       I  *   Conflicts with recreational users of the channel;
       0      Conflicts with commercial and subsistence fisheries;
             Possible interaction with discharge from municipal sewage treatment plants;
             Impacts to quality of water used in hatcheries;
             Boat traffic/equipment interaction; and
             Potential CIs from five proposed hard rock mines up the Taku River in Canada.
             These mines would all need to dispose of tailings, potentially causing CIs.


2.1.3 Procedures, Policies, Planning Processes, Monitoring, and Compliance


The National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) dictated an Environmental Impact Statement
(EIS) to be written. CIs were addressed in the document and existing impacts were discussed
as well. DEC addressed CIs via the NEPA process which was the only vehicle available to




CUMULATIVE IMPACTS PROJECT                                                     SEPTEMBER 29, 1995
ENVIRONMENTAL CONSERVATION MEETING SUMMARY    1








address CIs. CIs were not to be addressed as part of the Alaska Coastal Management Program
(ACMP) review.  The CI review in the NEPA document was just a cursory review.

The Division of Governmental Coordination (DGC) reviews have historically not allowed limits
on fills or discharge with a CI ACMP rationale.

2.2 SHIP CREEK (ANCHORAGE)


2.2.1  Specific Issues

             Terrestrial and groundwater contamination of Ship Creek Watershed from nitrites,
             hydrocarbons, and landfill leachate;
             Surface runoff from Standard Steel, a superfund site (polychlorinated biphenols
             (PCB) and lead);
             Thermal degradation from the power plant;
             Fecal coliform from numerous waterfowl; and
             PCBs in sediments.

2.2.2  Causes


             Deicing runways
             Fuel spills (recent and historic)
              Surface runoff
             Intense industrial/commercial development


2.2.3  Procedures, Policies, Planning Processes, Monitoring, and Compliance

       ï¿½      Plan review.
       ï¿½ Permit review.
       ï¿½ Sampling programs.
       ï¿½      Interagency  group  to  address  Comprehensive  Environmental  Response,
              Compensation, and Liability Act (CERCLA) issues and related to 303(d) list for
              Total Maximum Daily Load (TMDL) process.








SEPTEMBER 29, 1995                                                      CUMULATIVE IMPACTS PROJECT
                                            2          ENVIRONMENTAL CONSERVATION MEETING SUMMARY







2.3 ANCHORAGE LAKES


2.3.1  Specific Issues

             High fecal coliform (water quality violations)
             Closures of recreational swimming lakes


2.3.2  Causes

             Increasing filling of wetlands decreases habitat for waterfowl, resulting in
             concentration of birds on Anchorage lakes.


2.3.3 Procedures, Policies, Planning Processes, Monitoring, and Compliance


             Lake closures
             Decrease the amount of fill permitted in Section 404 program


2.4  NORTH SLOPE


2.4.1 Specific Issues

      a Air Quality


2.4.2  Causes

      ï¿½      Burning hydrocarbons


2.4.3 Procedures, Policies, Planning Processes, Monitoring, and Compliance


             Prevention of Significant Deterioration (PSD) Program
             Title V/Major Source Permitting under Clean Air Act (CAA)
             Monitoring









CUMULATIVE IMPACTS PROJECT                                                     SEPTEMBER 29, 1995
ENVIRONMENTAL CONSERVATION MEETING SUMMARY    3








2.5  DUTCH HARBOR


2.5.1  Specific Issues

      *      Air pollution


2.5.2 Causes

      *      Burning hydrocarbons
      *      Lack of centralized power facility


2.5.3  Procedures, Policies, Planning Processes, Monitoring, and Compliance


          *  PSD Program
          *  Title V/Major Source Permitting under CAA
          *  Monitoring


2.6  JUNEAU/MENDENHALL VALLEY


2.6.1 Specific Issues

       *      Exceedences of air quality standards


2.6.2  Causes


       *      Use of wood stoves during inversion periods


2.6.3  Procedures, Policies, Planning Processes, Monitoring, and Compliance


          *  CAA standards
          * Air quality monitoring illustrating timing and duration of exceedences
          *  Local program was established to curtail woodstove use at 50% of the standard.
             Was very successful with local Juneau community commitment.








SEPTEMBER 29, 1995                                                        CUMULATIVE IMPACTS PROJECT
                                           4          ENVIRONMENTAL CONSERVATION MEETING SUMMARY








2.7 TONGASS NARROWS


2.7.1  Specific Issues


             Documented reduction of herring rearing habitat
       ï¿½      DGC requested threshold levels for fill which Department of Fish and Game
             (DFG) was unable to provide since biological parameters are difficult to quantify.


2.7.2  Causes


             Numerous fills in the nearshore areas over time
             DGC is not implementing ACMP regulations referring to CIs


2.7.3 Procedures, Policies, Planning Processes, Monitoring, and Compliance

       ï¿½ ACMP review


2.8  RED DOG


2.8.1 Specific Issues


             Overall impacts due to large mine development and long term mining in a frontier
             area


2.8.2 Causes


             Lack of communication between developer and contractors regarding permit
             stipulations
             No constant resource agency presence throughout construction due to lack of
             funding for State agency staff


2.8.3 Procedures, Policies, Planning Processes, Monitoring, and Compliance


             Agencies and developers educate and monitor contractors
             Funding is necessary to properly monitor permit stipulations throughout the life
             of the project.




CUMULATIVE IMPACTS PROJECT                                                     SEPTEMBER 29, 1995
ENVIRONMENTAL CONSERVATION MEETING SUMMARY    5








2.9 COMMUNITIES THROUGHOUT ALASKA


2.9.1  Specific Issues

             Failed septic systems
             Contaminated surface runoff


2.9.2  Causes


        ULack of permitting


2.9.3  Procedures, Policies, Planning Processes, Monitoring, and Compliance


              Subdivision review
             404 Permitting
              General Permits are issued specifying Best Management Practices for future
              development.



                                   3.0 DISCUSSION


A definition of adverse CIs is required in order to provide for consistency in the way CIs are
assessed; however, agreement on the definition is difficult among and even within agencies.
Emphasis should be placed on specifying what constitutes "adverse" in a CI definition.

The ACMP  should be a home  for defining CIs for terrestrial, water, air, and socio-
environmental CIs (6 AAC 50 and 6 AAC 80). Agencies would adopt the definition if they
didn't already define CIs in their regulations. The ACMP would provide a minimum definition
of CIs, agencies could further refine if wanted.


The definition needs to be housed in one agency and applied to each agencies' regulatory basis
while being consistent with the original definition.


A checklist could be used to address CIs, and a sentence added to permit documents which
reference CIs.





SEPTEMBER29, 1995                                                         CUMULATIVE IMPACTS PROJECT
                                            6          ENVIRONMENTAL CONSERVATION MEETING SUMMARY







       IThe ACMP has broader topic areas than DEC's regulatory authority allows.


       IThe term "associated growth" used in the CAA allows DEC to go beyond just regulating specific
       emissions, i.e., all the impacts of the project.


       Adverse Cls can be defined as those impacts which contribute to exceedances of the state
       standards or cause the loss of a particular use. Thresholds of adverse CIS, particularly in water,

       need to be defined, and biological attributes need to be better defined in regulations.

       IAnother issue discussed was that many problems encountered by DEC are a result of poor or
       no land use planning or would best be addressed via the local planning process.



                                            4.0 SOLUTIONS


                     Land management agencies should be the driving force in controlling Cls.


              0      All agency staff should have some cross-media tasks.


              0      Put system plan reviews back under the umbrella of the ACMP.


I              *~~~~ Develop a batch-processing system for permitting.


I              *~~~~ DEC  needs to participate in local land use planning, allowing for early issue
                     identification.


              0      DEC needs to train personnel in the department's overall authorities. This could
                     develop knowledge base in staff.

              0      Develop interagency working groups which  help to develop overview of
                     Iprojects/project areas and expertise on that area within staff.

              a Add sentence to permitting checklist and permit document referencing Cls.








       CUMULATIVE IMPACTS PROJECT                                                      SEPTEMBER 29, 1995
       IENVIRONMENTAL CONSERVATION MEETING SUMMARY    7









                            5.0 METHODOLOGY CRITIQUE


       *       Answers  and  consensus  can  be  developed  during  face-to-face  meetings.
              Discussions are more direct.


       *      Interplay was very positive.



















































SEPTEMBER 29, 1995                                                               CUMULATIVE IMPACTS PROJECT
                                               8           ENVIRONMENTAL CONSERVATION MEETING SUMMARY







           DIVISION OF GOVERNMENTAL COORDINATION


                         MEETING SUMMARY


                            August 17, 1995




LOCATION:       240 Main Street, Suite 500, Juneau, Alaska

ATTENDEES:

        Glenn Gray
        Kerry Howard
        Lorraine Marshall
         Gabrielle LaRoche
         Chas Dense
        Maureen McCrea

CONSULTANTS:

         Alison Smith, Dames & Moore
         Gwendo-Lyn Turner, Dames & Moore







                                 1.0 INTRODUCTION


Glenn Gray of the Division of Governmental Coordination (DGC) started the meeting with
introductions and gave an overview of the Cumulative Impacts Group Discussion project.
Specific examples of cumulative impacts (CIs) were discussed to bring out issues related to the
sites and causes of the problems. A discussion of procedures, policies, planning processes, and
monitoring and compliance programs currently utilized to deal with CIs followed. Impacts by
area and activity or facility type were then discussed with a followup of the generic causes of
CIs, and solutions and procedures to address CIs.



                  2.0 SPECIFIC AREAS WITH QUANTIFIABLE CIs


2.1 ANCHORAGE


2.1.1 Specific Issues


             Wetland losses.
              Flooding.
              Stream rechannelization - There is an attempt to take Chester Creek out of a ditch
              and reconstruct the habitat.
             Water quality.
             Air quality.


2.1.2  Causes


             Property rights.
             Lack of consensus about what is enough loss.
              Lack of baseline information.
             Sensitivity of each biological system versus degree of impact.
             The fact that by the time an impact to a biological system is visible, the system
             has already crashed.

2.1.3 Existing Procedures, Policies, Planning Processes, and Monitoring and Compliance
      Programs

       ï¿½      Alaska Coastal Management Program (ACMP) reviews.



CUMULATIVE IMPACTS PROJECT                                                       SEPTEMBER 29, 1995
DIviSION OF GOVERNMENTAL COORDINATION          1








             Anchorage Wetlands Management Program.
             Baseline data helps, but biological systems don't always show impacts until they
             crash.
             Aerial photo comparison to document historical change.
             Informed consent process through U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (COE).
             Municipality of Anchorage (MOA) application process to fill a wetland.
             Planning and zoning.


2.2  PRINCE OF WALES ISLAND - POLK INLET TIMBER SALE


2.2.1  Specific Issues


             Reuse of old roads with associated maintenance problems
              General watershed problems due to landslides, sedimentation, etc.
              Log Transfer Facilities (LTFs)
             Water quality impacts
              Loss of recreational, subsistence, and commercial fishing use
              Loss of other recreational use


2.2.2 Causes


              Continual harvest.
              Previous logging created problems that will be added to.
              Blowdowns of trees left as buffer zones have resulted in fish kills due to high
              water temperatures. Lack of shading vegetation causes stream temperatures to
              increase.


2.2.3 Existing Procedures, Policies, Planning Processes, and Monitoring and Compliance
       Programs


              U.S. Forest Service (FS) standards, guidelines, and Best Management Practices
              (BMPs) promulgated under the Forest Practices Act (FPA) are used to control
              impacts.  (FPA standards are used for ACMP  forestry reviews on state and
              federal lands. The Timber and Habitat Standards of the ACMP were preempted
              by the FPA for state timber sales). If there was a CI Standard under the ACMP
              or district plan, it might apply to timber sales on state lands.




SEPTEMBER 29, 1995                                                        CUMULATIVE IMPACTS PROJECT
                                            2                DIVISION OF GOVERNMENTAL COORDINATION







       0      Stipulations on federal sales, such as a recent one at Moose Pass where the U.S.
              Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS) requested that all roads be temporary.
       ï¿½      FS forest plans.
       ï¿½      FS area-wide monitoring which enhances a regional view for looking at CIs.
              Alaska Department of Environmental Conservation (DEC) monitoring for water
              quality issues.
              Alaska Department of Fish and Game (DFG) interdisciplinary team provides early
              involvement in the National Environmental Protection Act (NEPA) process on the
              part of the state. Early involvement in the process results in better projects.


2.3    JUNEAU

2.3.1  Specific Issues


              Air quality impacts.
              Water quality impacts.
              Flooding.
       ï¿½ Habitat Reduction.
       ï¿½ *    Sensitivity of biological systems; by the time an impact is measurable, it is too
              late.
              Changes in recreational values.


2.3.2  Causes

       *      Increasing recreational use of area by tourists.
              Wetlands fill for subdivision development.
       ï¿½ Lack of information on limits to development.
       ï¿½      Wood stove burning during inversions.
       *      Cruise ship exhaust.
       ï¿½      River stabilization impacts from use of riprap.  Vegetative stabilization is
              encouraged over riprap alone for new construction as well as modifications.
       *      On-site sewer system impacts on groundwater and surface water. Understanding
              of the problem is hindered by a lack of documentation about the systems.








CUMULATIVE IMPACTS PROJECT                                                     SEPTEMBER 29, 1995
DIVISION OF GOVERNMENTAL COORDINATION         3








2.3.3 Existing Procedures, Policies, Planning Processes, and Monitoring and Compliance
      Programs

      ï¿½ Section 404 permitting process.
      ï¿½ Consistency review under the ACMP.
      ï¿½      Subdivision review/platting.


2.4  TONGASS NARROWS (KETCHIKAN)


2.4.1  Specific Issues

      ï¿½      Loss of nearshore habitat


2.4.2  Causes


             Community growth and need for expansion of land base.
             Lack of baseline information and impacts are difficult to quantify.
             Many small fills resulting in major loss of nearshore habitat.
             Inability of agencies to deny fills in many small nearshore areas, no way to deal
             with individual impacts without a review standard.


2.4.3 Existing Procedures, Policies, Planning Processes, and Monitoring and Compliance
      Programs


             Best professional judgement
             ACMP reviews can identify potential effects of projects
             Section 404 permitting process

2.5  UNALASKA REGION- SEAFOOD PROCESSING


2.5.1  Specific Issues


             Air quality degradation.
             Marine water quality degradation.
             Economic impacts of too much regulation.





SEPTEMBER 29, 1995                                                      CUMULATIVE IMPACTS PROJECT
                                            4                DIVISION OF GOVERNMENTAL COORDINATION








2.5.2  Causes

      I      Burning hydrocarbon fuels for electrical generation.
       ï¿½ Seafood processing discharges.


2.5.3 Existing Procedures, Policies, Planning Processes, and Monitoring and Compliance
      Programs


             National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) permitting:  U.S.
             Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) decided nearshore operators should have
             to get individual permits instead of a general permit. This decision was elevated
             and now more studies on impacts are required. EPA will determine if individual
             permitting is necessary.
             Consistency review under ACMP.
             Area Meriting Special Attention plan for Unalaska area can control location of
             new projects, set standards for new projects to meet.
             Harbor Management Plan.
             DEC sets total maximum daily load (TMDL) for impaired waterbodies.



   3.0 SPECIFIC AREAS WITH CIs AND TYPES OF ACTIVITIES CAUSING CIs


3.1 IMPACTS BY AREA


3.1.1 Matanuska River


             Eroding river banks are destroying homes which were permitted in inappropriate
             locations.
             Dikes control flooding which could create legal problems if they ever fail.
             Matanuska Borough is unwilling to guarantee protection from erosion.


3.3.2 Prudhoe Bay


             Calving in the Central Caribou Herd may be impacted by development. Impacts
             decrease at distance from the oil fields.
             Air quality impacts from facility operations.
             Wetlands reduction due to gravel fill for roads, causeways, gravel pads.


CUMULATIVE IMPACTS PROJECT                                                     SEPTEMBER 29, 1995
DIVISION OF GOVERNMENTAL COORDINATION         5








       ï¿½      Contamination from reserve pits.
       ï¿½      Historical thermal erosion from road dust.
       ï¿½      Impacts from oil spills (statewide, too).
       ï¿½      Causeways - potential negative impacts on nearshore water quality and currents;
              potential positive impact on Spectacled Eider nesting habitat.

3.3.3  Kenai River


              Site visits are important to determine CIs to the habitat, water quality, wetlands,
              and recreational use of the river.


3.2  IMPACTS BY ACTIVITY/FACILITY

3.2.1  Sewer Outfalls


       *      Water quality impacts from homes where systems are improperly hooked up to
              stormwater drains instead of sewers and from boats flushing wastes.
       *      Lack of documentation creates an impact; many outfalls are not listed.
       *      Definite impact can occur on mariculture from above.

3.2.2  Parking Lots/Stormwater


              Many communities stipulate that oil/water separators be installed but do not
              stipulate a maintenance program, which negates the original intent to protect the
              environment.


3.2.3 Mariculture


              The presence of a mariculture facility precludes other uses of an area due to the
              need for good water quality.  Affects even low impact recreational use (i.e.,
              kayaking) due to preemption of use of location and loss of wilderness values.

3.2.4  Potential Salmon Ranching/Finfish Farming


       *      Potential exists for farming/ranching on native lands.
       *      Genetic impact of ranched versus wild populations mixing and effecting wild
              population survival in natural streams.



SEPTEMBER 29, 1995                                                       CUMULATIVE IMPACTS PROJECT
                                             6                DIVISION OF GOVERNMENTAL COORDINATION







                    *  impact of competition for ocean resources.
                    *  Introduction of exotic species (Atlantic Salmon) which may effect native species

                        survival.

1       ~~3.2.5  Fishing

                    *  Pollution from commercial fishing boats.
                    *  Overfishing - Alaska has a good record to date.
                    *  Conflicts over use - cruise ships fowling fishing nets.
   I            *      ~~~~Impact on recreational and subsistence fishing due to guided fishing tours.
                       Increased noise, loss of wilderness values, potential decrease in fish.
                    *  Bank erosion and loss of habitat due to increased use of riverine systems.



       U                               ~~~~~~~4.0 GENERIC CAUSES OF Cls

I        ~~There is a general lack of direction on how to handle CIs and a lack of clarity in statute and
         regulations. This is a multi-disciplinary problem and creates obstacles to implementation. There
         is also a lack of knowledge about methods to use to address CIs. Not all activities go through
         a review process or need permits, so there aren't the necessary controls to prevent CIS. For
         large projects, many modifications are reviewed individually, not as a whole. Lack of
         regulations or controls (even some sort of review process) on some activities contribute to the
         accumulation of impacts over time.

         Addressing CIs necessitates an interdisciplinary approach, which makes it hard for an individual
         reviewer to get a handle on the issue. Incremental growth, i.e., many small projects within a
         particular area, promotes CIs since most often it is unknown at what point the system will crash.



                         5.0 SOLUTIONS AND PROCEDURES TO ADDRESS Cls

         This section lists the procedures, policies, planning processes, and monitoring and compliance
         programs already in existence for dealing with CIs. Proposed solutions are then presented.







         CUMULATIVE IMPACTS PROJECT                                                        SEPTEMBER 29, 1995
I      ~ ~DIVISION OF GOVERNMENTAL COORDINATION           7








5.1 SUMMARY OF PROCEDURES, POLICIES, ETC. FOR DEALING WITH CIs


Wide ranging solutions were discussed, with a caveat that no matter what the process is, if there
is a mandate to develop and to do more than the resource can sustain, you can plan to death, but
the mandate overrides the planning process.

             ACMP
             NEPA
             U.S. Army Engineer Districts Section 404 permitting process
             Subdivision review/platting
             Forest Plans
             Forest Service BMPs
             NPDES non-point and point permitting (with associated monitoring)
             Plans of Operations for mining
             Harbor Management Plans
             _Areas Meriting Special Attention Plans
             TMDL limitations
             Batch processing of permits for mariculture
             Special Area Plans
             Alaska Department of Natural Resources (DNR) Planning (area plans) and
             subsequent land use classification
             Regional hatchery plans for salmon hatcheries
             DEC General Permit for discharges from floating camps
             Municipal Comprehensive Plans
             Interagency review teams
             Public involvement
             Enforcement


5.2 PROPOSED SOLUTIONS


             Develop checklists to be used during permit reviews that would help identify CIs.
             This would ensure that all CIs would have been considered during project review.


             Need to agree on some form of best professional judgement when there is a lack
             of baseline information. In the case of most biological systems, there is often no
             measurable indication of an adverse impact until the system crashes.




SEPTEMBER 29, 1995 CUMULATIVE IMPACTS PROJECT
                                           8               DIVISION OF GOVERNMENTAL COORDINATION







    U                   ~~~~~Establish interagency working groups to discuss Cls specific to a project.
                               Lookng t ativtie inthepre-construction phase, and sharing information,

                        produces a pro-active approach to looking at Cls.

                    *  Look at history of project reviews to identify areas which may be subject to
                        continual, gradual development. Then agencies may be able to work pro-actively.

                    *  State, federal, and local plans need to be more specific regarding which areas are
                        to be subject to impacts from development, and which areas should be protected.

                        Include public involvement in project review.

                    *  Explore batch processing for permitting in strategic areas.  This process could,
                        in theory, require all applicants in one region to apply for permits at the same
                        time. A consolidated, location-based review would enhance agencies' ability to
                        consider Cls in the approvallpermit condition process. This process could be
                        effective in areas with high sensitivity resources and/or low carrying capacity.

                    *  Promote community education on environmental issues beyond just land use
                        planning.

   H            '~~~~~Development thresholds need tobe implemented at the community level to give
                        developers predictability.

                    *  Develop sensitivity matrices (maybe through the University) illustrating sensitivity
                        and impacts of activities, (i.e., a low impact activity at a highly resilient site
                        would have fewer Cls than a high-impact activity at a site in a sensitive
                        ecosystem).

                    *  Determine a strategic approach to project review.  Complex projects may dictate
                        a longer review time allowing for more detailed analysis. Simple reviews would
                        be completed in a shorter time period.

                    *  Refine regulations to provide more direction.

                    *  Tie project review information into a Geographic Information System to be better
                        able to determine where Cls might occur at specific locations.


         CUMULATIVE IMPACTS PROJECT                                                        SEPTEMBER 29, 1995
I      ~ ~~DIVISION OF GOVERNMENTAL COORDINATION          9








             Time permits for a project/facility so that they expire together, which would save
             time for industry and reviewers, and promote consideration of CIs.



                            6.0 GENERAL COMMENTS


The term "cumulative impacts" currently occurs in the ACMP regulations, but a definition
should be included in ACMP regulations to provide a clearer understanding of the term. A
definition should address a number of factors including: the kinds of CIs (i.e., whether
environmental, socio-economic, cultural or aesthetic will be included), the geographic scope
(i.e., will the consideration of CIs be limited to the project site, watershed, or other area), and
the time period (i.e., some researchers have suggested impacts be considered over a 20-year time
period, which may be defined as a generation). A definition would promote a common
understanding of CIs, and provide sideboards for consideration of CIs during project reviews,
resulting in fewer arguments within and between permitting agencies. Case law has affected the
CEQ definition, and a state definition would provide more sideboards and more specificity. A
definition would also limit the ability of the court system to define the term through case law.



                          7.0 METHODOLOGY CRITIQUE


The DGC participants agreed that a face-to-face meeting was an effective way to learn more
about cumulative impacts, and that the meeting complemented the survey approach used in the
HDR report. The meeting was an appropriate vehicle for developing consensus.





















SEPTEMBER 29, 1995 CUMULATIVE IMPACTS PROJECT
                                          10 DIVISION OF GOVERNMENTAL COORDINATION







  DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE AND ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT


                       MEETING SUMMARY


                          August 17, 1995




LOCATION:    State Office Building, 9th Floor

ATTENDEES:

        Tom Lawson
        Wendy Wolf
        Veronica Slajer

TELECONFERENCE ATTENDEES:

        Dick Swanbank
        Mary Marshbum

CONSULTANTS:

        Alison Smith, Dames & Moore
        Gwendo-Lyn Turner, Dames & Moore








                                 1.0 INTRODUCTION


Tom Lawson of the Department of Commerce and Economic Development started the meeting
with introductions and gave a description of the project. He explained that the purpose of the
meeting was to provide a followup to the HDR report and to answer some questions remaining
unanswered after completion of the HDR report. Several specific examples of Cumulative
Impacts (CIs) were discussed with their related causes. Procedures, policies, planning processes,
and monitoring and compliance programs which could be used to prevent or mitigate these
problems were presented and appear in Section 3.0.



                              2.0 SPECIFIC EXAMPLES


2.1   NOISE IMPACTS


2.1.1 Specific Issues or Problems


      ï¿½ Noise impacts can reduce the quality of recreational experiences.


2.1.2 Causes of the Problems


      ï¿½      Helicopter/aircraft flight seeing and air taxis in wilderness areas.


2.2    SOUTHEAST ALASKA - LOG TRANSFER FACILITIES (LTFs)


2.2.1 Specific Issues or Problems

             Impacts to state waters from LTFs.


2.1.2 Causes of the Problems


             Loss of bark from logs creates water quality problems and smothers the nearshore
             benthic community.


             LTFs preclude any other uses of their location.  This can result in a continued
             loss of recreational and fishing (commercial and sport) use of the location.




CUMULATIVE IMPACTS PROJECT                                                    SEPTEMBER 29, 1995
COMMERCE AND ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT MEETING SUMMARY   1








2.3 KETCHIKAN - TONGASS NARROWS


Much of the Tongass Narrows nearshore habitat has been filled for commercial, industrial, and
residential purposes.


2.3.1 Specific Issues or Problems

       ï¿½      Loss of habitat.
       *      Water quality degradation.
       *      Changes in hydrology.
       *      Effects on transportation.

2.3.2 Causes of the Problems


             Inability of any of the agencies to say no to more fill due to a lack of established
              limits and knowledge of the habitat.


2.4  GASTINEAU CHANNEL (JUNEAU)


2.4.1  Specific Issues or Problems


       0      Water quality degradation in Gastineau Channel.


2.4.2  Causes of the Problems


              Tailings disposal from gold mining (historic and proposed).
             Pollution from other sources (landfills, sewage treatment, etc.).



                           3.0 DISCUSSION/PROCEDURES


3.1  DISCUSSION


CIs are a difficult issue to grasp. Human nature affects decisions; certainty in decision-making
is elusive.





SEPTEMBER 29, 1995                                                            CUMULATIVE IMPACTS PROJECT
                                            2   COMMERCE AND ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT MEETING SUMMARY







         3.2 WHAT PROCEDURES, POLICIES, PLANNING PROCESSES, AND)
                MONITORING AN]) COMPLIANCE PROGRAMS ARE USED TO PREVENT OR

                MITIGATE FOR IMPACTS?

                    *  User fees could be imposed for more types of recreational activities. These fees
                       would have to be applied across the board, and would provide an economic
   *                   ~~~~~~connection between the user and the use of resources.

                    *  Local governmental entities can call on their Title 29 powers to regulate use of
   I                 ~    ~~~~~the air space above their jurisdiction and develop land use plans to control where
                       activities occur. Reducing the amount of time a particular flight service can
   3                   ~~~~~~operate in certain areas would reduce impacts to recreational users. This is called
                       time adjusted zonation, and can restrict flights by area as well as by time of day,
   3                   ~~~~~~thereby reducing the location and duration of the noise impacts.

                    *  The Alaska Coastal Management Plan (ACMP) provides a vehicle by which local
   I                 ~ ~~~~~jurisdictions can have input into the review process as well as develop local
                       coastal management plans. To properly use the ACMP, however, there needs to
   I                   ~~~~~~be a serious commitment to implementation.

   3             *     ~~~~~Environmental Impact Statements can identify Cls specific to a potential project.

         3.3 THE NEED FOR A DEFINITION OF CI

         Writing another regulation is probably not necessary with the definition already in federal
         regulation. More regulations are not what is needed, everyone would look for the loopholes
         between the state and the federal definitions. More regulation would just build more boxes
3        ~~around agencies' ability to operate.



         I                                     ~~~~~~~~4.0 SOLUTIONS

         4.1 TRAIN STA1FF

         UConsensus building skills need to be developed in state agency staff.  Training in conflict
         resolution would result in a more open state government, and would enable staff to work with
         3project developers and other state agencies in a more productive manner. Better communication


         CUMULATIVE IMPACTS PROJECT                                                        SEPTEMBER 29, 1995
         ICOMMERCE AND ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT MEETING SUMMARY   3








may enable more up-front information exchange, a clearer understanding of projects and their
impacts, and better resolution of conflicts.

4.2 MAINTAIN FLEXIBILITY

Maintaining flexibility in regulation allows for some discretion in agencies. It can also allow
staff with local knowledge to comment on projects in a more productive manner, and possibly
prevent Cls.

4.3 EXISTING SYSTEMU

Use the existing system, but there needs to be confidence that it will work.



                            5.0 GENERAL COMMENTS 

There was one general comment with which everyone agreed--that it is unrealistic to assumeI
agency money will be increased in order to implement the recommendations of this or the HDR
study. No one wants to be the one to say no to projects, but there ought to be a way to3
recognize an acceptable level of impacts, i.e., develop a threshold. We need to acknowledge
that impacts are economic as well as environmental. Development happens where the resources3
are, and use of the environment has impacts. Some CIs are actually human impacts, having an
impact on human experience.



                         6.0 METHODOLOGY CRITIQUE 

Most were appreciative that they had the opportunity to talk about the issue in person, and that
their perspective could be voiced.













SEPTEMBER 29, 1995                                                          CUMULATIVE IMPACTS PROJECT
                                          4   COMMERCE AND ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT MEETING SUMMARY1







               DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
                     AND PUBLIC FACILITIES


                       MEETING SUMMARY


                          August 23, 1995




ATTENDEES:

        JUNEAU:

             Nate Johnson
             Bill Ballard

        FAIRBANKS:

             Mike Tinker
             Dave Bloom

        ANCHORAGE:

             Jerry Ruehle

CONSULTANTS:

        Alison Smith, Dames & Moore
        Gwendo-Lyn Turner, Dames & Moore







                                  1.0 INTRODUCTION


Nate Johnson started the meeting with introductions of participants and a description of the
purpose of the project. Particular sites where Cumulative Impacts (CIs) have occurred were not
discussed, because the discussion centered around the definition of significant and cumulative
impacts, where the definitions should be housed, and how they should be implemented.



                                    2.0 DISCUSSION

2.1 DEFINITION OF CUMULATIVE IMPACTS


The Department of Transportation and Public Facilities (DOT&PF) has a mandate to address CIs
due to receipt of federal monies through the Federal Highway Administration.  Once there is
federal funding for a project or activity, the Council on Environmental Quality (CEQ)
Environmental Impact Statement (Environmental Assessment (EA), Categorical Exclusion (CE))
preparation guidelines, containing definitions of CIs and "significant", apply to the project. The
current DOT&PF procedures include applying the CEQ guidelines and ensuring projects are
consistent with local coastal district management plans.  The Alaska Coastal Management
Program (ACMP) is supported with some federal funding, therefore the CEQ regulations should
apply to activities carried out under the ACMP.


The CEQ process has two parts. First, the impacts of alternatives (or the preferred alternative)
under consideration have to be determined and whether their status is indirect or direct
(secondary or cumulative) identified. Second, the significance of the impacts needs to be
determined.  If any are expected to be significant impacts, then an Environmental Impact
Statement (EIS) is required. If significant impacts are not identified or there is uncertainty, an
EA is required to determine significance, or a CE is required if it is easily determined that there
are no significant impacts from the project.


There was agreement among participants that the CEQ guidelines should be a baseline for a
statewide definition of CIs and "significant", and that the definitions should apply statewide so
there is consistent treatment of both.  The use of the term "significant" instigates a different
response to federal guidelines and is addressed in the CEQ regulations. If impacts are
significant, an EIS is required.





CUMULATIVE IMPACTS PROJECT                                                       SEPTEMBER 29, 1995
DOT&PF MEETING SUMMARY                         1








Impacts of projects can be both positive and negative. Communities want infrastructure; positive
impacts result from the use of those facilities.  It was implied that, along with the positive
impacts, there may be adverse impacts, since use of one resource will always effect other
resources. However, if communities want the facilities, they must be willing to accept the
consequences. The level of acceptable impact (particularly if impacts are significant) should be
dealt with during the planning stage at the community level through local decision-making.

"Significant"  is defined in the CEQ  regulations along with a methodology to determine
significance of a given impact. Significant impacts also need to be addressed on a local basis,
but with a statewide regulation for consistency.  DOT&PF doesn't have a problem addressing
significant and cumulative impacts, but there need to be guidelines/benchmarks for clarification.

A statewide definition of CIs must mesh with the CEQ definition and, from DOT&PF's
perspective, must mesh with how DOT&PF prepares its environmental documents based on CEQ
regulations.

2.2 LOCATION FOR THE DEFINITIONS


The appropriate location for a definition of CIs and "significant" would be the ACMP, since it
must comply with CEQ regulations. This would provide a consistent basis from which the
coastal districts could then build local definitions to represent local interests. A more strict
definition in district plans would be acceptable, as long as the basis was statewide.

2.3 IMPLEMENTATION

As described above, the CI and "significant" definitions would be housed in the ACMP with
each Coastal District adopting the statewide definitions, at a minimum, or further refining them
to incorporate local concerns.  Implementation should be through the current local planning
process. There was concern that if CIs and significance of these CIs were addressed in
DOT&PF's environmental document (including coordination with the appropriate coastal district
plans) that another analysis not be required during the coastal consistency review process.



                                3.0 OTHER COMMENTS

The tools for defining CIs and determining significance of these impacts exist, but a statewide
definition is needed which should be implemented at the local level.


SEPTEMBER 29, 1995                                                        CUMULATIVE IMPACTS PROJECT
                                             2                          DOT&PF MEETING SUMMARY







                 DEPARTMENT OF FISH AND GAME


                        MEETING SUMMARY


                           August 25, 1995




LOCATION:    DFG Conference Room, Anchorage

ATTENDEES:

        Wayne Dolezal
        Carl Hemming
        Don McKay
        Glenn Seaman

TELECONFERENCE ATTENDEES:

        Janet Schempf
        Lana Shea
        Dave Hardy



CONSULTANTS:

        Alison Smith, Dames & Moore
        Gwendo-Lyn Turner, Dames & Moore







        I                                  ~~~~~~~1.0 INTRODUCTION


I        ~~Glenn Seaman  of the Department of Fish and Game  (DFG) started the meeting with
         introductions and gave an overview of the Cumulative Impacts Group Discussion project. Major
3        ~~types of impacts were discussed by locations and within the topic of types of impacts, specific
         issues, causes, and procedures, policies, planning processes, and monitoring and compliance
         were elaborated upon. An overview of those existing procedures, policies, and planing
         processes was discussed, and potential solutions presented. The group discussion method was
         then critiqued.



        1                                  ~~~~~~~2.0 MAJOR IMPACTS

3        ~2.1  SOUTHEAST ALASKA LOGGING

         The impact of logging on habitat is an order of magnitude above impacts from any other activity
U      ~ ~in Southeast Alaska.

3        ~~2.1.1  Specific Issues

                    *  Habitat loss
   I            *      ~~~~~Loss of forest land to other uses
                    *  Water quality degradation

         2.1.2  Causes

                    *  Road construction and lack of maintenance (erosion).
                    *  Magnitude of the activity.  For instance, on Chicagof Island 270 km of roads
                       have been constructed to clear-cut 20,000 acres of forest in the last 13 years
                       alone.
   1            *      ~~~~~~Log transfer facilities.
                    *  Timber harvest.
   3            *      ~~~~~Other harvests.








         CUMULATIVE IMPACTS PROJECT                                                       SEPTEMBER 29, 1995
         IFISH AND GAME MEETING SUMMARY1








2.1.3 Existing Procedures, Policies, Planning Processes, and Monitoring and Compliance
      Programs


There a-re very few mechanisms that have been developed or implemented for dealing with the
level of impact imposed by logging. It causes large-scale habitat damage, but by statute and3
regulation is treated more leniently than other activities that cause less damage. Logging is
essentially controllable only through the political process. Some of the controls presently
available to address Cls are listed below.


             The Federal Resources Planning Act and the National Forest Management Act -
             These address Cls of reasonably foreseeable future development and past
             development on adjacent lands.  On federal lands, Cls have to be considered as3
             they affect adjacent private and state lands. This is made difficult by a lack of
             access to files for private lands and a lack of details in state plans.  Cls are3
             actually addressed more through the side issue of sustainable yield of resources.
             For example, when consensus was reached among biologists on what viable

             populations meant for the Tongass National Forest under the National Forest
             Management Act, a new law was passed by Congress and the Forest Service
             promulgated new regulations to change the definition of viable populations. If the3
             public will does not agree with science, then science is disregarded. The reality
             is that for many communities, short-term gain often overwhelms many other
             considerations.


          *  Endangered Species Act - This is fairly effective when it can be utilized, but thereI
             is an overall lack of understanding of species and no adequate program to
             document them.3


          *  National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) - The NEPA requires the U.S. Forest3
             Service (USFS) to analyze Cls as part of the environmental impact statement
             process.3


          *  State Lands - Regulations require the elements of the NEPA process, but not a
             full Environmental Impact Statement (EIS). Enforcement is substantially less than3
             that necessary to ensure compliance with statutes or regulations. The process for
             consideration of Cls is in place (NEPA elements) but the managing agency has3
             not allowed them to work.




SEPTEMBER299, 1995                                                        CUMULATIVE IMPACTS PROJECT
                                           2                     FISH AND GAME MEETING SUMMARY








2.2  SOUTHEAST ALASKA - OTHER ACTIVITIES


2.2.1  Fills and Dredging


There is a shortage of flat land available in southeast Alaska, so deltas and tidal flats are prime
building sites. Loss of wetlands and changes in benthic communities have resulted from
nearshore fills. With the lack of information and research to establish thresholds, DFG cannot
provide DGC with the limits it requires to control fill.

2.2.2  Float Homes


Problems related to float homes include illegal use of sites, preclusion of other recreational and
commercial uses, and water quality degradation. The locational aspects are controlled in Sitka
through local planning.  On Prince of Wales Island the issue has been addressed by trying to
convince owners to relocate to specific sites by offering amenities such as power hookups,
showers, laundry facilities, etc. DNR has the authority to prevent them from using unpermitted
areas, but it is not doing so.  Other agencies don't have similar authorities.  In Juneau,
waterfront property owners have successfully pressured the city into limiting float homes.


2.2.3 Tourism


I ncreased use of small aircraft and helicopters for low altitude flying and drop-offs in alpine
areas is a new area of impact needing analysis. The impacts of marine tour boats dropping off
increasing numbers of tourists to tromp around in areas which formerly saw little activity are
within the realm of tourism CIs. These CIs are human impacts as opposed to habitat or species
impacts.


2.3  INTERIOR ALASKA - PLACER MINING


Placer mining is a big industry in the interior of Alaska. There are whole valleys, such as the
Birch Creek drainage north of Fairbanks, where vegetation and habitat has been disturbed. The
regulations allow agencies to work with operators on a case-by-case basis, but the overall effect
on drainages is not being addressed.








CUMULATIVE IMPACTS PROJECT                                                       SEPTEMBER 29, 1995
FISH AND GAME MEETING SUMMARY                  3








2.4  NORTH SLOPE OF ALASKA - OIL AND GASI

2.4.1  Specific IssuesI

         *  Impacts on animal behavior and reproduction3
         *  Wetlands and habitat loss
         *  Rehabilitation of impacted sites
         *  Impact on subsistence use is not being addressed


2.4.2  CausesI

         *  Roads and gravel pads/infrastructure expansion3
         *  Oil field operation restrictions (on subsistence)

2.4.3 Existing Procedures, Policies, Planning Processes, and Monitoring and Compliance
      Programs3

         *  U.S. Army Engineer District (USAED) Wetlands Permit - This has provided a
            good vehicle for looking at Cls, but only on a project-by-project basis, still3
            lacking an overall look at Cls. If the I % exemption for Alaska goes through, it
            would cut the effectiveness of this method.3

         'Endangered Species Act -Effective when employed.

         *  State Regulations - Leases have bonding and reclamation requirements including
            restoration to the satisfaction of the leasing agency (DN-R).  DNR  has not,3
            however, made any attempt to define what the restoration will be. There have
            been several small-scale restoration projects which have shown some success, but3
            there is not direction from DNR yet.

Overall, the oil and gas industry considers individual and cumulative impacts better than otherI
industries including forestry and mining, because they have had the resources to do so. The
emphasis has been to avoid critical habitat whenever possible. This has been fairly successful3
with the use of technology such as directional drilling. Addressing Cls in the oil and gas
industry is essentially economically driven. The industry will work to minimize impacts from3
those conflicts which do occur, but they resist the issue of compensation for loss of wetlands.




SEPTEMBER 29, 1995                                                        CUMULATIVE IMPACTS PROJECT
                                        4                      FISH AND GAME MEETING SUMMARY 







U       ~~The impact of oil and gas development on subsistence has not been adequately addressed.
         Potential impacts from oil spills have been addressed, but not the impact of operations. Due to
I      ~ ~safety factors, subsistence in oil fields and around off-shore platforms and causeways is
         essentially prohibited. How this has affected subsistence use of resources has not been
         determined.

         2.5  SOUTHCENTRAL ALASKA

         2.5.1 Kenai River

         Through the Section 309 Program, DFG received funds to do a fairly comprehensive survey of
3       ~~Cls along the Kenai River.  The habitat along the river was assessed and problems quantified,
         but thresholds were not identified. A lot of different groups agree there is a problem and there
         have been efforts to create new authorities, and to develop policies to coordinate further and
         tackle these problems. No one disagreed with the DFG approach to identify the problems. This
         seems to be one way to at least get problems identified, although no attempt was made to

         establish thresholds.

3        ~~2.5.2. Urbanization

                *      Loss of wetlands and floodplains in Anchorage due to pressure to develop the
                       available land.

 I              *~~~~ Loss of wetlands and intertidal habitat in Seward due to lack of other available
                       land for development.

                    *  Intertidal development for the marine fisheries industry causes loss of habitat.

U        ~~The problem is a matter of use.  What is seen as a loss by one group is seen as a benefit
         (usually economic) by another group.



         3                                    ~~~~~~~~3.0 DISCUSSION

3        ~~The difficulty in addressing Cls is that threshold criteria for biological systems are not very
         measurable. Also, once you have a threshold, there is little or no clear guidance on what to do
         with it. A legal requirement for procedures to identify Cls or establish thresholds is useless


         CUMULATIVE IMPACTS PROJECT                                                       SEPTEMBER 29, 1995
         IFISH AND GAME MFErIwa SUMMARY                 5








without a legal mandate that when you reach a specified threshold of CIs on a particular
resource, something substantive happens, such as stopping logging of old-growth forest or
preventing tideland fills in eel grass beds. Until such a substantive legal requirement exists, no
matter how good the CI analysis is, the political pressures for jobs and economic development
will continue to make the best CI analysis ineffective.

The best CIs research is ineffective without the authority to act upon it. Federal timber sales
presently come the closest to having the authority to limit whether further CIs are acceptable;
however, most often they are careful not to monitor so they don't have to enforce any thresholds
that might have been set.

Really large-scale CIs are not reachable by a group like DFG; any approach is more likely to
succeed with smaller-scale issues where there is a chance to effect a change. Many times, CIs
fall outside DFG's regulatory authorities, and they have to work closely with other agencies who
do have the appropriate authorities, e.g., DEC for ocean disposal of seafood wastes.

Addressing CIs on a project-by-project basis is a recipe for habitat loss. It is hard to get the
public or project proponents to spend money to assess impacts, collect the necessary information,
and develop the policies to protect resources until it is too late. It has become clear that it is
not easy to repair habitat, and that technology cannot be relied on to reverse damage once it has
occurred. Millions are being spent in the Lower 48 on assessing impacts and working on
destroyed systems with few if any positive results. Impact avoidance and minimization is much
more effective and cost efficient in protecting habitat.  Large-scale planning is necessary to
provide habitat protection.


Alaska has the opportunity to be pro-active and learn from CI problems in the lower 48 states.
The best way to be effective in addressing CIs is to prevent the impacts from occurring.



                                     4.0 SOLUTIONS


This section took the form of a critique of the recommendations of the HDR report.

1.     A top-level commitment to address CIs: DFG supports the concept, but participants were
       concerned that bringing politics into the discussion could backfire.   Local level
       involvement would be more appropriate and is more likely to be achievable.




SEPTEMBER 29, 1995                                                        CUMULATIVE IMPACTS PROJECT
                                              6                     FISH AND GAME MEETING SUMMARY







          2.     Pursue more explicit authority to address CIs in legislation, regulations, or policy: The
                 idea of more explicit authority and greater protection at the project review level (e.g.,
                 the ACMP standard) wouldn't get much state support. A planning context (i.e., district-
                 wide plans or AMSAs) would have more of a chance of succeeding. One way to address
  I             ~~~~CIs locally would be to revise the ACMP Guidelines to allow (or require) districts to
                 identify and address CI issues in their districts plans. The key to success is to develop
                 support from local communities.

          3.     Develop more formalized CI assessment guidance to be used by agencies and coastal
  U           ~ ~~~districts based on existing statutory and regulatory authorities: The ACMP focus should
                 be establishment of guidelines (both 6 AAC 85 and informal) to identify, assess, and
  I             ~~~~manage or control CIs. A legal mandate is necessary so that when a certain level of
                 development is reached in a community or district, then no more development can occur.

          4.     Establish a CI definition in regulation:  Policies don't have the force of law, so a
                 regulation is necessary. CIs should be defined in regulations.

          5 .    Provide training:  Local support is necessary in order to understand CIS, then for any
  3             ~~~~assessment to take place.


          6.     Provide adequate resources: Absolutely! Put resources where districts and state agencies
                 can really get something done.

1        ~~7.    Develop a public education program:  Local support and understanding is a necessary
                 component of any approach to preventing CIs.

          8.     Develop better sources of information and information sharing among agencies:  This
  *             ~~~~almost goes without saying.



       3                              ~~~~~~5.0 METHODOLOGY CRITIQUE

I        ~~This was a good supplement to the HDR study. Meeting with other DFG staff helps to reinforce
          concepts and to develop the collective agency thought. It was worthwhile to talk with other staff
3        ~~within the agency and they can appreciate others' views.  One participant thought the meeting
          was "medicinal". One participant was overwhelmed and somewhat pessimistic. Defining CIs
3        ~~is a long process and she is pessimistic about making a difference.


          CUMULATIVE IMPACTS PROJECT                                                       SEPTEMBER 29, 1995
I      ~ ~~FISH AND GAME MEETING SUMMARY                  7









             INTERAGENCY/DISTRICTS MEETING SUMMARY


                               September 8, 1995




LOCATION: Loussac Library Conference Room, Anchorage, Alaska

ATT'ENDEES:

            Glenn Gray, Division of Governmental Coordination (DGC)
            Chas Dense, Division of Governmental Coordination (DGC)
            Glenn Seaman, Department of Fish and Game (DFG)
            Joyce Beelman, Department of Environmental Conservation (DEC)
            Keven Kleweno, Department of Environmental Conservation (DEC)
            Sue Flensburg, Bristol Bay Coastal Resource Service Area (BBCRSA)
            Harriet Wegner, Kenai Peninsula Borough (KPB)
            Ron Swanson, Department of Natural Resources (DNR)
            Rick Thompson, Department of Natural Resources (DNR)
            Janet Burleson, Department of Natural Resources (DNR)
            Tom Lawson, Department of C      omm erce and Economic Development (DCED)
            Wendy Wolf, Department of Commerce and Economic Development (DCED)
            Nate Johnson, Department of Transportation and Public Facilities (DOTPF)



CONSULTANTS:

            Alison Smith, Dames & Moore
            Katrina Moss, Dames & Moore









                                  1.0 INTRODUCTION

The interagency/districts meeting was the final meeting of the series of eight meetings on the
topic of cumulative impacts (CIs) in Alaska. The first part of the interagency/districts meeting
consisted of an initial session during which individual views on the issue were aired. This was
followed by a discussion of the DNR review process and how it identifies and deals with impacts
in general. A September 6, 1995 memo clarified DNR's position on addressing CIs under the
ACMP, and is included in the DNR comments in Appendix C. Some agreed that a separate
regulatory review process should not be created, but that addressing CIs should come within
each agency's existing purview. One of the more appropriate avenues for dealing with CIs is
local land use planning. DCED suggested considerations for addressing CIs involving the local
level which was expanded upon by the group. This approach is described in Section 3.



                              2.0 GENERAL DISCUSSION


Specific impacts and activities that can lead to CIs were identified in the intra-agency and
districts meetings in the context of discussing particular example sites or areas. These impacts
and activities were presented to meeting participants and it was agreed that we did not need to
discuss them further. It was requested that socio-economic impacts be included in the list of
specific types of impacts. DOT&PF prefers the CEQ definition due to federal legislation and
suggested that agencies and districts need to look at defining CIs in that context. It was pointed
out that at the beginning of the project the CEQ definition was used, and HDR later modified
it. Some thought the CEQ definition should be used without modification, while one participant
noted that there is a large body of case law behind it that would not be included if the State
adopted the federal definition.


There was some discussion of the existence of CIs. Everyone listed some CIs but could not
agree on their significance. DNR stated that they have been dealing with impacts on a routine
basis but have simply not identified them as cumulative impacts. DEC proposed reviewing what
other states have done in terms of dealing with CIs. It was then suggested that the title of the
Types of Cumulative Impacts list which was handed out, should be changed to Types of Impacts
Which Could be Cumulative. Looking at CIs on a statewide basis is unwieldy and should be
done on a site-specific or subarea basis.





CUMULATIVE IMPACTS PROJECT                                                       SEPTEMBER 29, 1995
INTERAGENCy/DISTRICTS MEETING SUMMARY          1








It was stated that agencies can deal with CIs using their own statutes and regulations and that
there are numerous mechanisms available. This statement raised the issue of jurisdiction in
terms of review at the local district level, and that there needs to be a partnership between local
districts and agencies. The need for a formal plan to aid coastal districts and municipalities was
identified. There is little or no money or staff for monitoring and compliance, so cooperation
among agencies and sharing of information is essential.

A better understanding of each agency's mission statement and authorities is needed, as well as
carefully written and enforceable district policies. The question was raised about whether there
is any value in planning for the future if agencies are currently unable to carry out monitoring
or enforcement. The group discussed the concept of establishing development thresholds.
Implementation or use of thresholds is problematic when limits to development have to be
established.


Some felt that federal agencies do not adequately address CIs. CIs need to be identified,
addressed, and mitigated for up front, with early cooperation among stakeholders.  Public
education and awareness is also needed.


DCED stated that it is not possible to proscribe guidelines for the entire state to address CIs.
DEC clarified this statement adding that currently there is no mandate to address CIs in smaller
projects where there is no federal involvement.   This creates gaps where CIs could be
overlooked. Some thought that there is a need to take a holistic view of CIs. DEC also thinks
that there is a need for an umbrella through a state mandate (i.e., state-level definition or
guidelines), because local ordinances are often not inclusive enough to address CIs.

There was agreement among attendees that there is a need for local level implementation and
there are three areas for addressing this: 1) planning, 2) local land use regulations/zoning, and
3) project review.  There is also a need for coordination among plans, possibly through
concurrent amendment of state, local, and federal plans.


BBCRSA stated that there is a lack of knowledge of existing agency mechanisms and it is
unclear how the ACMP, Title 29, and agency authorities and processes interrelate. The DNR
representative noted that there is a lack of a mission statement for the ACMP program, but the
DGC representative thought its mission is adequately addressed in the statutes.







SEPTEMBER 29, 1995                                                        CUMULATIVE IMPACTS PROJECT
                                              2                INTERAGENCY/DISTRICTS MEETING SUMMARY








                         3.0 SUGGESTED APPROACH TO CIs


The following is the basic outline of the approach initially proposed by DCED, and much
elaborated upon throughout the second half of the meeting. The outline is presented in Section
3.1 and a full discussion is provided in Section 3.2.


3.1  APPROACH FOR ADDRESSING CIs


       I.     Encourage Consideration of CIs in the Planning Process
       H1.    Update Statutes and Regulations as Needed
       III.   Project Permitting Reviews
       IV.    Monitoring and Compliance
       V.     Unforeseen CIs


3.2  DISCUSSION OF PROPOSED APPROACH


3.2.1  Encourage Consideration of CIs in the Planning Process

It was the general consensus of the group that addressing CIs at the state level is difficult. CIs
are best addressed at the local level during planning. Local implementation could be through
planning, local land use regulations (Title 29) because those who live in an area best know its
resources and where they are willing to compromise, project review (possibly through a checklist
used by the coastal district), and through site specific assessments such as the DFG Kenai River
Study.  Tools available at the local level include the ACMP and comprehensive plans, as well
as limiting development via zoning and local land use controls.

Several recommendations came out of this portion of the discussion. Ensuring that any changes
in plans do not conflict with other applicable plans is crucial. Public education and information
needs to occur concurrent with plan revisions in order to bring the public into the decision-
making process. The public has to understand what CIs are and how to identify them, in order
to assist planners to pro-actively address CIs. Guidance would include techniques on how to
look for use conflicts, analyzing the sensitivity of where permits are being issued, and listing
types of activities known to cause CIs.  The amendment process for district plans should be
streamlined due to a long timeframe. Getting stakeholders involved can reduce or even prevent
lawsuits.





CUMULATIVE IMPACTS PROJECT                                                       SEPTEMBER 29, 1995
INTERAOENCY/DISTRICTS MEETING SUMMARY          3







The potential for failure is great if clear implementation mechanisms are not available or
developed. Objectives need to be clearly stated. Enforceable policies should be written so that
permit stipulations can be based upon them and written clearly so as to be enforceable.  LackI
of funds for compliance and monitoring will reduce the effectiveness of any system or process.
Agencies also need to be brought into the plan revision process so that plans are not at odds with
state and federal statutes and regulations. Different levels of plans should be coordinated, i.e.,
use a strategic coordinated review  approach.   Internal agency training would  improve
implementation of district, local and state-wide plans.

3.2.2  Update Statutes and Regulations As NeededI

If an agency does not have a adequate authority to address CIS, then they need to pursue changes3
in their statutes and regulations.   Interagency planning should be conducted to result in
coordination of agency plans.3

DEC participants thought DEC might only need to develop a guidance document, in the form
of a mission statement, to bring together the appropriate portions of their enabling legislationI
and regulations.

3.2.3 Project Permitting Reviews

Using local plans as guides for permitting ensures local expertise and opinions are considered 
in reviews. Public information, participation, and education is an integral component of project
review through input from districts. A dialog needs to be established in "plain English. " AvoidI
the use of jargon, e.g., cumulative impacts. The education process should include information
required by the lay person to be able to participate in identifying Cls.

Early participation in and discussion of potential projects by agencies and districts is important.I
This can allow for discussion of project impacts early in the review process. Coordination of
the many parts of reviews, as well as follow-up modifications reviews, can also ensure that Cls
are considered in project reviews. DGC suggested using a strategic approach for different levelsI
of review which may allow for more attention being paid to the more complex projects where
there is a possibility of Cls developing. For large projects, there needs to be more upfront3
planning and issue identification. A mechanism to filter out hot spots at state, regional, and
local levels is necessary. If there is a related development threshold for that site or area, then1




SEPTEMBER 29, 1995                                                        CUMULATIVE IMPACTS PROJECT
                                            4                INTERAGENcy/DISTRICTS MEETING SUMMARYI







I       ~~only the specified number of projects would be allowed. There would then need to be an
         additional mechanism for reassessment to determine whether an appropriate threshold had been

         established.

         Including more routine project reviews on the A and B Lists would free-up reviewers' time for
         more complex reviews. Coordination of review processes, including timing, such as is done for
         the NEPA and the U.S. Army Engineer District Section 404 processes, could provide a more
         comprehensive review of projects and allow for inclusion of Cls analysis at the start of project
         review.


         3.2.4 Monitoring and Compliance


         Several participants noted that a significant problem in addressing Cls often lies not with
         requirements being adequate, but with the agencies' inability to provide adequate monitoring and
         compliance to enforce the requirements.

I       ~~Monitoring programs need to be established based on expectations of what agencies can
         realistically implement. Monitoring requirements need to be based on specific regulations.
         Coordination of monitoring and compliance visits among agencies can save time and money.
         Use of a database linking the agencies would improve monitoring.


1       ~~3.2.5  Unforeseen CBs


I       ~~If unanticipated Cls show up, an interagency team (including district representatives) would be
         called together to re-review the site or problem and make recommendations. This would provide
         a mechanism to bring together the agencies who can then develop an approach to dealing with
         the problem. Once this interagency team reports their revised approach, it would be taken back
         to the local level and the local plan revised to address the problem.


         3.3 OTHER TOOLS


         Internet and other electronic communications could improve the ability of agencies to
         communicate with each other.


         A link to a GIS database could be set up with agencies' permitting records. Considerable data
         could be synthesized into a single database, which would make information regarding locations

I       ~~of potential Cls more readily visible and quantifiable.


         CUMULATIVE IMPACTS PROJECT                                                    SEPTEMBER 29, 1995
         IINTERAGENCY/DisTRs ICT METING SUMMARY       5









                4.0 DISCUSSION OF THE NEED FOR A DEFINITION


The group was not able to come to consensus on whether a definition of CIs is necessary in
regulation or statute.  While DNR's perspective of the need for a definition was not consistent
among divisions, Division of Lands (this meeting's participant) maintains that no definition is
necessary, and that other state programs already provide for consideration of impacts, including
those which may be cumulative. A specific definition would take away flexibility they believe
is necessary to be effective.

The district participants felt that a definition is necessary which should allow districts to further
define and develop a framework to reflect the local perspective. One district's participant felt
that a NEPA-like process in state regulations would provide a forum for discussion on a project-
specific basis for the agencies and districts.


DCED felt that there should be an advisory that CIs should be "considered" but that any
guidance should be free of jargon and understandable.  Do not add another layer of regulation
when there is already a definition in federal regulation.


One DGC participant felt that guidance and legal direction are both needed for consideration of
CIs, but not necessarily in definition form.  This could possibly take the form of an ACMP
standard which could give specific direction to districts and agencies. Another DGC participant
felt that it would be nice to have a definition which could be embellished by districts and
individual agencies and he warned that in absence of a definition, eventually the courts will
proscribe how CIs are to be addressed.

DFG wondered why a definition should be established for CIs when the term is not used or is
infrequently used in the ACMP statute and regulations.  DEC felt that the federal definition
should be used. DOT&PF already addresses CIs through the NEPA process and has maintained
that activities under the ACMP are also subject to NEPA and therefore the CEQ definition of
CIs.



                                     5.0 FOLLOW-UP


A follow-up in one year was thought to be appropriate. A case study was proposed to look at
where there was disagreement in this project.


SEPTEMBER 29, 1995                                                           CUMULATIVE IMPACTS PROJECT
                                              6                INTERAGENCY/DISTRICTS MEETING SUMMARY








A suggestion was made that more public and agency education be conducted to promote better
participation.


Glenn Gray said other states' 309 program progress should be tracked. There are some good
projects in the lower 48 with "real" impacts, and it would be useful to track them.



















































CUMULATIVE IMPACTS PROJECT SEPTEMBER 29, 1995
INTERArENCY/DISTRICTS MEETING SUMMARY 7



































A
p
p
E
N
D

x

C



I
I
I
I

I APPENDIX C
            AGENCY AND DISTRICTS COMMENT LETTERS
I ON THE DRAFT REPORT

I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I




I  ~ ~      ï¿½2j\ï¿½r~     O Air~                  \LASKA1 ;~                          TONY KNOWLES, GOVERNOR

                                                                               333 RA SPBERR Y ROAD
                                                                              ANCHORAGE, ALASKA 99518-1599
                DEPARTMENT OF FISH AND GAME                                     PHONE: (907) 267-2342
                   HA BITAT AND RESTORA TION DIVISION                            FAX: (907) 267-2464




         September 21, 1995

         Alison Smith
         Dames and Moore
         5600 B Street, Suite 100
         Anchorage, Alaska 99518-1641

         Dear Ms. Smith:

         The Alaska Department of Fish and Game (ADF&G) has complete a review of draft report on
I     ~     ~the cumulative impacts group discussion project dated September 15, 1995. Our comments and
         recommendations are provided below. We have also enclosed a marked-up copy of the
         document for your consideration.

         The department's comments are provided in form of: (1) general comments, which provide our
         overall comments on the report; (2) chapter comments, which provide specific comments on
I     ~     ~each chapter; and (3) recommendations, which provide additional suggestions.  Due to lack of
         time, we did not comment directly on the interagency meeting summary, although many of our
         comments on chapters I to 5 apply to the meeting summary (e.g., several sections from the
         meeting summary were included in these chapters) and should be considered in revising the


I       ~GENERAL COMMENTS

         We appreciate Dames and Moore's effort to undertake this study and prepare the draft report.
I     ~     ~The assessment and management of cumulative impacts is a complex issue and often contentious
         issue. In a number of instances, our understanding of the conclusions/areas of agreement differ
         from that described in the draft report. These differences are noted in the chapter comments.
         We encourage Dames and Moore to consider these comments and reflect our views in the report.
         Several sections of the report also difficult to read, and could benefit from further editing (e.g.,
         see comments on the enclosed copy).

         CHAPTER COMMENTS

         Chapter I -- Introduction
         The background paragraph indicates that the federal and state coastal management acts "contain
i       ~~mandates to consider cumulative and secondary impacts."  This discussion should substantiate








Alison Smith                                   -2-                          September 21, 1995


this statement with quotes from the referenced acts, inclusion of statutory/regulatory citations,
and/or references to other documents and sections of those documents that clearly identify those
requirements.

Chapter 3 -- Intra- and Inter-Azencv and District Meetings

In general, this chapter does not clearly distinguish between discussions based on the intra-
agency/district meetings and the inter-agency/district meetings. In some instances, the direction
of these meetings differed significantly.  The primary purpose of the intra-agency/district
(hereafter referred to as "intra-group") meetings was to clarify individual agency perspectives
and function as background for the inter-agency/district (hereafter referred to as "inter-group")
meeting. The inter-group meeting charge was to try to come to agreement on issues related to
the assessment and management of cumulative impacts. Several agency and district delegates,
after consideration of intra-group discussions, gained a greater understanding of the bigger
picture and consequently were willing to modify change their view. The discussions and
synthesis in this chapter seems to be based primarily on the intra-group meetings, and does not
fully reflect discussions and compromise at the inter-group discussion. We recommend that this
chapter clarify when the synthesis and analysis are based on intra-, inter-, or both meetings.
Our comments below note some areas of the discussion where the distinction is not clear.

Sections 3.1, 3.2, and 3.3 -- Locations, Types, and Causes of Impacts: The request for
proposals and contract with the Division of Governmental Coordination (DGC) both required
the contractor (also a requirement of the HDR study) to summarize the types of locations were
cumulative impacts occur, the types of impacts that may be cumulative, and the causes of
impacts. These sections represent a reasonable attempt to summarize information provided at
the intra-group meetings. At the inter-group discussion, the agenda called for agency comments
on the draft lists of locations, types of impacts, and causes. The general reaction of the majority
of the group, however, was that there was little value for group to discuss the locations, types
of impacts, and causes from as statewide perspective.   Most participants felt that it was
impossible to effectively summarize the locations, types of impacts, and causes from at statewide
perspective:  a definition of the problem (i.e., the locations, causes, and effects) of cumulative
impacts is necessarily area and issue specific'.  We recommend that the reaction of many
participants expressing the limitations of this list be reflected in the discussion.

Section 3.4 -- Existing Tools Used to Address Cumulative Impacts: The section represents an
attempt to identify "tools" used to address cumulative impacts. As applied in this section,
"tools" is applied to collectively include statutes, procedures, policies, planning processes, and
monitoring and compliance.  Statutes, regulations, or policies are often not considered "tools,"
but rather provide guidance or direction to address impacts. We would consider tools to include
mechanisms for controlling individual or cumulative impacts, which includes procedures,


   ' This theme-that cumulative impacts must be discussed in area or issue-specific context to have any
meaning-resurfaced many times in the meeting.







U       ~~Alison Smith                                  -3-                          September 21, 1995


I       ~~planning processes, and monitoring and compliance.   We  suggest this section be retitled
         Itmanagement guidance and implementation mechanisms," and that use of the term "tools" in text
         be replaced, as appropriate, with either management guidance or implementation mechanisms.
         This should clarify the discussion in the text.

*       ~~The department would also like to reiterate our concerns in the previous sections regarding the
         comprehensiveness and accuracy of the summary. Table 3-1 is not complete in that it does not
         represent (nor was this study designed to develop) a comprehensive description of statutes,
3       ~~procedures, policies, planning processes, and monitoring and compliance actions.  Because
         cumulative impacts are most effectively addressed on an area- and issue-specific basis, it is very
         difficult or impossible (and certainly beyond the scope of this project) to comprehensively
I     ~     ~complete this table for all agencies. We suggest the table be introduced and retitled "examples
         of management guidance and implementation mechanisms."

I       ~~Section 3.5 -- Definition and its Location: A distinction should be made between the conclusions
         drawn from the intra- and inter-group discussions. The draft discussions seems to based
         primarily on the intra-group discussions where most of the discussions favored the development
I     ~     ~of a definition in Alaska Coastal Management Program (ACMP). The concept of a definition
         was discussed as length in the inter-group meeting. While the group did not reach consensus,
         most leaned away from the establishment of a definition in ACMP statute or regulation at this
         time.  Some of the concerns raised against the development of a definition include:
            *  Why  establish a definition for "cumulative impacts" or "cumulative and secondary
 I           ~ ~~impacts" when  the term in not used, or infrequently used, in ACMP  statute and
                regulation? Others questioned why an ACMP definition should be developed without
                clear, substantive guidance in statute or regulation (e.g., 6 AAC 80. 130) to consider
                cumulative impacts.
            *  How  will an ACMP  definition affect other agency statutes and regulations?   The
                applicability of an ACMP definition to other authorities should be evaluated.
            *  Some suggested that the ACMP already has a definition of the cumulative impacts either
 I           ~    ~~~through the reference to the Clean Water Act in the standards [6 AAC 80.040(b)] or
                through the federal Coastal Zone Management Act mandate that state coastal programs
                to comply with the Clean Water Act.

            *  Others questioned whether a definition should be developed when cumulative impacts is
                nothing more than a form of impact that is additive or persistent over time. They
                maintained that a definition is unnecessary, since the ACMP and other state programs
                already provide for consideration of all impacts, including those that are cumulative.

         ADF&G supports development of a definition or other form of guidance to provide districts and
         agencies with a better understanding of cumulative impacts, but have not decided whether it







Alison Smith                                   -4-                          September 21, 1995 


should be accomplished through statute, regulation, or through more informal guidance or
education materials. Other agencies and coastal districts have raised some valid concerns that
should be considered.

ChaDter 4 -- Identification of Common Themes and Areas of Disallreement

Most of the discussion seems to apply equally to all project impacts (both individual and
cumulative impacts). We suggest that Dames and Moore be selective about the use of the term
"1cumulative impacts" (i.e., the acronym "Cls"); in some cases it may be more appropriate toI
use the generic term "impacts."

Sections 4.1, 4.2, and 4.3 -- Locations, Types, and Causes of Cumulative Impacts: Our3
comments on Sections 3.1 to 3.3 also apply here.

Section 4.4 -- Current Approaches to Addressing Cumulative Impacts: Our general commentsI
on Section 3.4 also apply here: the identified list of "tools" (management guidelines and
implementation  mechanisms)  should  not considered  comprehensive.    Our  comments  on
Subsection 4.4.1 are provided below:
   *  Local Land Use Planning:  The following statement from this discussion is misleading
       and does not accurately reflect what the group discussed:   "There was completeI
       consensus that Cis are the best addressed at the local level, through the local planning
       process." Local land use planning and regulation was identified as an important and
       often critical tool in addressing cumulative impacts. However, the group did not reach
       consensus that it was "best" addressed at the local level. Instead, the group reach
       agreement that cumulative impacts are more effectively addressed through planning by
       local, state, and federal agencies. Local land use planning is very important, but often
       not the only tool needed to effectively address cumulative impacts. There also appeared
       to be group agreement that cumulative impact issues cross land ownership and agency
       jurisdictional boundaries, and an effective approach to assess and control individual or
       cumulative impacts requires the active participation of federal, state, and local agencies.
       A  case  in  point  is  Kenai  River  fish  habitat  issues.    Land  ownership  and
       regulatory/management authorities over activities on and affecting the Kenai River is
       complex, and an effective approach must involve all levels of government2. We suggest
       this section be retitled to "land use planning" and be revised to reflect the aboveI
       perspective.

   *  Best Professional Judgement:   This discussion deals primarily with development of3


    2See Seaman, G.A. 1995. The continued assessment and management of cumulative impacts on Kenai River
fish habitat. Tech. Rpt. 95-6 and Liepitz, G. S. 1994. An assessment of the cumulative impacts of development and
human uses offish habitat in the Kenai River. Tech. Rpt. 94-6. Both reports available from the Alaska Dept. of
Fish and Game, Anchorage.I







I       ~~Alison Smith                                  -5-                           September 21, 1995


  I             ~~~~thresholds. There was less agreement on the development of thresholds as the discussion
                indicates. It would be great if could develop thresholds but, as the draft indicates, they
                are very difficult or often impossible to establish in biological systems. Because of this,
                I question how much emphasis should be directed to the establishment of thresholds.

             *  Agency Training:  We agree with the concept of training or further education both
                agency and district staff on the requirements and mechanisms to identify and control
                cumulative impacts. We suggest the subject on training be expanded to include coastal
  3             ~~~~~districts.

            *  Establish a Regulatory Definition of Cumulative Impacts:  See the above comments on
                Section 3.5.

         Chapter 5. Recommendations/ProDosed ADnroach

         This section describes what is referred to as a "methodology for addressing cumulative impacts."
         I believe the five points described in this chapter can be more accurately described as the
I     ~     ~considerations in addressing cumulative impacts. The below comments reflect my understanding
         of these considerations as discussed at the meeting.

3       ~~Section 5.1 -- Encourage Local Planning:   This section should be retitled "encourage
         consideration of cumulative impacts in the planning process." As stated in our comments on
         "Land Use Planning" in Section 4.4, the inter-group more broadly support local planning by
I     ~     ~local, state, and federal governments as the most effective vehicle to address cumulative impacts
         (i.e., riot just local government planning). Several participants indicated that adequate planning
         mechanisms are in place (they may be available but are not utilized), and that no additional
I     ~     ~planning mechanisms are needed.  For example, coastal districts have both Title 29 and ACMP
         planning for private and borough lands, DNR has planning processes in place to plan for state
         lands, and many federal agencies have planning mechanisms for federal lands., We suggest the
         first paragraph under this discussion be changed to reflect a broader support for planning at all
         levels of government.

I       ~~We also believe that the following sentence of the second paragraph under this section does not
         properly characterize the inter-group discussion:   "Ensuring that any changes in plans are
         consistent with other applicable plans is crucial." While we agree that local, state, and federal
         agencies should coordinate their efforts to minimize inconsistencies and duplication, agencies
         must maintain the option to provide more stringent requirements.

         Section 5.2 -- U~pdate Statutes and Regulations in Response to Revised Local Plans: This
         discussion does not reflect the discussion at the inter-group meeting. This section should be
I     ~     ~retitled "update statutes and regulations as needed." This recommendation was not tied directly
         and exclusively to local authorities. Instead, it was directed specifically at agency statutory and
         regulatory authorities (i.e., not the ACMP), and was borne from a DNR recommendation the







Alison Smith                                  -6-                          September 21, 1995


agencies revise their own statute and regulations ("if your agency's authorities are not adequate,
then fix it"). ADF&G supports making maximum use of other state authorities, but does not
want to completely rule changes to the ACMP.  Agency authorities have a specific focus and
is restricted to that agency. In contrast, ACMP's crosses jurisdictional and landownership
boundaries and may be an appropriate tool in some instances. The ACMP statutes and
regulations may also warrant change in the future to address cumulative impacts.

Section 5.4 -- Monitoring and Compliance: This section is unclear and should be expanded to
reflect group discussion. Basically, several inter-group participants noted that a significant 1
problem in addressing cumulative impacts often lies not with the requirements being adequate,
but with agencies inability to provide adequate monitoring and compliance to enforce the
requirements. Several participants noted that this issue should be addressed before any new legal
requirements are imposed.

Section 5.5 -- Unforeseen Cumulative Impacts: We also believe that this discussion does not
fully reflect the discussion at the inter-group meeting. The way I understood this discussion,
is that this was intended to address specific areas or issues where cumulative impacts are a
problem, have not been adequately addressed through other mechanisms, and otherwise require
special consideration. The Kenai River was identified as an area of special concern and was the
focus of a comprehensive cumulative impact assessment project under the Section 309
Enhancement Grant Program.  Several such issues were identified in the ADF&G and other
inter-agency meetings which could also be addressed in a more comprehensive, focused manner.
These could be addressed through coordinated efforts with the appropriate regulatory agencies
and affected coastal districts and communities.

Chater 6 -- Methodologv Evaluation and Recommendations                                                     I

We agree with the discussion with respect to positive aspects of the methodology. This process
assisted agencies and districts better understand others concerns and recommendations regarding
the assessment and management of cumulative impacts.   This project provided a clearer
understanding of the problems and helped to identify solutions to the problems. However, the
methodology, as applied, fell short of fully achieving its goal to develop consensus of the
problem and identify solutions. Most the inter-group meeting focussed on discussing the
problem and what agencies were currently doing to assess and control cumulative impacts. We
did not specifically outline project followup, or the actions that needed to occur after completion        1
of this project to bring the discussion to conclusion. The failure of the inter-group meeting to
bring closure to discussions could have been avoided through more active facilitation and a with
a longer meeting (e.g., an additional half day to bring closure and identify future actions).

RECOMMENDATIONS                                                                                            I

Additional department recommendations on issues raised in the intra- and inter-group discussions
are outlined below. These are provided to identify measures that could help bring some closure 







      IAlison Smith                                 -7-                          September 21, 1995


      Ito study and clearly define where we go from here.

       1.     Further Explain Agency Processes and Authorities for Assessment and Management of
I          ~     ~~~Cumulative Impacts:  Several inter-group participants strongly advocated the use of
             existing federal, state, and local processes to address cumulative impacts, maintaining
              that these processes are adequate and they have the statutory/regulatory basis to control
              cumulative impacts. In contrast, many of state and coastal district participants in the
              HDR survey and some discussions in the intra-group discussion (documented in Appendix
              3B of the report) indicated that the processes are inadequate and that agencies lack the
              statutory/regulatory authority (or are unaware of such requirements) to control it.
              Several participants suggested that this discrepancy be addressed through a education
              effort to better inform the public, local governments, and agencies of agency processes
              and legal basis (individual agency and ACMP) for addressing individual and cumulative
              impacts. ADF&G would support such an education effort; we do not believe no action,
              3when districts have expressed confusion, is not an option.

      2.     Clarify A CMP Ability to Address Cumulative Impacts Through Plans and Project Review:
I          ~ ~~~There are diverse and conflicting opinions among agencies and districts on the extent
              which cumulative impacts can be addressed under the ACMP.   Most agree the
              cumulative impacts can be addressed through district-wide and AMSA management plans.
I          ~ ~~However, the Coastal Policy Council (CPC) denied approval of cumulative impact
             policies in several district plans that required "consideration" of cumulative impacts'.
              At a fall 1993 CPC meeting, several members questioned the legal ability to address
              Icumulative impacts under the ACMP.  In past years, ADF&G  has tried to address
             cumulative impact concerns during project reviews and were informed by DGC that we
             could not address cumulative issues under the ACMP in project review in the absence
              Uof a district policy to support it. While some agencies say you can address cumulative
             impact issues under the ACMP, others say you can't. After three years of addressing
              these cumulative impacts under the Section 309, these questions are still not answered.
              IIt would be irresponsible to continue disapprove policies related to cumulative impacts
             when there is no movement to answer the questions. Some effort needs to be undertaken
              to bring closure to these questions.

      3.     Develop Guidelines for Districts and Agencies to Address Cum ulative Impacts: In both
              the HDR study and intra-group meetings, districts and agencies where unaware how to
              identify, evaluate, and control cumulative impacts. Somne general guidance should be
             prepared for districts and agencies. In the inter-group meeting, DNR noted that the
             public and agencies often do not clearly articulate the problem, the rationale and
             information to support, and the actions that are needed to address impacts in their review


           1Approval denied due to procedural questions (it was unclear what would be required to "consider" cumulative
      impacts) and legal questions (what is the legal basis in the ACMP for these policies). One CPC member suggested
      that the CPC retroactively withdrawal all cumulative impact policies from district plans.








Alison Smith                                 -8-                         September 21, 1995


      of plans and projects.  This would complement the recommendation in 1 above by
      describing how reviewers can more effectively identify cumulative impact concerns
      within existing processes.  Either general guidance could be developed or specific
      guidance for certain issues, areas, or industries.

4.     Continue Support Comprehensive and Focused Efforts to Address Important Cumulative
      Impact Issues: The clearest area of consensus in this study is that cumulative impacts
      are best addressed in the planning context. ADF&G recommends that the state continue
      to support the assessment and resolution cumulative impacts issues through planning
       (includes problem identification, establishment of goals and objectives, cumulative impact
      assessments, development of policies or guidance, and identification of implementation
       mechanisms).  Both ACMP and other sources of funding should be sought to address
      these issues.

This concludes our comments and recommendations on the draft report. Please call if you have
any questions on our comments or I can otherwise assist in revision of the report.

Sincerely,



Glenn Seaman
ACMP Coordinator

cc to Cumulative Impacts Proiect Management Team:
Fran Roche, DEC
Sue Flensburg, BBCRSA
Linda Freed, KIB
Rob Walkinshaw, DNR
Tom Lawson, DCED
Nate Johnson, DOT&PF
Glenn Gray, DGC








                                                             A 01   I
|     Sl,~T BY:Xerox Telecopier ?020 ; 9-25-95 : 3:53PM :                46530?5-, DAMES & MOORE - ANC;# !


            ,: .~ ,,       - ;     I,,  ,,   I .,t  ,,, , ,i  t                ToNY KNoWLES, GOVERNO~
                if  F ï¿½  i                     t i' i.i                   zt |bt  

I                       OFFICE OF THE GOVERNOR  /

       I|~ 6OFFICE OF MANAGEMENT ANO BUDGET   ,
                        DIVISION OF GOVERNiENTAL COORDINATON
       O STlDWCENTRA REGIONAL OFFCE  CENTRAL OFFICE                      0  PIPELINECoORNLDATORso FFIOE
          0601  C' STREEr, SUITE 370        t. 6OX o10090                   411 WEST 4HAVENUE, SUITEoO
          ANCHORAGE,ALAKA 99-5-6930          UNNEA.U, ALASKA s9811-0030     ANCORAGE, ALASKA 99501.2343
          IPH: (907) E2694470/FAX (907) 58.61734  PH: ,0J 4e9,3i6_/FAX: (90g7) 4665075    PH; (7O) 971-413.FAX (907)  272-0690
                                             September 25, 1995

            Ms. Alison Smith
            Dames and Moore
            5600 B Street, Suite 100
            Anchorage, AK 99518

            Dear Alison:

            Thank you for the opportunity to review the draft report on the Cumulative Impacts
            Group Discussion Project. This letter identifies my major concerns and general
            comments. Specific comments are written on the original draft which has been sent to
            you by air courier. I did not review comments of the other members of management
           team before submitting these comments.

            General Comments

            The draft should be reviewed by a professional editor not familiar with the topic of
            cumulative impacts. This step would assure that punctuation and grammar errors were
            identified and that concepts were adequately developed and defined. Specifically, the
            document should be rewritten to:

             *    correct misuse of commas, colons and slash marks;
                  ensure that punctuation is consistent, especially in the tables;
             *    identify where hyphens are appropriate;
             4    define concepts so a person not familiar with cumulative impacrs will
                  understand the discussions;
             *    identify and define jargon; and
             .    ensure that concepts are fully developed (i had a difficult time understanding
                  what you meant in a considerable number of sentences).

            Specific Comments

            The purpose of the project needs to be clarified, For example, I do not think the
            purpose of the project was  o describe legal authorities (as stated in the executive



     01-A35LH                                                                         r ed 1   c' l     9



SENT BY:Xerox Telecopier 7020 ; 9-25-95 ; 3:54PM                  4653075- DAMES & MOORE - ANC;# 2




      Ms. Alison Smith                           2                      September 25, 1995

      summary) or to propose new approaches to address cumulative impacts (Sections 1.2
       and 2,0). You may wish to refer to the RFP and the contract when revising the
       description of the project's purpose.

       Section 3.4 implies that the existing tools to address cumulative impacts are sufficient
       if they were implemented. I think a number of participants felt that even if existing
      tools were fully implemented, cumulative impacts would not always be adequately
       addressed.

      Throughout Section 3, it is not clear if Dames and Moore is making specific statements
       or if the statements summarize the viewpoint of one or more participant.

       In Section 5, the text implies that the group recommended an approach to address
       cumulative impacts. My understanding of the RFP was that we were to explore
      possible solutions to address cumulative impacts rather than develop recommendations.

       The summary of the interagency/group discussion needs considerable revision. I
       suggest that you listen to the tapes again to clarify what the group discussed. For
       example, it was my understanding that the group favored addressing cumulative
       impacts at the local level during planning but thought Cls could also be addressed
       during project review which would involve state agencies in addition to municipalities.

       The discussion of the methodology recommendations in Section 6.0 should be changed
       to reflect the various opinions of the participants. While some participants thought the
       group discussion approach was better than a survey approach, others thought both
       approaches were valuable. For me, the survey approach is valuable because it reached
       a broad number of people in a manner where they could frankly answer questions
      without concern that their answers might conflict with others in their group. Group
       discussions, on the other hand, were useful to brainstorm ideas and to discover where
      participants agreed or disagreed. A possible limitation of group discussions is that a
       small representation of an agency or the districts could interject their own opinions
       without relaying the broad spectrum of opinions within an agency or the districts.
       In summary, I think both approaches are useful, but both approaches have limitations.

       Overall, I think the analysis of where participants within and among agencies agree or
       disagree could be more thorough. With some additional work listening to the tapes
       and developing a more in-depth analysis, I think the report could be expanded to better
       reflect information that was discussed during the group discussions. Without
       explanation of terms such as "check list," "development thresholds," "035 Decision
       Process," "DO   G  List," "SB 308," readers will miss much of the content of the
       discussions. This is especially true for suggestions to improve the assessment,



      SENT BY:Xerox Telecopier 7020 ; 9-25-95 ; 3:54PM ;               4653075-' DAMES & MOORE - ANG;# 3



            Ms. Alison Smith                          3                      September 25, 1995
            consideration or control of CIs that were discussed during in-house discussions.
            Considering many of the in-house discussions were summarized in point form, valuable
            information seems to be missing from the report.
            Again, thank you for the opportunity to review the draft report. I look forward to
            reading the final report.


                                             Sincerely,



                                             Glenn Gray
                                             Project Analyst

            cc:   Cumulative Impacts Management Team



I

I




                                                                    R EC E     I  ED

                                                                    SEPi  22 1995
                                                                  DAMES &   ,. ,F.i
MEMORANDUM                                       State of Alagkra
Department of Natural Resources              Division of Land, Southcentral Region

     TO:  Alison Smith                             DATE:  September 21, 1995
          Dames and Moore
 THRU:                                         FILE NO.:

                                      TELEPHONE NO: 762-2270

 FROM:  Rob Walkinshw                          SUBJECT:  Draft Report on
          Natural Resource Officer                         Cumulative Impacts


The Alaska Department of Natural Resources has completed a review of the draft
report on the cumulative impacts group discussion project dated September 15,
1995. Attached are comments on the Draft.

Also attached is a memo from Ron Swanson to Diane Mayer dated September 6,
1995 that states the Department's position on cumulative impacts. Please include a
copy of this memo in an Appendix in the final draft of the report.

Thank you.













cc

Rick Thompson
Janet Burleson
Ron Swanson





MEMORANDUM                                                         State of Alaska
I)EPARTNENT OF NATURAL RESOURCES                                              DIVISION OF LAND


   TO:   Rob Walkinshaw                                     DATE:   September 20, 1995
          DNR Project Leader
          CSI Project (309)
                           3, ~-TELEPHONE NO:  465-3404

FROM:   Janet B gson Baxter                              SUBJECT:    CSI Interagency Meeting
           D       MP  Coordinator                                     September 8, 1995



I had the opportunity to attend the Interagency Meeting for the 309 Cumulative and Secondary
Impact (CSI or CI) Project on September 8 and to review the draft report by Dames and Moore.
I'd like to share my thoughts and comments both on the meeting and on the draft report

The tone of the meeting was generally constructive. I thought there was good representation
from each department  The representatives participated with enthusias.m and I think the session
provided a good opportunity for departments and districts to share thoughtsAidcas and educate
other participants on procedures that departments and districts follow to do their respective jobs.
Ron Swanson and Rick Thompson did a good job of describing what statutes DNR follows and
how we conduct our agency reviews and decision making process to address issues that come
up, including those issues that could be and are considered real or potential cumulative impacts.
Other agencies. particularly DF&G  and DEC described their procedures and frustrations in
dealing with impacts due to the lack of infrastructure or regulatory support

I have some concerns with the draft report I am unclear from the draft what the options are to
comment but I trust that there is the ability to do that. Therefore I am sending my comments
to you as the project leader. Please forward them as appropriate.

DNR has consistently stated that agencies/districts need to be careful in dealing with the term
 "cumulative impacts" as a buzz word  Oftirnes the problem is not that a project has not been
 subjected to enough scrutiny to address potential impacts, but that there is not enough monitoring
and compliance.  We have also consistently stated that the ACIMP is not the place to deal with
 CSI'g nor Cl's.  I agree with the statement in the report "Everyone agreed that a separate
regulatory review process should not be created, but that addressing CIs should come within each
agency's existing purview". DNR's position as to where CIs should be addressed is clear. (See
attached D0NR memo dated September 7, 1995)

The report states that "the CEQ definition should be used without modification...". I am not sure
that the group agreed that the CEQ definition should be used. I think the agreement was that IF
we agree tlat a definition is needed AND  we agree to use the CEQ definition THEN the
defSniEion should be used as originally written, nor as modified-

 I am not sure that there was agreement that "there is also a need for an umbrella through a stare
 mandate, because local ordinances are often not inclusive enough to address Cl's" as stated on





CSI Interagency Meeting
Rob Walkinshaw
Page 2, September 20, 1995


page 3 of the draft dated 9/14. We discussed the issue, but I'm unclear that there was agreement.

I enthusiastically supported the recommendation from DCED, Wendy Wolf, on five items that
could be used as a process to deal with perceived impacts. The ideas were crisp and clear.  As
I recall there was some discussion on the 5 suggestions and we agreed that there were actually
6 components. The 6th was either 1) education on existing agency process/statutes/regulation and
various plans or 2) monitoring and compliance. In either case the separate item of education was
not included in the list. The report incorporates the idea of education, but does it is not listed
as a stand alone part of the process.  I was unable to attend the afternoon session and the
decision to delete education as a stand alone item may be a result of the afternoon discussion.

Since I was not present for the afternoon segment I missed the opportunity to "flesh out" the 5
topics listed in the report but the 5 topics in the report are not as clear as my recollection from
the morning session.  For example. number 2 in the draft report, "'pdate of statutes and
regulation by agencies in response to revised local plans" does not reflect the discussion.  As I
recall the nmorning discussion pointed to agencies updating  their respective statutes and
regulations for the authority and support to address impacts, not necessarily to update state laws
and regulations in response to plans. Plans should reflect existing statues and regs, not the other
way around.  As I recall number 5 was something li.ke...agencies/planners/disticts will revisit
projects or plans on a case by case basis during a consistency review or by another public
proce.s if the perception is that agencies missed a major issue somewhere along the line.... The
concept was to provide a mechanism to bring parties to the table when there is an unanticipated
impact or project. DNR already does this by holding public hearings at the request of various
entities or as required by several statutes e.g. AS 38.05.945 and .946.  We also address issues
by instituting management plans or special use areas to address specific concerns e.ga the Caribou
Hill.s Management Plan was developed in response to concerns about the proliferation of cabins
in Caribou Hills on the Kenai.  I don't think this concept is adequately presented in the draft
report.

I agree with the draft plan that there should be consistency in local and state plans and that plans
should not conflict  r also agree that enforceable policies need to be written so that the polices
are clear and enforceable.   DNR  and other ACMP  participants are currently working on
guidelines for enforceable policies that will clarify how to write the policies.

These comments reflect my thoughts from a quick review of the draft report.  I hope the
conllment.i are useful. Please contact me if you have any questions.

Attachment:  DNR Memo on CSI's., September 7, 1995

cc:    Ron Swanson
       Rick Thompson
       Mary Kaye Hession









MEMORANDUM    State of Alaska
Department of Natural Resources               Division of Land, Southcentral Region

     TO:  Diane Mayer                                DATE:  September 6, 1995
          Director
 THRU:                                          FILE NO.:

                                       TELEPHONE NO: 762-2692

 FROM:L  Ron Swanso                             SUBJECT:  Cumulative and
          Director                                           Secondary Impacts



The Department of Natural Resources has clarified its position on cumulative and
secondary impacts. The position is described below.

      1. The ACMP is not the place to address cumulative and secondary impacts.
      If there are problems, they should be addressed under each agencies statutes
      and regulations, not the ACMP.

      2. There is already a great deal being done in DNR to address CSIs. They may
      not be called CSIs, but in effect, the impacts that are addressed as a matter of
      course in DNR's day to day business are cumulative and secondary impacts.
      3. If there are problems within an agency addressing cumulative and
      secondary impacts, a solution should be tailored to the specific problem and
      issue, and division. Solutions must acknowledge that each activity and division
      within DNR often operates under different statutes and regulations. A generic
      solution will not work.

      4. The problems with CSIs that are often talked about are 1) real problems
      that exdst on the ground and 2) legal problems.

      DNR does not find evidence in the field that there is a real problem. When
      there is a problem with an area receiving significant impacts, the problem is
      primarily from lack of monitoring and enforcement, not from inadequate
      consideration of cumulative impacts.

      The solution to the real problem is to not make changes to the way DNR
      identifies, considers, and addresses cumulative impacts. Things are working
      good enough. The focus needs to shift away from cumulative and secondary
      impacts to implementation, monitoring, and enforcement.








Diane Mayer
Cumulative and Secondary Impacts
September 6, 1995



      DNR does find that there is a legal problem. DNR has been sued for not
      identifying and considering certain impacts. To address the legal problem,
      DNR needs to do a better job when scoping a project during the preplanning
      stage of an adjudication process to set the parameters of the evaluation to
      include a broad range of impacts, including those that are considered
      "cumulative and secondary." This will be done within existing statutes and
      regulations. New statutes and regulations are not required.

      Regardless of what DNR does, we will still end up in court. Often legal suits
      are driven by political considerations that are not tied to the treatment of
      cumulative impacts. No matter what DNR does and how elaborate we get
      with statutes, policies, procedures, and the decision making process, there will
      be ways to find problems and sue DNR.

Please call if you have questions.







CC.


John Shively
Marty Rutherford
Division Directors







                                 IEXECUTIVE SUNMMARY                    (A2A>


The Alaska Coastal Management Program (ACMP) established standards and guidelines for local
coastal planning and review of proposed development projects in Alaska's coastal zone. The
Coastal Zone Management Act and the Alaska Coastal Management Act both refer to cumulative
impacts and contain mandates to consider cumulative and secondary impacts of development.
The overall cumulative impacts project is designed to def'me the problem, identify how other
states have approached the problem, and to describe the legal authorities. One phase of the
project includes surveying State agency and coastal district personnel in order to assess the
methods presently used to identify, consider, and control cumulative impacts of growth and
development. The Group Discussion component of the cumulative impacts project is intended
to   complement the individual survey portion completed in June, 1995 by HDR Engineering.


The group discussions provide an additional perspective to the questions asked in the HDR
survey, explore alternatives to better address Cls, and attempts to b   ii.between agencies
in an attempt to develop a common understanding of CIs.           agencY/distri t representatives
participated in seven intra-agency and districts metn and 'o'              tcy mee.t4"he                e
participants are considered to be the "references" for this   ject.


When asked to identify locations of CIs, the intra-agency and districts participants came up with
examples throughout the state, but primarily in the populated and industrial/commercial regions.
Some impacts, such as sanitation problems and recreational and subsistence conflicts, occur in
rural areas.


All participants were able to identify statutes and regulations which provide direction for
addressing impacts. Most named several other tools currently used to address CIs. There was
consensus that there are many existing tools which allow CIs to be looked at, analyzed, and
planned for. The main resons for failure of these tools in the cases discussed were that they
are not being implementethe agencieshavd  not been trained in their application, or politics
have intervened in those cases where approoriate olutions have been proposed and consensus
gainedI  In some cases agehcy authoritid  (tools) do not reach through the levels, to address
issues which should be addressed through local land use planning.








        An approach to addressing CIs through local planning with agency input was developed during
        the Interagency/District meeting.  The basic approach involves encouraging addressing CIs 
        loc      plannjng and appropriate revisions to plans; updating statutes and regulaonss       B
        t-revis46k. Al 'k    p,,ms; project reviews;  monitoring  and  compliance  activities; and
        establishment of an interagency team to re-review the plans when unforeseen impacts s ow up.
        Public education and participation are essential in local planning, revisions to p1s, and in
        project                             review.

        Throughout the project, participants were asked to evaluate the pros and cons   the small group
        discussion methodology for achieving the goals of the project.  Generally, the face-to-face
        meetings were considered quite valuable. The process of face-to-face meetings is more direct,
        closer to reality, and brings out more details than a telephone survey.    The meetings
        complemented the survey approach used in the IHDR report, and were a positive experience for
        the agency personnel.







          Q v /4~ >?                                                                                                   3





*,, C                  >              6AtA                      40                  ~

                            //   _ f tof Age CamFacto


                                                       Gt ( -  i  are Rev 2

                      *t~                                                                                             U









                                  1.0 INTRODUCTION


1.1  BACKGROUND


The Alaska Coastal Management Program (ACMP) established standards and guidelines for local
coastal planning and review of proposed development projects in Alaska's coastal zone. The
Coastal Zone Management Act and the Alaska Coastal Management Act both refer to cumulative
impacts  (CIs) and contain mandates  to consider cumulative and secondary impacts of
development.  The overall CIs Project is designed to define the problem, identify how other
states have approached the problem, and to describe the legal authorities.  One   ase of the
project involves surveying State agency and coastal district personnel in ord         assess the
methods presently used to identify, consider, and control CIs of growth and deve pment. The
Group Discussion component of the CIs Project is intended to complement thndividual survey,.
portion completed in June, 1995 by HDR Engineering.   \


1.2  PROJECT DESCR4ONI/I7. 


The purpose of this component of the CIs Project   s to hold group discussion meetings among
state agency and coastal district personnel in order to  rvide followup~   a report produced by
HDR Engineering as-.part of a broader effort to deal with the issue of CIs. The HiDR Report
resulted from a formal telephone survey of agency and district personnel.  The survey was an
attempt to identify what CIs are occurring and where, how districts and agencies currently
address them, and to evaluate the overall effectiveness of existing techniques, as well as provide
suggestions and recommendations on how to further address the issues. The group discussions
addressed in this report provide an additional perspective to the questions asked in the HIDR
survey, explore alternatives to better address CIs, and attempts to build bridges between agencies
in order to develop a common understanding of CIs.


This project involved an interactive discussion on what districts and agencies see as the on-the-
ground issues related to CIs and what can be done to better address them both within and outside
of the ACMPo The participants included:  the Departments of Natural Resources (DNR);


CUMULATIVE IMPACTS PROJECT DRAFT REPORT                                          SEPTEMBER 15, 1995
                                           1I-













   Coastal Resource Service Area                                   P.o. 8cr a8e, Pllinhtgk, Musk  M?76
                                                                   9a07) P42-OW or M42-tf7 - rZ 1Wn 7)m4224a
U  .     Se ptember 22, 1995

             Alison Smith, Dames & Moore
I            5600 B Street, Suite 100
             Anchorage, Ak. 99518-1641

             Dear Ms. Smith:

             The Bristol Bay CRSA has reviewed the draft report prepared by Dames & Moore, The
             following comments represent my views as one of two district members on the
             management team for this project and as a participant in both the district group
             discussion and interagency/district meeting.

I            The purpose of the group discussions project was to gain a better understanding of what
             agencies and districts really mean when we talk about 'oumulativp Impacts", how they are
             or are not addressed and the reasons why, and the basis for solutions that were identified
             during the discussions.  Individual meetings were held to clarify and articulate the
             perspectives of agencies and districts on these Issues, and were to also serve as the
             basis for identifying and working through areas of agreement and disagreement at the
             interagency/district meeting.  The consultant was responsible for summarizing these
             meetings, facilitating the Interagency/district meeting, and preparing a synthesis and
             analysis of the discussions.

             I do not feel the draft report captures the key points of discussion and participants
             viewpoints on them.  Although the contractual hours allocated to preparing the intra-
             agency and district meeting summaries may have been insufficient to prepare more in-
             depth summaries, many of these points were revisited at length and, in some cases,
             modified during the interagency/district meeting. The substance of what was discussed
             may have been difficult to capture because of the rambling nature of the discussion,
             however this was also due to the way In which the meeting was facilitated.

             I also have concerns about the accuracy of many of the statements in the report. As one
             example, the proposed approach outlined in Section 5.0 states that agencies will need to
             amend their statutes and regulations to meet the management direction provided In local
             plans, and would also be responsible for implementing the changes in district plans. This
             is not what I recall was said at the interagency/district meeting. What was said Is that if
             an agency does not have adequate authority to address cumulative impacts, then it is
             incumbent upon that agency to pursue statutory or regulatory changes. Agencies should
             strive to meet the intent of local plans but only to the extent to which their authorities
             allow.

                                                                           I
                I~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~I



                          TEL No .                           Sep 22,95 17:28   P.02




Alison Smith/Dames & Moore                                      Septmber 22, 1995

Other statements in the report are misleading, such as '[the] group suggested
establishing development thresholds to control impacts.' (page 2:of interagency/district
meeting summary), The introductory paragraph under Section 4,4.1 (Other Suggested
Approaches) notes there was 'general agreement' on these approaches, Including
development thresholds.   Discussion of development thresholds, at least at the
interagency/district meeting. focused more on the difficulties of setting and implementing
thresholds rather than as a suggested approach to control impacts.
The content in the sections of the report that discuss the need for a regulatory definition
of cumulative impacts is essentially the same and could be consolidated under one
section. These sections (if not consolidated) should reflect more of the discussion at the
interagency/district meeting. My recollection Is that many of the partilcipants by the end
of the meeting felt it was premature to include a definition in the ACMP. This shift from
the earlier group discussions should be noted at least.
I have not attempted to rewrite portions of the report given the amount of time this would
require. but have marked up the draft report and interagency meeting summary with
suggested changes. These changes are mostly editorial and also Include notations in the
margins on sections that need clarification.
Please feel free to call if you have questions about my comments.

Sincerely,


Sudan Flensburg
Program Director

cc:   Unda Freed, KiB
      Glenn Gray, DGC
      Nate Johnson. DOT/PF
      Tom Lawson, DCED
      Fran Roche, DEC
      Glenn Seaman, ADFG                                                                     3
      Rob Walkinshaw, DNR 




                                                                                               I