[From the U.S. Government Printing Office, www.gpo.gov]
MANAGING CUMULATIVE IMPACTS IN THE NORTH CAROLINA COASTAL AREA . ....... ........ A REPORT OF THE STRATEGIC PLAN FOR IMPROVING COASTAL MANAGEMENT IN NORTH CAROLINA Performed Under the Coastal Zone Enhancement Grants Program Division of Coastal Management North Carolina Department of Environment, Health and Natural Resources COVER GRAPHIC: This GIS map of the North Carolina Coastal Area shows boundaries of counties and small watersheds, or hydrologic units. These hydrologic units are the focus of analytical and planning components of the Strategic Plan for Improving Coastal Management in North Carolina. MANAGING CUMULATIVE IMPACTS IN THE NORTH CAROLINA COASTAL AREA James E. Wuenscher North Carolina Division of Coastal Management Department of Environment, Health and Natural Resources June 15, 1994 The preparation of this report was financed by funds provided by the Off ice of Ocean and Coastal Resources Management, NOAA, under the Coastal Zone Enhancement Grants Program. The views expressed herein are those of the author and do not necessarily reflect the views of NOAA or any of its sub-agencies or those of the North Carolina Department of Environment, Health and Natural Resources. Z3- ENT OF A publication of the North Carolina Department of Environment, Health and Natural Resources pursuant to National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration Award No. NA270ZO332-01. TABLE OF CONTENTS Section Page 1. INTRODUCTION ........................................... 1 Defining Cumulative and Secondary Impacts .................... 2 Assessment vs. Management of Cumulative and Secondary Impacts .................................... 3 Risk Assessment ........................................ 4 Establishing Cumulative Impact Management Goals ............... 7 Implementation of Cumulative Impact Management Goals ........... 8 2. THE NORTH CAROLINA CONTEXT ............................ 10 Statutory Mandates ...................................... 10 Organization and Capability ................................ 12 3. A CUMULATIVE IMPACTS MANAGEMENT MODEL ................ 14 Relative Risk Assessment ................................. 15 Classification of Risks .................................... 17 Goal Setting ........................................... 19 Identification of Appropriate Implementation Mechanisms ............................... 20 Implementation ......................................... 22 4. POSSIBLE TYPES OF HIGH RISK AREAS ....................... 24 Areas with Impaired Water Quality ........................... 24 Areas with High Potential for Water Quality Impairment ................................. 27 Areas with Present or Potential Air Quality Impairment .................................... 27 Areas with Historic Rapid Growth ............................ 28 Anticipated High-Growth Areas ............................. 29 High Value Resource Areas ................................ 30 Productive and Aesthetic Resource Areas ..................... 32 5. ALTERNATIVE MANAGEMENT STRATEGIES .................... 34 The CAMA Regulatory Program ............................. 35 Land Use Planning ...................................... 38 Inter-Agency Coordination ................................. 41 k Special Area Management Planning .......................... 44 -72 TABLE OF CONTENTS 6. SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS ............................... 45 The North Carolina Model ................................. 46 Management Strategies ................................... 47 Conclusions ........................................... 48 REFERENCES CITED ...................................... 51 APPENDICES ............................................ 55 Cumulative Impacts Indicators in PC-Based Population/Development/Resources Information System ........... 55 GIS Databases in Information System ........................ 57 .. ... . ..... ............... .............. The coastal area of North Carolina is ............. ..... .. .. being affected by the kind of rapid growth and ........... .......... .. . ............. . .......... . ....... development typical of the nation's coastal areas. ............... As a whole, the coastal area is the fastest growing region in the state. During the 1980s, four of the five fastest growing counties in the state were located in the coastal area, and that trend has continued into the 1990s. One of the primary purposes of the North Carolina Coastal Management Program (NC CMP) is "to guide growth and development and to minimize damage to the natural environment" (NCGS 113A-102) that makes the coastal area productive and attractive. It has been recognized since the passage. of CAMA that commercial and residential development and the development of water dependent facilities such as piers and marinas may adversely impact biological resourc- es and coastal water quality. Both the CAMA permitting program and local land use planning requirements, as well as other state and federal regulatory programs applicable to the coastal area, have been designed to minin-dze these adverse impacts while allowing coastal develop- ment to occur. Most regulatory programs are designed to minimize the impacts of individual projects on the resources they directly affect. When development becomes concentrated, however, the cumulative and secondary, or indirect, impacts of the develop- ment may be significant, even though the direct effects of each individual project are minimal. Runoff from one specific development on the estuarine shoreline may not, in itself, result in a significant decline in water quality, but the cumulative runoff from many such developments may. The possibility of adverse cumulative impacts has been recognized since the develop- ment of the original CAMA use standards and land use planning guidelines, but the lack of specific statutory authority or straight-forward methods for assessing cumulative impacts made it difficult to address this possibility. Instead, the approach taken was to attempt to minimize individual impacts to such an extent that cumula- tive impacts would not be significant. After nearly twenty years of experience with the CAMA regulatory and land use planning programs, the continued appropriateness of this approach is being questioned. Environmental degradation has occurred, in spite of CAMA and other state and federal environmental protection programs. Although the situation would be much Cumulative Impacts Management- Page 1 worse without these programs, the public often 11 .. the impact on the environment which perceives them as inadequate so long as any results from the incremental impact of the noticeable environmental degradation occurs. action when added to other past present, Seventy percent of public comments received in and reasonably foreseeable future ac- the CZMA �309 Assessment of the NC CMP dons, regardless of what agency or performed in 1991 indicated that adverse cumula- person undertakes such other actions. tive impacts were a problem that should be Cumulative impacts can result from add 'ressed through program enhancements (DCM, Individually minor but collectively signifi- 1992a). During a series of public meetings held cant actions taking place over a period of in the spring of 1993, declines in coastal water Ohio- (40 CFR Sect 15U.7). q uality and fisheries and closure of areas to This definition of cumulative impacts defines shellfishing were the symptoms most often cited them as the "additive" result of all individual as evidence of adverse cumulative impacts of impacts of a series of actions occurring over time growth and development. and space, including those of the past and the As part of its Four Year Strategic Plan foreseeable future. The impacts of any single for Enhancing Coastal Management, the North action may be negligible, but the cumulative Carolina Division of Coastal Management (DCM) effect of many actions may result in the gradual is developing methods for assessing and manag- and incremental degradation of a resource over ing adverse cumulative impacts in a more holistic time. fashion than has been used in the past. This There are other ways of considering report is a technical introduction to the DCM cumulative impacts than as simply additive. In approach. Section 1 summarizes the results of many cases environmental impacts are interactive initial research on cumulative and secondary or synergistic so that the total effect of an inter- impacts, discussing their definition and consider- action between two or more impacts is greater ations necessary for their assessment and man- than the sum of the individual effects (Beanlands, agement. Section 2 discusses the North Carolina et al., 1986). The cumulative impact of synergis- context and assesses the strengths and weakness- tic actions is greater than the additive impact of es of the NC CMP in managing cumulative each action. Considering the complexity of ecolog- impacts. Section 3 describes the cumulative ical systems, it is likely that synergistic cumula- impacts management model being applied in the tive impacts occur more frequently than additive NC coastal area. Sections 4 and 5 discuss the impacts. The greater degree of complexity in- types of high risk areas likely to be present in the volved in synergistic impacts, however, make coastal area and alternative cumulative impacts them even more difficult to assess or manage. management strategies that may be applied to them. Still another approach toward cumulative impacts is to include all possible impacts of a Deflning Cumulative and Secondary given action, including not only its direct impacts Impacts but also those of additional actions which the first may stimulate. Examples include highway and While the existence of cumulative and bridge construction, in which the direct impacts secondary impacts has long been recognized, the of construction itself may not be as great as the difficulty of identifying and dealing with them impacts of additional growth and development has prevented specific action within planning and that may result from the new highway or bridge. regulatory programs. It is easy to talk in general The cumulative impact of such a project may be terms about cumulative impacts, but much more considered as the total impact of the project itself difficult to specifically identify them. The first plus the impacts of all resulting development critical step is to agree on a definition. To avoid further confusing an already While there are a variety of ideas about difficult subject, however, it is preferable to cumulative impacts and what they include, the consider this situation an example 'of secondary most widely accepted definition is that given by rather than cumulative impacts. In this case the Council on Environmental Quality (CEQ) in there is only one project or activity, and the its guidelines for implementation of the National potential impacts being considered include its Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) of 1969. Those indirect, or secondary, effects. Cumulative im- duidelines .define a cumulative impact as: pacts, on the other hand, are the overall effects of multiple activities, whether these activities are Cumulative Impacts Management- Pago 2 related to one another or not. For the purposes of activities are often confused, it is helpful to DCM`s consideration of cumulative impacts, then, distinguish them in planning an approach to one activity at one place and occurring at one cumulative impacts. point in time can never be considered to have cumulative impacts. It is only when an activity Ideally, cumulative impacts assessment is considered together with other activities affect- includes an analysis of the complex relationships ing the same resources that cumulative impacts between multiple disturbances and valued envi- are relevant. This approach is consistent with ronmental functions (Leibowitz, Abbbruzzese, et the CEQ definition of cumulative impacts. al., 1992). It seeks to identify, understand, and, if possible, quantify the actual cause and effect Secondary impacts, then, may be defined relationships among multiple human-induced as the indirect effects of an activity resulting from activities and the functional characteristics of the the activity's role in influencing other systems. ecosystems they effect. This requires a very Other systems influenced may include the local complex analysis that is fraught with scientific economy, as in the highway or bridge example in difficulties and uncertainties. Trying to deal which the improved access resulting from the definitively with cause and effect relationships in highway or bridge creates new markets by elimi- a complex and inter-related web of causal path- nating previously existing constraints. Or the ways is extremely difficult, expensive and time- activity may influence natural systems, e.g., a consuming. It stretches the current state of development adjacent to a wetland may decrease ecological understanding to its limits. Attempting certain of the wetland's functions, resulting in de- to perform this type of analysis in a regulatory graded water quality or declines in fish productiv- context probably exceeds those limits. ity. The development itself did not directly cause these ultimate impacts, but without the develop- This does not mean that site or project- ment's effect on other systems the secondary specific cumulative impacts analysis should not impacts would not have occurred. Secondary be attempted. It must be in those cases in which impacts occur whenever one activity results in laws, such as NEPA, require that it be performed. far-reaching, indirect, and often unexpected, It does mean, however, that it is an impractical effects mediated by the operation of other sys- approach upon which to base a government tems. environmental management or regulatory pro- gram. While rudimentary techniques for cumula- Both natural ecosystems and human- tive impacts assessment exist, our current state generated systems such as the economy are of knowledge limits the results to either qualita- extremely complex, transcending complete under- tive professional judgements or the output of standing or predictability. Due to this complexi- complex mathematical models. This may not be ty, it is likely that every activity has at least an adequate basis upon which to justify why a some secondary impacts and that any time there landowner will not be allowed to do the same are two or more activities, they have cumulative thing his neighbor has already done. Detailed, impacts. The question is not whether these cause-and-effects cumulative impacts assessment impacts exist, but at what point they become is too complex, imprecise, and difficult to under- sufficiently significant and adverse to warrant stand and explain to form an acceptable basis for specific consideration and action. public policy and regulatory decision-making. Assessment vs. Management of Another approach is simply to accept the Cumulative and Secondary complexity of the cause-effect relationships and focus instead on the causes and effects them- impacts selves. Instead of attempting to understand and specify complex ecological relationships, this The CEQ definition of cumulative impacts approach identifies the activities that result in was developed to provide guidance for implement- impacts and the status of resources that are ing NEPA!s requirement to assess cumulative affected. Two implicit assumptions are involved. impacts. Most of the subsequent literature on the subject deals with the topic of cumulative impacts assessment. There is a difference, however, between cumulative impacts assessment and cumulative impacts management (Institute for Environmental Negotiation, 1991). Since the two Cumulative Impacts.Management- Page 3 (1) If a system is already exhibiting ecological thresholds, even for one system, re- symptoms of degradation (i.e., quires large amounts of research and data. adverse effects exist), the degra- Nevertheless, considerable progress is being made dation is the result of the cu. on identifying natural limits and applying them mulative impacts of all the to management and regulatory decisions. Dickert factors influencing the system. and Tuttle (1985) used hydrologic and erosion ,(2) Ifenvironment-impactingactiv- models to establish land disturbance thresholds ities (causes of impacts) become for the Elkhorn Slough watershed in California. intensive enough in a limited These thresholds were incorporated into a land area, there will be adverse use planning framework. The whole basin ap- effects resulting/rom, the cumu- proach to water quality management being lative impacts of the many implemented by the NC Division of Environmen- causes. tal Management (DEM, 1991) uses total maxi- mum daily loads (TMDLs) derived from models The first assumption is intuitively obvi- based on assimilative capacity, existing loading, ous and, therefore, not difficult to justify. The and other basin characteristics. These TMDLs second assumption is more difficult, since it are applied to both the NPDES regulatory pro- entails determining the point at which distur- gram and to planning of voluntary BMPs for bance becomes "intense enough" to result in nonpoint sources to limit the total discharge of adverse cumulative impacts. This point is the pollutants in the basin to a level below the thres- limit of the local systerns tolerance or buffering hold of water quality impairment. capacity for the particular disturbance or combi- nation of disturbances involved. This limit is Whether or not a natural threshold level sometimes called the system's "carrying capacity," can be reliably quantified, the concept is well although that term and the well-documented accepted: when the cumulative effects of multiple phenomenon of limits to population densities human activities exceed a certain threshold, upon which the carrying capacity concept is based significant environmental damage becomes evi- do not really apply to multiple disturbances and dent. Several useful general propositions can be cumulative impacts. derived from this concept. With engineered public facilities such as (1) Ifenvironmental degradation is roads, water systems, and sewage treatment not evident, the threshold has works, the determination of maximum capacity is presumably not been exceeded. straightforward (Dickert, et al., 1976). Similarly, (Although it may simply mean that we are not monitoring the if the available supply of a consumptive natural appropriate parameters of resource, such as groundwater or assimilative degradation.) capacity, can be determined, the maximum human population it can support can be calculat- (2) Even though the exact thresh- ed. A 1983 study of the carrying capacity of part old level may be unknown, the of Currituck County, NC, (Bell, et al.) concluded more pressure that exists in a that its human population was limited by the given area, the closer the sys- amount of land suitable for septic tanks, since no tem is likely to be to its limits. wastewater treatment plant existed. Construc- tion of a sewage treatment plant would effectively (3) The more sensitive the re- remove this limitation and, thus, change the sources of an area are to dis. area@s carrying capacity and the limiting factor on turbance, the lower their thres- which it depends. Any capacity determined by hold level is likely to be. engineered facilities or by resources that can be substituted for, therefore, is not an absolute Risk Assessment carrying capacity intrinsic to the area, since it can always be changed (Institute for Environmen- tal Negotiation, 1991). Even though we cannot define ecological thresholds with certainty, these propositions Determining natural limits or ecological provide a basis for what might be termed "cumu- thresholds is more difficult, since they are deter- lative impacts risk assessment." Ecological risk mined by complex and often poorly understood assessment has been applied for some time to ecosystem dynamics. Definitive determination of analyses of the effects of specific environmental Cumulative Impacts Management- Page 4 hazards (Barnthouse and Suter, 1986;) and has solving. The classical rational planning approach been more recently applied to cumulative impacts replaces the complexities of ecological analysis. (Hunsaker, et al., 1990; Hunsaker, 1993). The Risk management decisions can be made through objective of ecological risk assessment is to pro- the consideration of priority problems in light of vide a quantitative basis for comparing risks and available management options, resources, admin- a systematic means of improving the estimation istrative and legal structures, etc. This results in and understanding of those risks (Hunsaker, et an approach more amenable to and more accept- al., 1990). It is not necessary to fully understand able in public policy-making. and quantify all the relevant parameters in order to compare the relative risks of different hazards Gosselink and Lee (1989) proposed an or to compare different areas subject to different approach to cumulative impacts management that conditions. Relative risk assessment can be used can be generalized from the specific instance in to determine which risks are greater or which which they applied it to a generally applicable areas are at higher risk (Leibowitz, Preston, et management model. Their model has three al., 1992; Leibowitz, Abbruzzese, et al., 1992). components, summarized below with Gosselink While it may not provide precise answers, relative and Lee's definitions of each component. risk assessment does provide far better informa- tion than is currently available. This information Assessment - 77he characterization of cumu- can be used in making informed decisions and lative effects on both the ecological protecting or managing the environment at large structure and the functional ecological geographic scales (Hunsaker, 1993). processes in a designated landscape unit. A study by EPA!s Science Advisory Board Goal-Setting - Agreement by public consensus (1990) recommended that environmental manage- on environmental goals for the assess- ment and protection efforts be focused on areas in ment area, based on the assessment and which the greatest risk reduction could be consistent with statute* and regula- achieved. Risk assessment is the necessary first tions. step in identifying those areas of focus, whether they be specific environmental hazards or geo- Implementation - The development of specific graphic areas. After high risk areas have been plans to implement the goals, based on identified, risk management can be applied the landscape structure and function of through the development and implementation of the area. specific management strategies to control and manage the most serious risks. The assessment component in this model consists of an analysis of thecurrent status of the This approach shifts the focus of atten- landscape unit in comparison to its historic tion from cumulative impacts assessment to condition to determine the degree of degradation cumulative impacts management. The emphasis resulting from the cumulative impacts of past changes from analyzing complex cause-effect actions. Rather than attempting to analyze the relationships to assessing relative risks and cumulative impacts of specific projects on specific developing management approaches to risk ecological parameters, this assessment approach control. There is also a shift in spatial and uses a limited number of landscape indices, or temporal horizons. Cumulative impacts assess- relatively simple, measurable properties that ment of individual activities is carried out on the reflect ecological structure and important func- scale of a particular development project or tions. While Gosselink and Lee (1989) used discharge; cumulative impacts management is wetland-related indices, the specific indices could performed on the landscape-level scale at which vary, depending upon assessment objectives, and cumulative impacts occur (Gosselink, et al., 1990). could include socio-economic as well as ecological Cumulative impacts assessment focuses on the parameters. time horizon from the past to the present, while cumulative impacts management focuses on the Applying a risk assessment approach to time horizon from the present to the future the Gosselink and Lee model results in an assess- (Williamson, 1992). ment that uses the same type of landscape indices to compare the status of different landscape units. The cumulative impacts management Instead of a comparison of past with present approach also allows the application of standard conditions to determine ecological degradation, a pla nning and management techniques of problem- comparison of current conditions and stressors in Cumulative Impacts Management- Page 5 different spatial units can be used to determine In their assessment of the ecological the relative risks of significant adverse cumula- status of the Tensas River Basin in Louisiana, tive impacts among these areas. The areas at Gosselink, Shaffer, et al. (1990) emphasized highest risk then become the focus of risk reduc- wildlife habitat, hydrology, and water quality. tion management in the goal-setting and imple- Landscape indicators included forest area and mentation phases. distribution, breeding bird surveys, Christmas bird counts, stream stage and discharge records, This method has been called a "synoptie and water quality records. Landscape indices approach (Leibowtiz, Abbruzzese, et al., 1992), were the changes in values of the indicators over since it provides a broad overview of environmen- time. They found these data sets, supplemented tal conditions. It's objective is not to provide a with land-cover data and maps, to be sufficient to precise, quantitative assessment of cumulative identify the major structural and functional impacts within an area nor to assess the cumula- changes related to the cumulative impacts of tive impacts of specific projects, but to provide a human activities. This information was used to relative rating of the significance of cumulative formulate specific management goals and imple- impacts among areas. The critical choices to be mentation strategies. made in designing the risk assessment are the environmental indices to be used and the identifi- Leibowitz, Abbruzzese, et al., (1992) cation of appropriate landscape units and time applied the synoptic approach to assessment of scales for analysis. cumulative impacts on wetlands in Louisiana, Washington, and Illinois. Their objectives were to Landscape Indicators and Indices identify those areas where either wetland protec- tion (Washington) or wetland restoration efforts Landscape indicators are actual data or (Louisiana and Illinois) should be focused. Land- measurements that reflect some aspect of land- scape indicators included data on wetland area, scape condition. A landscape index is a calculat- measures of stream water quality, land use and ed value derived from the values of landscape human population. From these indicators, a indicators and used as a basis for comparing series of landscape indices were calculated, based landscape units (Leibowitz, Abbruzzese, et al., on the management objectives for each case. 1992). In a risk analysis of nonpoint source Indices of wetland hydrologic, water quality, and pollution, for example, acreage of agricultural habitat functions, wetland values, replacement cropland might be used as a landscape indicator. potential, and future risk of wetland loss were Nitrogen and phosphorus loadings calculated from used to assess relative risks and significance of average agricultural runoff figures might be a various landscape units for management efforts. derived landscape index. The landscape indicator is a relatively easy to obtain data set for the Since the goal of risk-based cumulative landscape units. The landscape index translates impacts assessment is the assignment of relative the indicator value into an approximation of its risk or priority for management action, not functional significance. precise measurement or prediction, relatively simple landscape indicators and indices are The parameters used as landscape indica- sufficient. It is not necessary to mathematically tors and indices should adequately reflect both describe exactly how conversion of forest land or the pertinent environmental stressors and the wetlands to agricultural or urban uses leads to pertinent measures of environmental quality that declines in habitat or water quality in order to indicate the effects of stress. The specific param- assess the relative risk of such impacts among eters chosen will depend largely on the availabili- different landscape units. Thus, a risk-based ty of data, as well as on the objectives and intend- approach to cumulative impacts assessment can ed use of the assessment. It is rarely feasible to greatly simplify data-gathering and analysis and engage in extensive raw data acquisition for areas still provide accurate guidance to management as large as those appropriate for cumulative decision-making. impacts management (Leibowitz, Abruzzese, et al., 1992). Given limitations in time, resources, Spatial and Temporal Boundades and information, it is necessary to use landscape indicators that are readily available and to calcu- Cumulative impacts, by definition, are late from them first order landscape indices that landscape-level, long-term phenomena that occur are as meaningful as possible* in the context of as the consequences of numerous activities over the particular assessment. time. Focusing on individual sites or projects necessarily misses these larger scale and longer- Cumulative Impacts Management- Page 6 term patterns (Bedford, 1990). Each individual the system in question has not entirely recovered, project has its site-specific effects, but cumulative no matter how long ago the disturbance occurred impacts affect natural processes that occur within (Clark, 1986). What future activities are "foresee- interacting ecosystems across the landscape. The able" may be more a question for the courts to 'water quality or productivity of a local portion of defme than a question amenable to objective a larger waterbody is the result not only of what analysis. occurs at or adjacent to that portion, but also of what has occurred throughout the drainage basin. Since cumulative impacts management is more oriented toward future than past impacts, The appropriate spatial scale for manag- identifying a discrete historical time boundary is ing cumulative impacts, then, must be large probably not necessary. The current ecological enough to include all individual impacts that status of a spatial management unit is an ade- significantly influence the natural resource or quate measure of the cumulative impacts of process of interest. From a water quality perspec- historic actions. Some historic analysis may be tive, entire drainage basins form an appropriate useful, however, to provide an accurate assess- scale. From a wildlife management perspective, ment of present ecological "health." Comparing the management area must be large enough to current with past conditions can provide a mea- satisfy the home range and habitat requirements sure of the extent to which historic degradation of the farthest-ranging animal species of interest has occurred. (Gosselink, et al., 1990). If habitat of wide-rang- ing migratory species is of interest, a very broad Future projections are limited by our landscape boundary may be necessary. Ideally, level of understanding of many long-term natural space and time scales for cumulative impact processes such as sea level rise and the response management should be developed for each re- of ecosystems to disturbances over time. The source being managed. From the viewpoint of level and type of future impacts is subject to overall environmental management, however, a unpredictable economic and market conditions single scale that best fits most of the resources determined by forces often far distant from the and impacts is more practical. management unit. While ideal cumulative im- pacts management would include a time scale at The choice of landscape units for cumula- least one to two human generations into the tive impacts management must be based not only future (Befford, 1990), practicality often limits on ecological considerations, but also on manage- the horizon of reliable projections to much shorter ment objectives and data availability. The unit periods. boundaries should correspond as closely as possi- ble to natural process boundaries, but may also EStabilshing Cumulative Impact be influenced by pragmatic considerations such as Management GoalS political jurisdictions, map scales, and analytical methods (Leibowitz, Abbruzzese, et al., 1992). Since water quality is an important environmen- An essential, but often difficult, compo- tal management consideration and watershed nent of cumulative impacts management is estab- boundaries are relatively easy to delineate, lishing goals for the resources of interest (Lee and watershed units of various sizes have been used Gosselink, 1988; Bedford and Preston, 1988). most often as the basis for cumulative impacts Specific goals or objectives are necessary to analysis and management (Bedford, 1990; John- provide direction to any type of management. For ston, et al., 1988; Gosselink, et al., 1990; Leibo- cumulative impacts management, goals provide witz, Abbruzzese, et al., 1992). Watersheds may the link between the regional scale and site also be divided into smaller sub-basins for more specific plans and regulatory decisions. Rather detailed analyses or aggregated into regional than trying to assess the impacts of a specific basins for broad-scale management consider- action at the landscape level or focusing merely ations. on local impacts because they are more readily predictable, regulatory consideration of cumula- Appropriate temporal boundaries for tive impacts can be made in light of the goals for cumulative impacts management are more diffi- the landscape unit potentially affected. The cult to identify. The CEQ definition refers to effects of the proposed action in relation to estab- "past" and "reasonably foreseeable future actions," lished cumulative impacts management goals can but leaves these terms undefined. Relevant past provide an objective basis for regulatory consider- disturbances might include all those from which ation of cumulative impacts. Cumulative Impacts Management- Page 7 While goals should be based on scientific jurisdictions of federal, state, and local govern- information, they are often more dependent on ments can complicate goal implementation. values than on facts and, thus, are policy deci- Cumulative impacts are regional phenomena that sions to be made within the context of the specific can be addressed only through regional planning cumulative impacts management program. and cooperation. Even the most well-developed Cumulative impacts management goals will efforts to manage cumulative impacts within a normally be based on compliance with existing series of jurisdictions can be hampered by inac- statutes and a balance between a healthy envi- tion by a single governmental entity within the ronment and economic development. region (Contant and Wiggins, 1991). Assun-dng, however, that the over-riding Goal implementation, that is, the actual goal is the maintenance of some acceptable level management of cumulative impacts, requires as of environmental "health," goals for a specific holistic an approach as the assessment and management unit should be based on the "pat- analysis components. This step includes develop- ient's" current condition. If the current environ- ment of specific plans to implement the goals for ment is considered "healthy" according to some each landscape unit and enforceable policies to objective measure ofrelative well-being, then goal carry out the plans. The specific nature of plans setting should focus on protecting a sufficient and policies depends upon the resources or envi- level of existing resources to maintain that ronmental characteristics of concern, the nature health. Impact minimization, while still allowing of the situation within each landscape unit, and some decline from current conditions, may be an the statutory context of the regulatory and man- acceptable strategy. Where the current condition agement programs involved. is about equal to acceptable standards, a strategy of impact avoidance to prevent further deterio- If the goal is to manage cumulative ration is appropriate. If, on the other hand, the impacts on one particular resource (water, air, patient is already in bad health, that is, signifi- wildlife, wetlands, forest resources, etc.), then cant environmental impairment is present, appro- goal implementation may be within the purview priate goals might include prevention of any of a single-purpose agency. Cumulative impacts, further significant impacts, amelioration of however, are more often than not cross or multi- existing impacts, and environmental restoration media phenomena (Institute for Environmental (Gosselink, et al., 1990; Williamson, 1992). Negotiation, 1991). That is, one class of activities may impact air and water quality, or wetlands, wildlife, and forest productivity. Managing Implementation of Cumulative cumulative impacts on one resource while ignor- Impact Management Goals ing others is contrary to the whole purpose of cumulative impacts management. If the goal is to Dealing with cumulative impacts has manage cumulative impacts to the environment been constrained by reluctance to accept responsi- as a whole, or even to more than one environmen- bility for cumulative impacts assessment and tal medium, then goal implementation is beyond management planning, the first two steps of the the capabilities of any single-purpose agency or cumulative impacts management model (William- program and requires extensive inter-agency and son, 1992). These are large tasks, requiring a inter-governmental coordination and cooperation. holistic approach that is often considered beyond the mandate of individual environmental agen- Landscape units may be found to be at cies. high risk of adverse cumulative impacts for various reasons. The appropriate means of goal An even greater constraint to cumulative implementation will depend upon the specific impacts management may be lack of an adequate causative factors and environmental effects present. For example, degraded water quality management structure for goal implementation. Fragmentation of regulatory and resource man- may be the cumulative result of a few industrial agement efforts into single-purpose agencies with activities or of widely dispersed residential devel- responsibility for only parts of the environment opment. In the former case, regulatory programs (water, air, wetlands, etc.) or narrow segments of dealing with industrial practices maybesufficient human activity (agriculture, forestry, industrial for goal implementation. In the latter case, land development, etc.) limits the extent to which any use controls by local governments may be neces- one agency can address cumulative impacts and sary. In the more common situation in which their causes. Similarly, multiple over-lapping both industry and residential development are involved, inter-agency and inter-governmental Cumulative Impacts Management- Page 8 coordination is, once again, the key to successful goal implementation. Throughout this discussion, cumulative impacts management goal implementation is assumed to be a function of government. Since cumulative impacts are a classic example of the - tragedy of the commons" (Hardin, 1968), govern- mental action is probably the only feasible ap- proach. But government is constrained in cumu- lative impacts management by its statutory basis and its organizational structure. Structural deficiencies can be compensated for by inter- agency and inter-government coordination and cooperation as discussed above, but all involved agencies must act within their mandates and statutory authorities. An appropriate combina- tion of mandates and legal authorities, then, must exist or be constructed for the implementa- tion of cumulative impacts management goals. Successftil cumulative impacts manage- ment, then, requires assessment techniques, holistic planning, and coordinated action of sorts that have not been used in the past. Minimum requirements include two specific elements: (1) a lead agency with the legal mandate, technical ability and willingness to assume the responsibili- ty of on-goingcumulative impacts assessment and management planning; and (2) a commitment and structure appropriate to coordination and cooper- ation in goal implementation by all the agencies and governmental levels involved. The ability of the North Carolina Coastal Management Program to meet these minimal requirements and assume the task of cumulative impacts management is the subject of the next section. Cumulative Impacts Management- Page 9 Statutory Mandates of the North Carolina Coastal Management .... ... Program ................... .. ......... ...... ... .................. . . .... ....... The NC CMP operates under the statuto- .......... .......... .............. authority and mandates of the North Carolina Coastal Area Management Act (CAMA, - N.C.G.S. 113A, Article 7) and the Federal Coastal Zone Management Act (CZMA - 16 U.S.C. 1451 et seq.). Both of these acts set forth broad mandates for the overall management of coastal lands and resources. Several key provisions of these acts provide the capabilities for management of cumu- lative impacts. In light of the discussion of cumulative impacts management in Section 1, the statement of legislative findings in CAMA (G.S. 113A- 102(a)) sounds as if it were written specifically to accomplish that end. In recent years the coastal area has been subjected to increasing pressures which are the result of the often-conflicting needs of a society expanding in industrial development in population, and in the recreational aspiradons of its citizens. Unless these pressures are controlled by coordinated management the very fee- tures of the coast which make it economi- cally, aesthetically, and ecologically rich will be destroyed The General Assembly therefore finds that an immediate and pressing need exists to establish a comi- prehensive plan for the protection, pres- ervation, orderly development and man- agement of the coastal area of North Carolina. If the term "cumulative impacts" had been in as common use in 1974 as it is today, it surely would have been included in that statement of findings! CAMXs statement of goals (G.S. 113A- 102(b)) also sounds like the general goal state- ment of a cumulative impacts management program. (1) To provide a management system cap&- ble of preserving and managing the natu- ral ecological conditions of the estuarine system, the barrier dune system, and beaches, so as to safeguard and perpetu- ate their natural productivity and their biological, economic and aesthetic val- u9s; (2) To insure that the development orpreser- vation of the land and water resources of Cumulative Impacts Management- Page 10 the coastal area proceeds in a manner 113(b)) is broad enough to include essentially all consistent with the capability of the land environmentally sensitive areas. Part 4 of CAMA and water for developmen4 use, or pres. (G.S. 113A-116 et seq.) establishes the CAMA ervation based on ecological consider- regulatory program to require a permit for all ations; development proposed within AECs. The list of (3) To insure the orderly and balanced use grounds upon which permits shall be denied (G.S. andpreservation of our coastal resources 113A-120) includes the following- on behalf of the people of North Carolina and the nation; .-that the proposed development would (4) To establish policies, guidelines and contribute to cumulative effects that standards for: would be inconsistent with the guidelines (a) Protection, preservatior; and conser- set forth in subdivisions (1) through (9) of vation of natural resources including but the subsection. Cumulative effects are not limited to water use, scenic vistas, impacts attributable to the collective end fish and wildlife; and management of effects of a number of projects and transitional or intensely doveloped areas include the effects of additional projects and areas especially suited to intensive similar to the requested permit In areas use or development; as well as areas of available for developnvnt in the vicinity. significant natural value; (b) The economic development of the Subdivisions (1) through (9), referred to in regard coastal area, including but not limited to to cumulative impacts, contain other grounds for construcdor4 location and design of permit denial, most of which relate to significant industries, port facilities, comnwrcial adverse envirom-nental impacts. This part of establishments and other developments; CAMA provides clear statutory authority for a (c) Recreation and tourist facilities and state-administered regulatory program to manage parklands; cumulative impacts. (d) Transportation end circulation pat terns for the coastal area including major The second cumulative impacts manage- thoroughfares, transportation routes, navigation channels and harbors, and ment tool provided by CAMA is its land use other public utilities and facilities; planning requirement (G.S. 113A-109 et seq.). (9) Preservation and enhancement of the Development and adoption of a land use plan is historic, cultural, and scientific aspects of required for each county in the coastal area If a the coastal area, county fails to develop its own plan, the State (f) Protection ofpresent common4aw and must prepare a plan for it. All local land use statutory public rights in the lands and plans must be consistent with guidelines estab- waters of the coastal area: lished by the Coastal Resources Commission (g) Any other purposes deemed neces- consisting of "statements of objectives, policies, sary or appropriate to effectuate the and standards to be followed in public and private policy of this Article. use of land and water areas within the coastal area" (G.S. 113A-107(a)). The land use planning It would be difficult to develop a more broad- provision of CAMA, together with the authority to based and complete statement of environmental establish state guidelines, establishes statutory management goals. Surely these goals incorpo- authority for a coordinated state-local system of rate a broad enough basis for cumulative impacts land use planning capable of including a strong management. While this section of CAMA does cumulative impacts management program. not include specific reference to cumulative impacts, the mandate for their management The third tool provided by CAMA for the seems clear. Three more specific provisions of implementation of cumulative impacts manage- CAMA establish the tools necessary for cumula- ment addresses the need for inter-agency and tive impacts management. inter-governmental coordination. This is the requirement for consistency between local and The first of these is the CAMA regulatory state governments and among all state agencies. program. Part 3 of CAMA (G.S. 113A-113 et seq.) Section 113A-111 requires that all CAMA permits establishes Areas of Environmental Concern be consistent with the applicable local land use (AECs) as critical resource management areas in plan, which, in turn, must be consistent with the which the full regulatory authority of the State State Guidelines. While seemingly circular, this will be applied. The list of categories of areas important provision establishes the basis for a that may be designated as AECs (G.S. 113A - coordinated management system between state Cumulative Impacts Management- Page 11 and local governments. Neither level of govern- sary structure and the willingness to pursue this ment can legally violate the policies established difficult task. by the other. Section 113A-125 provides the basis for Organization and Capability coordination among state agencies. It requires that all regulatory permits issued by any state Cumulative impacts management re- agency for activities within the coastal area be quires a lead agency that will assume the respon- administered in coordination and consultation sibility of on-going assessment and management with the Coastal Resources Comn-dssion. Execu- planning and that will perform the inter-agency tive Order 15, issued by Governor Hunt in 1977, and inter-governmental coordination necessary for undergirds this requirement for inter-agency goal implementation. The legal mandates and consistency by stating- programs of the NC CMP put it in a unique position to perform this task. Some changes in All State agencies shall take emphasis will be necessary, however, to meaning- account of and be consistent to the marl- fully implement a cumulative impacts manage- mum extent possible with the coastal ment program in the North Carolina coastal area. policies, guidelines and standards con- All of the provisions of CAMA and the CZMA will tained in the State guidelines, with the need to be brought to bear in a coordinated local land use plans developed under the fashion to achieve successful implementation. mandate of the Coastal Area Management Act; and with the North Carolina Coastal CAMA Regulatory Program Plan .. in all regulatory programs, use and disposition of state-owned lands, finan- The CAMA regulatory program is a cial assistance for public facilities, and strong tool that already possesses the authority to encouragement and location of major deny permits based on adverse cumulative im- public and private growth-inducing facifi- pacts. It can be used as a mechanism for goal fles. implementation in those areas in which activities this is exactly the kind of inter-agency coordina- in AECs play a significant role in causing cumu- tion required for implementation of a holistic lative impacts. Potential roles for the CAMA cumulative impacts management program.' regulatory program in managing cumulative impacts are discussed in more detail later in this Statutory authority for inter-agency report. Cumulative impacts, however, are land- coordination is extended to federal agencies as scape-level phenomena that must be managed on well by the consistency provisions of the Federal a regional basis. A regulatory program that CZMA. Section 307 of the CZMA requires that applies to less than 5 percent of the land area all federal activities, federally permitted activi- cannot be sufficient in itself to manage cumula- ties, federally funded activities, and Outer Conti- tive impacts. nental Shelf activities that affect any land or Although the CAMA regulatory program water use or natural resource of the coastal area applies to only a very small percentage of the must be consistent with the state coastal manage- coastal area, it has historically been the subject of ment program. Between CAMA and the CZMA, a very high proportion of Coastal Resources the inter-agency and inter-governmental coordi- Commission and Division of Coastal Management nation required for cumulative impacts manage- time and attention. Of the 215 pages of rules in ment is statutorily mandated and does not have Chapter 7 of the North Carolina Administrative to depend entirely on voluntary cooperation. Code (the Chapter dealing with coastal manage- The statutory authority of the NC CMP ment), 150 pages deal specifically with the regula- to develop and implement a complete cumulative tory program. The demands and responsibilities impacts management program appears to be of the regulatory program, both in specificity of entirely adequate. While some aspects of imple- rules required and staff time to conscientiously mentation of these statutory provisions may need review permits, have necessarily resulted in a to be changed from the way they have been heavy emphasis on this aspect of the NC CMP. interpreted in the past, the necessary legal au- Both the CRC and DCM will need to take a thorities are in place. The remaining question is broader approach to management of the entire whether the NC CMP and DCM have the neces- coastal area in order to deal with cumulative impacts. Cumulative Impacts Management- Page 12 Although CAMA states that the State Federal agencies must also act in full Guidelines for the coastal area "shall give particu- cooperation and consistency with cumulative lar attention to the nature of development which impact management goals and policies. The shall be appropriate within the various types of federal consistency requirements of the CZMA are areas of environmental concern," the Guidelines meant to accomplish this, and the federal consis- are defined in a much broader sense. as "objec- tency program of the NC CMP is well-developed tives, policies, and standards to be followed in and fully operational. It will be necessary, how- public and private use of land and water areas ever, to develop enforceable policies for cumula- within the coastal area" (G.S. 113A-107(a)). The tive impacts management and to have them CRC clearly has the authority to develop policies incorporated into the federally-approved NC CMP that apply to lands and waters throughout the in order for federal consistency to apply. coastal area, although that authority has been used to only a very limited extent. Cumulative The NC CMP has the necessary legal impacts management will require policies applica- authorities to develop a comprehensive cumula- ble to all of the coastal area that can be imple- tive impacts management program and, with mented through local land use planning and state some changes to increase their effectiveness, the and federal consistency. necessary tools for goal implementation. The next section describes what a cumulative impacts Land Use Planning management program in the NC CMP might consist of and the actions DCM is taldng to While cumulative impacts assessment develop the necessary capabilities. and management planning are best addressed at the regional scale, control of impacts is often best achieved at the local scale (Hunsaker, 1993). The state-local partnership basis of the NC CMP and the land use planning program provide a strong basis for managing cumulative impacts at the local level. Current land use planning guidelines (15A NCAC 7B) call for some degree of cumula- tive impacts assessment by local governments in preparing plan updates. There is no guidance on how this is to be done, however, and, to date, no adequate cumulative impacts analysis has been included in any CAMA land use plan. There will need to be some changes in the guidelines and in the way land use plans are reviewed and certified by the CRC in order to make the land use plan- ning program an effective part of a cumulative impacts management program. Consistency Provisions As quoted in the previous section, CAMA and Executive Order 15 require that permits granted and actions carried out by all state agencies be consistent with the policies of the Coastal Management Program, including those stated in local land use plans. Full implementa- tion of this requirement is absolutely essential for successful cumulative impacts management. All involved agencies, as well as the local govern- ment, must act in concert to implement cumula- tive impacts management goals. If they do not, even the most well-developed efforts to control cumulative impacts will be thwarted (Contant and Wiggins, 1991). Cumulative Impacts Management- Page 13 The following model is proposed as the basis for development of cumulative impacts I anagement in the North Carolina coastal area. n ..... . ... .. .. .... It is a modification of the Gosselink and Lee 989) approach described in Section 1, incor- ...................... ...... . . ...... ....... porating risk assessment as the first step and the mandates and management tools of the NC CMP into the implementation phases. Relative Risk Assessment Comparing conditions in relative- ly small landscape units to iden- tify specific areas at highest risk of adverse cumulative impacts. Classification of Risks Identifying specific classes of high risk areas based on current conditions and causative factors present in each landscape unit and categorizing the landscape units based on each area's partic- ular class of risk. Goal Setting Establishing speciftc manage- ment goals for each high risk class based on the nature of the risks and conditions present. Identification of Appropriate Implementation Mechanisms Choosing from among the man- agement tools available in the NC CMP the most applicable alternative or combination of alternatives for each high risk class. Implementation Development of specific policies, rules, etc., applicable to each class of high risk area that will serve as implementation mecha- nisms for cumulative impacts management. The remainder of this Section discusses each step of the cumulative impacts management model in more detail and describes specific F CC7 actions to be taken to apply the model to the North Carolina coastal area. Cumulative Impacts Management- Page 14 Relative Risk Assessment Although cumulative impacts on coastal resources include the effects of activities outside Comparing conditions in relatively of these twenty counties, direct management by small landscape units to identify spe. the NC CMP is limited to this region. A cumula- cific areas at high Fish ofadverse cu- tive impacts management program must, similar- mulative impact& ly, be limited to the statutorily defined coastal area if it is to follow the legal mandate of CAMA The concept of relative risk assessment and utilize the management tools discussed in the has been discussed in Section 1. The method has previous section. Any cumulative impacts man- been fairly well developed and applied in pilot agement goals that include areas outside of the studies to several areas by the EPA (Leibowitz, twenty coastal counties would have to be imple- Abbruzzese, et al., 1992), although the EPA pilot mented through cooperative agreements with studies were more narrowly focused on specific other agencies. types of cumulative impacts or on specific man- agement purposes than the North Carolina The coastal area defined by CAMA is application. The relative risk assessment ap- certainly large enough and homogeneous enough proach being applied to the North Carolina in its links to the ocean and sounds to form a coastal area is an adaptation of the synoptic logical region for cumulative impacts assessment. approach developed by the EPA Environmental The total land area of the twenty coastal counties Research Laboratory, although the general ap- is 5,984,853 acres, or about 19 percent of the total proach was proposed by DCM prior to its knowl- land area of the state. Total water area of the edge of the EPA methodology (DCM, 1992b). twenty counties is 2,236,912 acres, or about 87.5 percent of the total open water area of the state. In the North Carolina model ' the relative The relative risk assessment approach requires risk assessment consists of four steps: (1) dividing that this large region be divided into smaller the assessment region into discrete landscape units for risk assessment. units that can be compared with one another; (2) gathering data for each landscape unit that will Historically, subdivisions of the coastal serve as indicators of environmental quality and area have been based on political jurisdictions: of the risk of adverse cumulative impacts; (3) the twenty counties and their constituent munici- developing a series of indices based on the indica- palities. These are the geographic units of local tor data to quantify relative risk; and (4) applying government operation and land use planning as the indices to identify landscape units at high established by CAMA. Using these same subdivi- risk compared with other units. sions as the landscape units for cumulative impacts risk assessment would have the advan- Landscape Units tages of familiarity, historical precedent, data availability, and congruence of analytical units CAMA defines the coastal area of North with government management units. There Carolina as consisting of the twenty counties would, however, be significant disadvantages as adjacent to, adjoining, intersected by or bounded well. Using county boundaries would divide the by the Atlantic Ocean or any coastal sound" (G.S. area into only twenty units, a scale too coarse for 113A-103(2)). Together with a specific definition adequate analysis. Several of the coastal counties of coastal sound, this defines an area with clear are quite large, and conditions vary widely within boundaries that includes all coastal shorelands them. Most of the municipalities in the coastal and those areas directly linked to coastal water area, on the other hand, are small, and much of quality. Although the definition is based on the land area is not included within any munici- political boundaries, it generally coincides with pal boundary. Perhaps the most significant accepted geological and biological boundaries. disadvantage is that political boundaries do not The coastal area includes that region of the state coincide with the natural processes and functions designated as the tidewater region on physio- that are affected by cumulative impacts. graphic and geologic maps and that was inundat- ed by the last Pleistocene sea level rise. The Watersheds are ecological landscape units counties included are those where elevations are that correspond to the operation of water-based generally less than 30 to 40 feet above sea level, natural processes. Since water quality and where drainage is poor, and where there are fisheries are major concerns of the NC CMP and discernible effects of salt water (NOAA, 1978). both are dependent on water-based processes, watershed units are congruent with existing Cumulative Impacts Management- Page 15 n@anagement objectives. DEM's basinwide plan- Analysis (CGIA) for digitization of hydrologic unit ning is based on watersheds, and analyses have (HU) boundaries for the coastal area. been performed in the APES program for several coastal sub-basins (Dodd, McMahon, & Stichter, Digitization was completed in early 1993, 1992; Dodd, Cunningham, et aL, 1992). Using resulting in division of the twenty coastal coun- watersheds as landscape units would provide ties into 348 hydrologic units which will be the congruence with existing state management basic landscape units for cumulative impacts programs and would take advantage of data that assessment and management. As the boundaries have already been collected. Water quality is an of these HUs were being delineated, representa- integrating indicator of the cumulative impacts of tives of DEM, SCS, and CGIA met regularly to all activities in a watershed. A watershed-based review the boundaries and ensure that they were approach to data gathering and analysis provides consistent with DEM sub-basin boundaries and an ecologically sound framework for many aspects USGS cataloging unit boundaries. The fourteen- of coastal management. digit HUs are subsets of eleven-digit HUs, which are subsets of USGS cataloging units. Data Watershed units have been used in pertinent to cumulative impacts will be gathered several cumulative impacts assessments (Bedford, and analyzed for each fourteen-digit HU, but can 1990; Johnston, et al., 1988; Gosselink, et al., be aggregated into larger watershed units as 1990; Leibowitz, Abbruzzese, et al., 1992). These needed for analytical or management purposes. have varied in size from river basins of several hundred square miles to small creek watersheds Landscape Indicators and Indices of a few thousand acres. If watersheds are to be the basic landscape units for cumulative impacts Landscape indicators are estimable assessment in the coastal area, several possible values that reflect some aspect of landscape breakdowns exist. There are seventeen major condition or status. In cumulative impacts risk river basins in North Carolina, seven of which assessment, indicators are needed for both causes include portions of the coastal area (DEM, 1991). and effects of cumulative impacts, as well as for River basins are divided by the U.S.Geological the relative sensitivity of landscape units to Survey (USGS) into cataloging units, identified by disturbance. Causes include all forms of human- an eight-digit code. There are sixteen cataloging induced disturbance to natural processes, and units included in whole or in part in the twenty effects include all forms of response of natural coastal counties. River basins were divided more processes to the imposed disturbances. Land- finely into sub-basins by DEM in the 1970s for scape indicators are not necessarily measure- tracking point source discharge information. For ments of the actual causes and effects themselves, the APES portion of the coastal area, these sub- but of some parameter that indicates the intensi- basins have been divided into still smaller sub- ty of causes and effects. basins (Dodd, McMahon, and Stichter, 1992). The Soil Conservation Service (SCS) also divided For example, the water quality of some USGS cataloging units into smaller watersheds coastal streams is degraded by agricultural f6r its watershed management programs, desig- runoff. Actual causes of the degradation are nating each of these watersheds by an eleven specific quantities of nutrients, toidns, and sedi- digit code. ment that enter the water in runoff. Useful indicators of these causes may include the rela- All of these existing watershed break- tive area of agricultural land in the watershed, downs were considered staff as possible landscape the proportions of this land under various agricul- units for cumulative impacts analysis, and even tural management practices, annual fertilizer the smallest units, the SCS eleven-digit water- purchases, numbers of different types of livestock, sheds, were determined to be too large to be etc. The actual direct effects of the causes are adequate. During 1992, coincident with DCM`s specific concentrations of the various substances initial planning for cumulative impacts analysis, in the water. Useful indicators may include such SCS began a statewide project to map still small- things as the relative length of the stream classi- er watersheds, or hydrologic units of 5,000 to fled as non-supporting of designated uses, num- 50,000 acres designated by a fourteen-digit code bers of algal blooms or fish kills, area or time of (SCS, 1992). Since this scale seemed appropriate shellfish closures, etc. for cumulative impacts risk assessment, DCM participated in this project and provided funds to The causes of cumulative impacts include the NC Center for Geographic Information and all human disturbances in the landscape unit. In an area as large as the North Carolina coastal Cumulative Impacts Management- Page 16 area, many different human activities occur that Resources Information System (PDRIS), was have the potential for disturbing natural process- developed by DCM in cooperation with Research es, It would be impossible to specify and develop Triangle Institute- The PDRIS was developed indicators for every possible activity. It is neces- primarily for the purpose of tracking, analyzing sary, instead, to use broad indicators of the and reporting trends in population growth, devel- intensity of major land uses and human-induced opment, and environmental quality in the coastal pressures. Such indicators as population size and area. The database is interfaced with a GIS so growth rate, percentage of total area in various that information can be viewed and analyzed land uses, intensity of management of land areas, spatially. The database is designed to allow numbers of specific impact-inducing activities periodic updating so that it can be kept current present, etc., can be used to compare the intensity and used for trends analysis over time. of human-induced pressures among landscape units. This database will contain detailed information about conditions and trends in each Likewise, the effects of cumulative im- HU. Since the PDRIS is meant to serve several pacts include all changes in environmental condi- purposes, not necessarily all of the parameters tions, species populations, and ecosystem dynam- will be used as indicators for cumulative impacts ics that have occurred as a result of human risk assessment. A subset will be chosen for their actions. It is not possible to develop an indicator value in adequately reflecting conditions and for every effect. Broad indicators of environmen- trends in each HU in regard to land use, natural tal quality, such as water and air quality mea-' resources, environmental quality, and population surements, proportion of the landscape in a growth and development pressure. disturbed vs. natural state, and condition of wildlife populations, must be used to reflect the In raw form, the indicators would be many specific effects that may exist. difficult to compare in a straight-forward fashion to identify HUs at highest risk of significant The extent to which a landscape unit is cumulative impacts of development. A series of at risk of degradation by human activities de- indices will be developed to summarize the signif- pends upon the sensitivity, or buffering capacity, icance of the indicators and to facilitate relative of the landscape to disturbance. Sensitivity risk assessment. These risk indices will be used depends upon such factors as the types of ecosys- as the basis for a quantitative assessment of each tems present and their distributions, soil types, HU to determine the relative risks and nature of slope, water source, primary and secondary the risks present. High risk HUs identified by productivity, etc. Once again, it is impractical to this method will then be classified into different develop indicators for every factor contributing to categories based on the nature of the risk that landscape sensitivity. The presence and relative resulted in their high risk status. concentrations of resources known to be sensitive to disturbance, such as endangered species habi- Classiftation of Risks tat and submerged aquatic vegetation, or of resources recognized as being of particular impor- tance, such as nursery areas, important wetlands, Identifying specific categories ofhigh high quality waters, etc., can be used as indica- risk areas based on conditions and causative factors present in each tors of relative sensitivity. The presence of landscape unit and classifying the characteristics known to buffer the effects of landscape units based on each area's human disturbance, such as vegetated streamside particular type of risk. buffers, can also indicate relative landscape sensitivity. Many combinations of natural environ- mental conditions and human activities may Based on these considerations, data result in environmental degradation. Thus, availability, and potential usefulness, a list of different areas may be at high risk of experienc- indicators has been developed for the North ing significant adverse cumulative impacts for Carolina coastal area. Indicators are summarized different reasons. Choice of an appropriate in Table I, and a complete list of indicators is cumulative impacts management strategy will included in Appendix A. These parameters are depend upon the specific conditions in a given included in a database containing indicator values for each Hydrologic Unit and each coastal county. This database, the Population/Development/ Cumulative Impacts Management- Page 17 TABLE 1. SUMMARY OF HYDROLOGIC UNIT INDICATORS Class of Information-F- Type of Indlcators Update Constant Values HU identification, size, land & water areas, stream and waterbody None names, historical census data Surface Water Quality Water classifications of streams & waterbodies, use support class- Periodic es, number & extent of degradation incidents Groundwater Quality & Use Groundwater classification, capacity use designations, oontarnina- Periodic ton incidents Shellfish Waters Shellfish water areas, closures Annual Land Use & Resources Land cover and land use, extent of sensitive resources such as Periodic anadromous fish areas, nursery areas, endangered species, etc., land and water areas in public ownership and private preservation Population & Housing Census-derived population and housing information Periodic Municipalities Number & names of municipalities in seven size classes Periodic Development Highway and railroad mileage, building permits Annual Economic Activity Number, employment, and revenues of businesses in various Annual classes Agricultural Practices Extent & importance of various crops and livestock, BMPs Annual Permitsissued CAMA, NPDES, non-discharge, septic tank, air emission, 404/10, Annual landfill, sedimentation control plans HU, including the environmental characteristics Based on consideration of these general principles of the HU, the degree and type of human distur- and the specific conditions of coastal North Caro- bance present, and the effects the particular lina, several potential classes of Cumulative disturbances may have on the environment. The Impact High Risk Areas can be identified. Risk Assessment step of the Cumulative Impacts Management Model consists of characterizing High Risk Area Categories these conditions. The Risk Classification step consists of grouping high risk areas into catego- (1) HUs with impaired water quality ries based on those conditions so that the most appropriate management strategy can be deter- (2) HUs with high potential for water quality mined. impairment Certain general principles about cumula- (3) HUs with present or potential air quality tive impacts risk give a useful starting point for impairment risk classification. An area may be at high risk of adverse cumulative impacts due to either the (4) HUs with historic high growth in popula- nature of its natural environment or the nature tion /development and extent of human-induced disturbances. An area may already be experiencing environmental (5) HUs with anticipated high population- degradation or it may have a high potential for /development growth future degradation if certain human activities occur. High rates of population growth and (6) HUs with concentrations of sensitive, development in an area are likely to result in high-value resources significant cumulative impacts even if current measures of degradation do not identify them. (7) HUs with concentrations of produc- tive laesthetic resources Cumulative Impacts Management- Page 18 These potential categories of Cumulative The economic development of the coastal Impact I-Iigh Risk Areas are discussed in more area... detail in Section 4 of this report. This list is preliminary and based on professional judgement The first goal setting step consists of before the actual risk assessment is performed. applying these basic principles to each category of Some of these categories may not actually exist in high risk area to develop more specific goals the NC coastal area, and other as yet unidentified based on the nature of the risks present. For categories may. But this a priori list is indicative example, the following goals for the potential high of the type of classification that will be per- risk area categories listed above follow directly formed. from the general goals of CAMA. Goal Seffing HUs With Present or Potential Water Quality Impairment Establishing specific management To improve water quality so as to goa4 consistent with the goals of preserve the ecological conditions, C"A and the NC CMP, for each natural productivity, and biological high risk class based on the nature of and economic value of the estuarine the risks and conditions present. system. The primary goals of cumulative impacts To maintain traditional water uses. management in the North Carolina coastal area To insure that land development and must coincide with the overall goals of the NC water use occurs in a manner consis- Coastal Management Program. The following tent with the ecological capability of excerpts from CAMA!s statement of goals (G.S. the aquatic system to sustain its po- 113A-102(b)) are the guiding principles upon tential uses. which more specific management goals are to be HUs With Present or Potential Air based. To provide a management system capa- Quality Impairment ble of preserving and managing the To improve air quality so an to safe- natural ecological conditions of the guard and perpetuate the biological, economic and aesthetic values of the estuarine systank the barrier dune sys- area. tem, andbeaches, so as to safeguard and perpetuate their natural productivity and To protect and preserve high air their biological, economic and aesthetic quality. values;.. To guide economic development so To insure that the development or preser- as to minimize significant atmosphe. vation of the land and water resources of ric emissions. the coastal area proceeds in a manner HUs With Historic or Anticipated High consistent with the capability of the land PopulationlDevelopment Growth and water for development use, or pres- ervation based on ecological consider- To emphasize guiding development ations.. so as to insure that it occurs in a manner consistent with land and wa- To insure the orderly and balanced use ter capability for development, use and preservation of our coastal re- or preservation. sources... TO guide development toward those Protactiot; preservation, and conserve- areas well suited for intensive use and away from areas of significant don of natural resources.. natural value. Management of transitional or intensely To insure the orderly and balanced developed areas and areas especially use of resources. suited to intensive use or developmen4 To protect and preserve natural re- so well as areas of significant natural sources in the face of continued value.. growth and development. Cumulative Impacts Management- Page 19 To recognize and plan for needed in- tion Control Program and require application of additional NPS control creases in local services and infra- structure required to provide for a measures. growing population. Assist the local government in ac- HUs With Concentrations of Sensitive, quiring funds to expand the extent of sewer lines in the EW and to upgrade High-Value Resources sewage treatment facilities. To protect and preserve the biologi- Decrease allowable discharges from cal and economic values of sensitive upstream dischargem natural systems. Discourage the use of septic tanks by To guide development away from limiting their use to highly suitable areas of significant natural value. soils and requiring a setback from all open water. HUs With Concentrations of Productive or Aesthetic Resources Increase protection and restoration of wetlands particularly effective in To encourage the management of improving water quality. lands for their most biologically and These are just examples of the types of economically productive uses. specific objectives that may be applicable to a To protect scenic vistas and the aeo- given high risk area. The appropriate objectives thetic quality of the area. for a specific HU would depend upon the sources To guide land development toward of water quality degradation and the particular areas well suited for development mix of land uses, discharges, and development and away from areas better suited patterns present in the HU. This list of examples for agriculture, forestry, or other illustrates the fact that several different imple- natural resouree-related use. mentation mechanisms may be useful or neces- The final step of the goal-setting process sary in order to achieve the objectives. Analysis of alternative implementation mechanisms is the is translating these general goals into specific next step in the Cumulative Impacts Manage- management-oriented objectives. Since these ment Model. specific objectives normally include or imply an implementation mechanism, development of specific objectives is also the first stage of imple- Identification of Appropdate mentation of cumulative impacts management. Implementation Mechanisms Each general goal is likely to involve several objectives that will be specific to the conditions in Choosing from among the manage. the high risk area. For example, in a high risk ment tools available in the NC Coast. a .rea with impaired water quality, the first gener- al Management Program the most al goal is to improve water quality. Specific applicable alternative or combina- objectives under this goal might include the tion ofalternatives for each high risk following. class. Protect estuarine waters from silt The risk classification and goal-setting and nutrient runoff by requiring a steps characterize the nature of the situation in vegetated buffer in all CAMA permits each high risk area and set forth specific goals for in the Estuarine Shoreline AEC. cumulative impacts management. These point Require vegetated buffers along all toward the identification of appropriate imple- tributary streams in local land use mentation mechanisms, since goals are stated in plans and zoning'and subdivision terms of achievable management strategies. The ordinances. most appropriate set of implementation mecha- nisms will vary for different classes of high risk Target the EnJ for agricultural BMF areas and, to some extent, among individual HUs installation under the Agricultural within a risk class. Cost Share program. Designate the EITJ as a Critical Area under the Coastal Nonpoint P*Uu- Cumulative Impacts Management- Page 20 The CAMA Regulatory Program The necessary coordination for water quality management ran be achieved through The CAMA regulatory program clearly including DENfs Basinwide Planning Program has the statutory authority to deny permits for and the Coastal Nonpoint Pollution Control Pro- projects that would contribute to adverse cumula- gram in the cumulative impacts management tive impacts. The purpose of AEC designation is strategy. State consistency can also be used in to apply state-level control over development in implementation of cumulative impacts manage- areas identified as critical resource management ment in any situation in which implementation areas of greater than local concern (NOAA 1978). through the regulatory or management programs In so far as adverse cumulative impacts can be of other state agencies is necessary to achieve considered to be of greater than local concern, the specific objectives. CAMA regulatory program is directly applicable to their management. There are at least three Federal Consistency approaches toward using the CAMA regulatory program as an implementation mechanism for Implementation of cumulative impacts cumulative impacts management: (1) development management through programs of federal agen- of specific standards for cumulative impacts cies is possible through the federal consistency assessment in CAMA permit considerations; (2) requirements of the CZMA. DCM plays an active development of AEC use standards specifically role in influencing federal actions and pern-dt and applicable to high risk areas; and (3) designation funding decisions through its federal consistency of additional AECs in high risk areas. These program. In high risk HUs in which the federal mechanisms would apply to high risk HUs in government owns substantial amounts of property which the risk is associated with actions occur- or in which federal activities or permit decisions ring in areas within present or statutorily- are critical in implementing cumulative impacts authorized AECs. management, federal consistency can be an effective implementation mechanism. Land Use Planning Special Area Management Planning Managing the cumulative impacts of development is largely a matter of managing the Special Area Management Planning development itself. Outside of AECs, land use (SAMP) is a specialized process which may be planning and control will be a primary component used to address complex multi-jurisdictional of cumulative impacts management. The CAMA environmental problems through cooperative land use planning program provides several regional management. In a sense, DCM's entire potential implementation mechanisms whereby cumulative impacts management effort, and even local government determination of development the entire Coastal Management Program, are types, patterns, and intensities can be used to forms of SAMP. Normally, however, the term is minimize cumulative impacts. These mechanisms applied to localized, more narrowly-focused will be identified and applied through improve- planning and management programs to address ments to the land use planning process, particu- highly complex situations that are beyond the larly as it applies to high risk areas. scope of other managemen 't mechanisms. As such, it may be an implementation mechanism for Interagency Coordination cumulative impacts management in high risk areas with problems so complex and involving so Many of the specific objectives for cumu- many multi -jurisdictional issues that a coordinat- lative impacts management will require imple- ed approach through other implementation mentation through programs of other state agen- mechanisms is impossible. Whether there are cies. The above illustrative list of possible objec- any such high risk areas in the NC coastal area tives for an HU with impaired water quality is yet to be detern--dned. would involve the cooperation of at least four distinct agencies for implementation. Inter- agency cooperation and coordination is an essen- tial component of cumulative impacts manage- ment in all high risk areas, but particularly in those involving water and air quality concerns. Cumulative Impacts Management- Page 21 Implementation policies. If Special Area Management Planning is used as an implementation mechanism, the Development of specific policies, special area under jurisdiction of the plan would ndes@ etc., applicable to each class of have its own unique set of rules and policies. high risk area that will serve as i7m plementation mechanisms for cumu- The concept of applying different policies lative impacts management. to areas that differ in their characteristics or management needs is not foreign to the NC CMP, Implementation means taking action, and even though its use has been limited. Different government action requires enforceable policies rules apply to AECs than to non-AECs, and and rules. Application of the implementation somewhat different rules apply to the estuarine mechanisms identified in the previous step to shoreline AEC around Outstanding Resource management of specific cumulative impacts Waters than to the same AEC bordering other situations will require some changes in existing estuarine waters. The underlying principle is the rules and policies of the NC CMP. It would be same: that some areas need to be managed premature to attempt to discuss the specific rule differently from others because of their intrinsic changes that might be needed, since this will qualities, the hazards associated with their require detailed analysis of the current rules in uncontrolled use, the nature and intensity of light of the management needs that become development occurring in them, or because they apparent as a result of risk analysis and goal have been recognized as of greater than local setting. It is possible, however, to identify some concern. The possibility of applying different general areas of change that will be necessary to rules to different areas has been recently dis- apply the Cumulative Impacts Management cussed by CRC conunittees in relation to marina Model successfully. siting and land use planning requirements. Use The Model is based on an approach of of the approach in cumulative impacts manage- ment is a similar context. identifying specific geographic areas at high risk of adverse cumulative impacts and applying Application of specific rules to high risk specific management strategies to those high risk areas will necessitate some means of formal areas. This approach necessarily entails applying designation of these areas by the CRC. Identifi- different strategies, and thus different rules, to cation of high risk areas through the risk assess- high risk areas than are applied to other areas. ment process will not, in itself, provide the neces- Historically, the NC CMP has applied one set of sary authority to apply different rules to these rules uniformly throughout the coastal area. areas. Some form of ratification by a policy- Although different rules apply to AECs than to making body is necessary. This designation could non-AEC areas, use standards within a given be performed on an area-by-area basis, analogous AEC category are the same where ever the AEC to the designation of natural and cultural re- occurs. As the above examples indicate, applica- source area AECs, or it could be performed on a tion of the Cumulative Impacts Management regional basis analogous to the way in which Model would involve different use standards for other AEC categories were established. AECs in high risk areas than for those in other areas. It must be stressed, however, that high risk areas are not envisioned to be a type of AEC. Similar differences will likely be neces- No permits would be required for activities in sary for other implementation mechanisms, as high risk areas other than those already required well. Land use planning, for example, should by existing regulatory programs; the standards logically be more comprehensive in areas under- for those permits would simply be different. going intensive development than in rural areas Activities not currently requiring a permit would where little growth and development are occur- not require a permit in a high risk area; they may ring. An activity requiring another state or simply be subject to more stringent local land use federal permit (and thus subject to state or considerations. Designation of an HU as a high federal consistency requirements) that may be risk area is meant to identify it as an area in perfectly acceptable in some areas may not be need of additional management attention by desirable in a high risk area. Implementation of whatever implementation mechanism is most these different management strategies will neces- appropriate for its particular situation, not as an sitate the application of different rules and area needing a new regulatory program. Cumulative Impacts Management- Page 22 Since high risk areas will not, in them- selves, be AECs, cumulative impacts management Will require renewed attention to coastal area wide policies applicable to areas outside of AECs. Some cumulative impacts problems may be amenable to management entirely through AEC use standards, but many are likely to require other implementation mechanisms. Management through land use planning and state and federal consistency requires policies that are applicable outside of AECs. These may be parts of the land use planning guidelines governing the ways local governments perform the planning process, policies applicable to permits granted or actions taken by other state or federal agencies, or poli- cies specifically applicable to an area for which a special area management plan has been prepared. Policies will need to be incorporated into 15A NCAC 7B or 7M, must be specific enough to be enforceable, and must receive OCRM approval as part of the NC CMP. Without policies to allow implementation of cumulative impacts manage- ment outside of AECs, the management effort will be severely limited. Implementation through local land use planning and control may also require recognition of the fact that some land use decisions are of greater than local concern. Since cumulative impacts management is regional in scope, such decisions cannot be made on the basis of purely parochial considerations. Certain policies for high risk areas may need to be required in local land use plans, whether the local government recogniz- es the need for them or not. Local implementa- tion of those policies through zoning, subdivision ordinances, and other land use controls will be needed to supplement state-level implementation through permit decisions. To fully achieve local implementation, CAMA may need to be amended to require consistency of local ordinances and decisions with land use plans. Cumulative Impacts Management- Page 23 The Risk Classification step of the Cumu- O@m P lative Impacts Management Model consists of identifying different categories of high risk areas K A and classifying each high risk unit into one of the .......... categories. Since assignment to a risk category is ......... ... ....... .... ........ .. ......... . ......... . .. ....... ........ based on conditions, causative factors, and mea surable impacts present in the landscape unit, the category classification forms the basis for choice of appropriate management strategies. In the discussion of risk classification in Section 3, seven potential categories of high risk area were identified. Although this list of categories is preliminary and may change after the risk assess- ment is completed, a more detailed discussion of these categories is useful in explaining and illustrating the Management Model. This section examines each of the seven a priori high risk categories in terms of conditions that may exist in an area included in the category, the types of risks that may be present, potential indicators of those risks, and potential management strategies. Areas wth Impaired Water Quality Areas with evident environmental degra- dation are already experiencing recognizable adverse cumulative impacts. Water quality is the best available indicator of the cumulative impacts of all activities in a watershed. A Hydrologic Unit with degraded water quality, then, is clearly L) a high risk area. It is likely that enough HUs with existing water quality degradation will exist in the coastal area that such a risk category will be needed. If there were water quality monitoring stations on each stream in each HU, it would be easy to identify HUs with impaired water quality. Indicators could be developed by establishing thresholds for various water quality measure- ments beyond which the water would be consid- ered to be imparied. Vvrithout specific measure- ments for each stream, however, other parame- ters need to be used as indicators of water quality degradation. Several potential indicators exist. Surface waters in the state are classified by the EMC according to their best uses based on existing and attainable uses and water quality (15A NCAC 2B .0100-.0200). Each classification requires that certain water quality standards be met in order to support the assigned uses. If water quality falls below those standards, the (0 stream is classified as partially-supporting or Cumulative Impacts Management- Page 24 non-supporting of its designated uses or as If the HU contains estuarine waters support-threatened. DEM maintains records on subject to impairment from stormwater runoff, the degree of use support of most streams in the use standards for the Estuarine Shoreline AEC state. These use support designations can be could be used to provide protection. Require- used as indicators of water quality in'an HU. If ments for an undisturbed vegetated buffer along the percent of non-supporting or partially- the estuarine shoreline and/or engineered storm- supporting waters in an HU exceeds a certain water control structures could be included as level, then the HU can be classified as having CAMA permit conditions for all development in impaired water quality. the AEC within the high risk HU. The amount of impervious surface could be limited to less than Other indicators, while less direct, may the 30 percent general limitation, or the total also be useful in identifying -areas with degraded percentage of built-upon area could be limited as water quality. Classification of shellfish growing in the ORW Estuarine Shoreline rules. The waters by the Division of Environmental Heal th width of the Estuarine Shoreline AEC could be is based on point sources of contamination, fecal, increased in water-quality high risk areas to pathogenic or toxic contamination, and fecal increase the effectiveness of these protective coliform counts (10 NCAC 10B .1400). If any of measures. these conditions reaches a level in the water at which consumption of shellfish taken from the Vegetated buffers to filter runoff water .water may be deleterious to human health, the may also be needed along tributary streams and water is classified as restricted or prohibited non-estuarine waters. This could be implemented (closed) for shellfish harvest. The percentage of by means of additional AEC designations. CAMA shellfishing waters in an HU that are closed to authorizes designation of AECs along the shore- shellfishing can be used as an indicator of im- line of public trust waters and in floodways and paired water quality. Similarly, the number of floodplains (G.S. 113A-113(b)(6)). Such AECs events in an HU indicating possible contamina- could be established in water quality high risk tion, such as algal blooms and fish kills, can be areas for the sole purpose of protecting water used as indicators of short-term water quality quality through vegetated buffers or density impairment. limitations. The causes of water quality impairment Vegetated buffers along waterways could reflected by these indicators include high levels of also be required in local zoning, subdivision, and toxins, pathogenic organisms or nutrients, or low sedimentation and erosion control ordinances. levels of dissolved oxygen in the water. These The CAMA land use planning guidelines could be c@onditions -may result from identifiable point amended to require that buffer areas be included sources of pollution, from storm water rtmoff from in the conservation land use class with appropri- agricultural or developed lands, or from other ate limitations on their use. Except for actions in unidentified sources of contamination. Pollutants which state or federal permits are involved, may enter an HU in flowing water from upstream however, enforcement of use limitations in buffers sources or may originate in the HU itself. Analy- would be by the local government. Unless CAMA sis of permitted point source discharges, non- were amended to require consistency between discharge permits foron-site wastewater disposal, land use plans and local ordinances, implementa- and types and intensities of land use in the HU tion of buffer protection would not be ensured. can be used to develop indicators of the sources of water quality impairment. Nonpoint source pollution could also be addressed through the use of Best Management Appropriate management strategies for Practices (BMPs) in agriculture, forestry, and HUs with impaired water quality will depend land development. Such BMPs currently exist upon the nature, extent, and sources of the and are.currently implemented voluntarily or impairment. Possible management objectives for through - economic incendves or disincentives. an HU with impaired water quality were illus- Targeting Water quality high risk areas for addi- trated in Section 3 (see page 20). Achievement of tional agricultural cost-share funding could be those objectives would necessitate management used to encourage the use of agricultural BMPs in strategies including several implementation areas where agriculture is the predominant mechanisms. source of runoff-borne pollutants. Similar target- ing for strict enforcement of forestry BMPs or Cumulative Impacts Management- Page 25 additional sedimentation control measures under Point source discharges into surface the state Sedimentation Pollution Control Act waters require an NPDES permit. Numbers of (G.S. 113A-50 et seq.) could provide additional existing permits and their discharges can be used means of implementation. Since these programs as indicators of the significance of point source are administered by other state agencies, inter- pollutants in the HU. If they are' determined to agency coordination, either voluntary or through be a significant problem, this information can be state consistency requirements, would be neces- used to limit discharges from existing and future sary to accomplish this targeting. permitted sources. If water entering an HU from upstream is already degraded due to upstream The Coastal Nonpoint Pollution Control discharges, implementation would require limita- Program (CNPCP) requires enforceability of tion of those discharges as well as those occurring general NPS management measures such as within the HU. This type of holistic water quali- BMPs and the application of additional manage- ty planning can be accomplished through DEM's ment measures in identified critical areas (NOAA Basinwide Planning Program, and illustrates and EPA, 1993). Since one of the primary criteria another situation in which interagency coordina- for identification of critical areas is the presence tion is necessary for cumulative impacts man- of impaired or threatened waters, all or parts of agement. water quality high risk areas could be designated as CNPCP critical areas. Management measures Protection and restoration of wetlands specific to the nature of the N?S problem could that perform significant water quality functions then be applied. Such additional management could also be an appropriate management strate- measures might include stricter enforcement of or gy for water quality high risk areas. DCM's more stringent standards for some of the imple- wetland ftmctional assessment procedure could be mentation mechanisms discussed above or they used to identify the specific wetlands with the might include more specific requirements for local highest water quality functions, and these could actions such as low density zoning or cluster be afforded higher levels of protection through development ordinances. land use plan policies and by agreements with the Army Corps of Engineers and/or DEM. Since In rural parts of the coastal area, septic federal consistency requirements apply to 404 tanks and package treatment plants are, the permits, any enforceable state or local policy in pnmary means of sewage disposal. Improperly the NC CMP that specifies high levels of pro- installed or malfunctioning onsite sewage disposal tection for these wetlands could be used to imple- systems can discharge to the ground surface or a ment this strategy. DCM`s Wetland Restoration shallow water table, resulting in eventual entry Plan will identify possible restoration sites with of pollutants into surface waters. The proportion high potential for performing significant water of houses in an HU with septic tanks rather than quality functions. These sites could be targeted central sewage treatment systems can indicate for restoration through a local, state, or federal the potential significance of this pollution source. wetland restoration program. If onsite sewage disposal is a significant source of water quality degradation in a high risk HU, The overall management strategy for a several management strategies might be applied. specific water quality high risk area might consist Stringent soil requirements, setbacks from sur- of various combinations of these, or other, action face waters, and management and maintenance components, carefully coordinated to achieve the requirements could be applied to septic tank desired objective of improving water quality and installations. Large onsite disposal systems preventing further degradation. In areas with require a state nondischarge permit, but individu- severe water quality problems, such a strategy a,I small septic tanks are subject to regulation at might approach being a type of special area the local level following state guidelines. Imple- management plan addressing diverse problems mentation of stricter requirements would necessi- through the coordinated efforts of several agen- tate interagency coordination and cooperation of cies at different levels of goverrunent. In areas local governments. In situations where installa- with less severe water quality degradation a less tion or expansion of a centralized sewage treat- comprehensive approach targeting only the ment system is feasible, the appropriate manage- largest pollutant sources may be adequate. It is ment strategy might consist of assisting the local likely that a minimum set of management ap- government in obtaining funds for such purposes. proaches and policies can be developed for appli-. cation to all high risk areas in this category, with Cumulative Impacts Management- Page 26 more specific management plans needed only for For areas experienc ing rapid population special cases. growth, growth management tools could be used by local governments to influence continued Areas with High Potential for Water growth so as to minimize its potential effects on water quality. More sophisticated land classifica- Quality Impairment tions in the land use plan could be used to identi- fy areas in which growth management would Another category of high risk area might need to be applied to protect water quality. include areas with presently acceptable water Planning expansion of central sewer systems and quality but in which high rates of population limiting intensive development to areas serviced growth or new or substantially expanding land by sewer lines may be an appropriate first step in uses pose an imminent threat of water quality growth management. Again, revisions to the land impairment. Environmental degradation is not use planning guidelines, and possibly an yet evident in such areas, but the risk is high. amendment to CAMA to require local consistency with the land use plan, are likely to be necessary Indicators of this type of risk would to ensure implementation o .f local management include current water quality indicators in combi- strategies. nation with indicators of growth and/or land use For areas in which future water quality changes. If an HU contains Outstanding Re- source Waters or High Quality Waters, the man- is threatened by land use changes not related to agement objective is to prevent any degradation. growth and development, such as expansion of If the area contains stressed waters, such as concentrated livestock farnfing, state-level. action Nutrient Sensitive Waters or support-threatened may be needed. Designation of the area as a waters, any additional stress may result in signif- CNPCP critical area would require use of addi- icant water quality impairment. In either case, tional management measures to control nonpoint such an area would be identified as at high risk pollution. This may be a particularly appropriate if other factors indicate a high potential for in- strategy in areas with high potential risk for creased pollutant loadings. A combination of water quality impairment, since the CNPCP conditions is necessary for the risk of future criteria for critical areas coincide with the condi- water quality impairment to be high. tions that would result in inclusion in this high risk category (NOAA and EPA, 1993). The addi- Several indicators could be used to identi- tional measures that might be applied would fy areas in which growth or land use changes are depend upon the specific land use change that occurring at such rates that future water quality poses the risk. impairment is a high risk. Rapid rates of popula- tion growth, a large number of recently granted Areas with Present or Potential Air NPDES or CAMA permits, large numbers of Quality IMPairMent building permits or sedimentation pollution control plans, increases or dramatic changes in the extent of intensive agricultural practices, etc., While air quality problems are not wide- would indicate the likelihood of increased pollut- spread in the coastal area, there may be limited ant loadings. Increased loading, together with areas at high risk of air quality impairment, the presence of waters highly sensitive to even particularly around urban or industrial areas. If relatively small additional pollutant inputs, urbanization increases in the coastal area or if indicate a high potential risk for water quality industries with significant atmospheric discharges impairment. locate there, air quality protection will become a more pressing concern. By analyzing potential Potential management strategies for this air quality problems in advance, it will be possi- category of high risk area would be similar to ble to pay particular attention to increasing those for an area with already impaired water urbanization and industrialization in potential quality, except that more stress would be put on high risk areas. preventive rather than ameliorative actions. Planning-related strategies would be more appro- Impaired air quality may result from the priate than regulatory strategies. cumulative effects of many relatively minor diffuse sources, such as large numbers of automo- biles or from one or a few large concentrated Cumulative Impacts Management- Page 27 emission sources, such as certain industries. resources and services and in stresses on the Number and density of diffuse sources exist in environment. Existing water supplies, waste proportion to population size and density, which disposal systems, roads, schools, and other infra- can be used as indicators. Concentrated emis- structure can be outstripped more rapidly than sions sources require an air quality permit from local governments can respond. Development DEM (15A NCAC 2H .0600), and their locations that necessarily accompanies high population are know. Complex sources, such as large park- growth results in land conversion, increases in ing facilities and subdivisions, also require per- impervious surfaces, and increases in waste mits (15A NCAC 2D .0800). Emission sources production that result in rapidly increasing that do not require a permit may be required to stresses on water quality, wildlife and fish popu- register with DEM (15A NCAC 2D .0202), and lations, and other environmental resources. the locations of these registered sources are also known. The DEM Air Quality Branch maintains Indicators of areas of high population a database of all known emissions sources. growth are relatively straightforward. Simply the Through the use of these various data sources, presence of population growth above a certain the locations of air pollutant emitters can be rate can be used to identify high risk areas. The pinpointed. threshold rate might be deterrndned through the use of growth impact coefficients that relate Whether emissions result in air quality population growth to resulting effects and stress- problems depends upon their magnitude and es. DCM has a contract with Research Triangle density and on atmospheric dispersal. Actual Institute to develop a first approximation of such ambient air quality monitoring is a more realistic coefficients by the end of 1994. Other parame- assessment of the degree of air quality impair- ters, such as rate and extent of land conversion ment than is simply the presence of sources. and increases in population-related businesses DEM maintains ambient air quality monitoring such as retail trade, may also be used as corrobo- stations in strategic locations across the state. rating risk indicators. Standards for allowable concentrations of various pollutants are set in regulation (15A NCAC 2D In this risk category, the most significant .0400). The relationship of ambient concentra- consideration for any indicator is rate of increase tions to the allowable maximum can be used as rather than absolute numbers. An already dense- an indicator of how close an area is to exceeding ly populated area might absorb an additional the standards. thousand people with little noticeable effects, while a sparsely populated rural area might be Management strategies within the scope entirely changed by the same influx. Rapid of the NC CMP that may apply to areas with high growth rates indicate rapidly changing conditions risk of air quality. impairment are probably and potential instability in both human and limited to land use planning. Direct air quality natural systems. Instability is a primary deter- regulation is performed by DEM through its minant of risk. permitting and emission control program, but the locations of sources are the result of land use Choice of appropriate management decisions. If HUs with high potential for develop- strategies for high population growth areas will ment of air quality problems can be identified and depend upon whether the area also falls into made known, local governments can take actions another high risk category. For example, if the to steer pollutant emitting development away stresses of population growth have. resulted in from those areas and into others. impaired water quality, the area will also be classified as a water quality high risk and appro- priate management strategies for that risk cate- Areas with Historic Rapid Growth gory will be applicable. If the area has high concentrations of sensitive resources, those re- In parts of the coastal area, population sources may already be under stress. Measures has increased dramatically over the past two to ameliorate existing stress as well as to prevent decades. Between 1980 and 1990 the populations additional stress may be warranted. of Brunswick, Carteret, Dare, and Onslow coun- ties increased by over 25 percent. Most of this There are significant differences between growth is concentrated within a few HUs. Rapid ameliorative, or corrective, actions and preventive growth leads to rapid increases in demands for actions. While stress can be prevented by guiding Cumulative Impacts Management- Page 28 growth and development, correction of existing and land use controls above and beyond that stresses requires changes to already existing currently required in the CAMA planning guide- facilities or practices. Prevention of problems is lines will need to be encouraged by DCM or the traditional emphasis of planning and regula- required by amendments to the rules. Consisten- tory programs, while correction is more likely to cy between the land use plan and local govern- require costly engineering solutions. For exam- ment actions will be essential. ple, preventing dense residential development on soils unsuitable for septic tanks unless a satisfac- If local governments fail to adequately tory sewer system is in place imposes little direct protect sensitive areas that are of more than local costs. Providing a sewer system to an already significance, these areas may need to be designat- existing residential development can involve ed as AECs so that state-level protection can be substantial costs to both the local government applied. Use standards in existing AECs may and property owners. For this reason, corrective need to be strengthened in high-growth areas to actions are usually more difficult to accomplish prevent further deterioration of water quality, than preventive actions. fisheries, etc. Nevertheless, management strategies The full authority of both state and most appropriate for historic high growth areas federal consistency requirements will need to be may need to emphasize corrective as well as applied to ensure that the actions of other govern- preventive actions. Improvement or expansion of ment agencies are in accord with the growth- water supply systems, sewage and solid waste directing policies of local governments and with disposal systems, and other aspects of local infra- any state-imposed protective efforts. If problems structure may be necessary simply to correct are severe enough, and particularly if they in- already existing problems. Collection and treat- volve conflicts in the policies or actions of differ- ment of stormwater runoff, installation of deten- ent government agencies or levels, Special Area tion ponds, and other stormwater runoff control Management Planning may be necessary to measures may be necessary to correct situations adequately address the situation. that could have been prevented by maintaining riparian buffers. Anticipated High-Growth Appropriate roles for the NC CMP in Areas such engineering-based corrective actions might include identifying problem areas in need of Most areas with high population growth action, analyzing alternatives, and facilitating rates over the past ten to twenty years are likely funding for them. DCM has no authority to to continue to grow rapidly, at least until all require such actions or to fund them. It could available land is developed. There 'are other perform a useful role, however, in expediting coor areas, however, that are just beginning to experi- dination between local governments and the ence rapid population growth or that will begin to agencies with appropriate authorities. grow in the near future. These areas present the best opportunities for implementation of meaning- Preventive actions will also be needed in ful cumulative impacts management, since they high growth areas to avert continued and intensi- have not yet experienced major adverse impacts. fied problems. Comprehensive planning and It is in these areas that appropriate preventive stringent land use controls will need to be applied actions, if implernented in advance of anticipated by the local government. Sensitive areas that growth, will be most beneficial. would either be destroyed themselves by intensive development or the development of which would Identifying potential future high growth result in degradation of other resources will need areas, however, is more difficult than identifying to be identified and protected. Infrastructure and areas that are already growing. Neither historic community services will need to be improved and population growth rates nor growth projections expanded. based on historic trends can be used as reliable indicators of future growth. Indicators of future All of the management strategies avail- growth potential will have to be based on HU able to the NC CMP will need to be applied to location in relation to histor .ic high growth areas implement these corrective and preventive actions and on indicators of increasing economic activity in high growth areas. Comprehensive planning that may signal impending growth. Cumulative Impacts Management- Page 29 Since areas that have been growing are protective measures above and beyond any that likely to continue to grow, HUs adjacent to histor- are already in place. All sensitive resources ic high growth areas are potential sites of future should be identified, and at least those of greater growth. The paths that development in high than local significance targeted for specific protec- growth areas has been following may point to- tive measures. ward the areas in which future growth may be expected. For example, the recent rapid pace of Comprehensive land use planning should development of the Currituck County outer banks be applied by the local governments to identify could have been predicted as the logical course of areas into which growth would best be guided development spreading north from the Dare and to formulate protective mechanisms for County banks to the south. Thus, the presence of sensitive areas. Planning will have to be coupled rapid growth in one HU may be used as an with growth management strategies and imple- indicator of potential growth in adjacent HUs, mented through appropriate land use control particularly those in the path of expanding ordinances. Comprehensive plans should include development and those with environments similar provisions for providing additional infrastructure to the area of historic growth. and services needed for the expected growth. Planned growth4nducing activities or For areas identified as sensitive resources developments are also indicators of future popula- of greater than local significance, AEC designa- tion growth. Examples include the Global Trans- tion or stricter use standards for areas already in park (which is not in the coastal area, but close AECs should be considered. This step should be enough to induce growth in Craven and adjacent taken either in coordination with local govern- counties), military base expansions (expansion of ment actions or to fill any gaps remaining after MCAS Cherry Point in Craven County is under- the local government has taken whatever actions way), new highways, new bridges, development of it is willing to implement. Purchase of any industrial parks, major new residential develop- outstanding resource areas that cannot be pro- ments, etc. Tracking plans and permit applica- tected by other means should be considered by tions for such activities can provide a means of both the state and local governments. predicting where future growth is likely to occur. HUs in the area of such growth-inducing activi- Specific protective and growth manage- ties can be identified as high risk areas and ment strategies chosen will depend upon the appropriate management strategies applied before nature of the resources in the area and the types the growth takes place. of threats likely to result from growth. If growth is likely to threaten water quality, for example, Upturns in the general pace of economic some of the strategies discussed under water activity can also be used as indicators of potential quality high risk areas may be appropriate. If future growth. New business openings, increases there are no outstanding resources or significant in the number of state or local permits being threats to environmental quality from the antici- applied for, increases in demand for building pated growth, simply good planning and growth materials, increases in real estate transactions, management by the local governments may be and increases in retail sales could all be used as sufficient to ensure that growth occurs in ways indicators that an area is poised for rapid popula- that will enhance the quality of life in the area. tion growth. All of these parameters can be tracked with DCM`s Population/Development/ High Value Resource Areas Resources Information System. Management strategies for future growth Some parts of the coastal area may be areas will involve an intensification of both state identified as high risk areas simply because of a and local activities to prepare for the increasing concentration of sensitive, high value resources pressures of development. A logical first step within them, whether or not those resources are would be to carefully inventory the resources that currently threatened or impaired. These might will be impacted by future growth to determine be HUs in which so much of the land or water their present status, their regional significance, area is made up of high value resources or re- and their sensitivity to disturbance. The objec- sources of such sensitivity to disturbance that tive of this inventory would be to identify the very little growth and development could occur specific resources and areas that may warrant without significant resource impairment. Or they Cumulative Impacts Management- Page 30 might include HUs with only limited areas of also be identified as an area of high historic sensitive resources but in which the resources are population growth. The presence of indicators of of such significance and sensitivity that develop- two categories of high risk would emphasize and ment around them should be carefully planned help to explain the significance of the risk. and monitored. In either case, the high-value resources are at risk of degradation from any The presence of even relatively small substantial growth and development. areas of high value resources within an HU could indicate high risk if those resources are of suffi- The PDRIS database contains the area ciently high value. An example of this category and percentage of each HU composed of several would be an HU containing threatened or endan- high-value and sensitive resources. The specific gered species habitat. Such habitat is protected resources included are listed in Table II. by federal law even if it occupies a relatively small area. Another example might be HUs bordering Outstanding Resource Waters. Any substantial development in such areas may result Table 11. in water quality impairment unless it is carefully High Value Resource Areas in PDRIS planned and executed. Anadromous Fish Habitat The appropriate management strategies Coastal Reserve Waters for high-value resource areas will depend upon Coastal Reserve Lands the extent and value of the resources and the Natural Heritage Inventory Areas degree of already existing development. The Primary Nursery Areas primary management concern should be protec- Secondary Nursery Areas tion of the specific high-value areas. If they Submerged Aquatic Vegetation occupy a large proportion of an HU, then growth Threatened/Endangered Species Habitat may need to be restricted in the whole HU. If, as Highly Signif icant Wetlands is more commonly the case, high-value resources Shellfish Waters occupy only a small portion of an HU, only that High Quality Waters portion and immediately surrounding areas may Outstanding Resource Waters need to be protected. Water Supply Watersheds Some high-value resource areas are already included in AECs. Coastal wetlands, while they are only one type of high-value wet- land, are included in a separate AEC category. All of these resources are recognized as of suffi.- Primary Nursery Areas (PNAs) and Outstanding ciently high value to warrant special protection in Resource Waters (ORWs) are included in the state or federal statutes and/or regulations. They Estuarine Waters AEC but are afforded higher are high value resources by law, not by arbitrary levels of protection than other estuarine waters. designation. There are several different situa- These existing mechanisms may be sufficient to tions in which an HU containing these resources protect these high-value resources. The 1989 may merit designation as a high risk area. amendments to CAMA, however, authorized inclusion of contiguous lands in the Coastal If the extent of these resources within an Wetlands AEC and separate AEC categories HU is so great that any substantial development including adjacent lands for PNAs and ORWs. would pose a threat to them, the risk of their This authority could be used to improve protec- impairment is high. Indicators of this situation tion of these areas as part of a cumulative im- would consist of high total percentages of the area pacts management strategy. of an HU being occupied by these resources. In many cases, local land use planning If existing development in an area is of and corresponding land use regulation could sufficient magnitude or intensity that high-value provide adequate protection for high-value re- resources are already threatened, then the simple source areas. Most current land use plans, presence of these resources in an HU may be however, don't afford significant protection to any used as a high risk indicator. An area with that resources other than those in AECs. Land use intensity of existing development, however, would control through zoning, protective overlay Cumulative Impacts Management- Page 31 districts, etc., are lacking in most of the coastal While several management mechanisms area. Local land use planning and control will exist for the protection of productive farm and need to be improved and stringently implemented forest lands, they have not been used for this if it is to play a major role in protecting high- purpose in the NC coastal area. Property value value resources. assessment based on the economic return from agricultural or forest crops is one of the primary In cases in which specific land areas are means used in other areas to protect farm and of particularly high resource value, public acquisi- forest land. Local tax structures that base prop- tion may be the best means of providing protec- erty values on an area's potential for development tion. While a cumulative impacts management instead of its current use often result in the loss, strategy cannot mandate public acquisition, it can rather than the protection, of productive lands. be used to identify those areas that should be So long as this approach to property evaluation is considered for acquisition under other programs. used and the economic demand for development continues, productive lands will continue to be Productive and Aesthetic Resource converted to other uses. Areas Whether productive lands are maintained in productivity or converted to other uses is, and Agriculture, forestry, and fishing are should remain, a local decision unless the signifi- economic mainstays in much of the coastal area. cance of the crops being produced is of national or The scenic beauty of the coastal regions is one of regional concern. If the benefits of land conver- the primary reasons for their popularity for sion are perceived to be greater than the costs of tourism, another important component of the losing productivity and the results of that loss on coastal economy. Protection of the productive and the local economy and culture, government cannot aesthetic resources of the coastal area is essential be justified in trying to prevent it. Unless the to maintaining its economic well-being. state or federal governments overtly choose to protect productive lands, it would not be appro- The information on land use, soils, and priate for the NC CMP to become involved. In economic activity in the PDRIS will provide this sense, then, the identification of highly adequate indicators of the presence and impor- productive lands at high risk of loss will be tance of productive resources in each HU. Identi- performed primarily to identify them to local fication of aesthetic resources, however, is less governments which can choose the course of straight-forward. Presence of public recreation action they feel is appropriate. lands and shoreline areas may provide some indication of aesthetic resources. The relative The protection of resources that are importance of the tourist economy in an HU may perceived to belong to the public, however, is a serve as an indicator of the economic importance different matter. The overall protection of envi- of protecting its aesthetic resources. ronmental quality falls into this category, as do the more specific protection of recreational fisher- CAMA clearly includes the protection of ies and aesthetic resources. Protection of fisher- highly productive and scenic areas within the ies is already strongly emphasized in the NC authorized mandates of the NC CMP. Protection CMP, and the factors related to fisheries, such as of recreational opportunities and scenic vistas is water quality and nursery areas, will be ad- specifically included in the Legislative Findings dressed in identifying and managing other catego- and Goals (NCGS 113A-102). The list of autho- ries of high risk areas. The only specific resourc- rized AECs includes "renewable resource areas es included in this risk category that are reason- where uncontrolled or incompatible development ably subject to management by the NC which results in the loss or reduction of continued CMP, then, are aesthetic resources. long-range productivity could jeopardize future Protection of scenic areas could be accom- water, food or fiber requirements," (NCGS 113A- 113 (b)(3)) and lists "prime forestry land" as a plished by several mechanisms. Local land use specific AEC category (NCGS 113A-113(b)(3)(c)). planning could give priority to protection of scenic With the exception of fisheries productivity, beauty by identifying particularly significant however, little emphasis has been given to the areas and either preventing their development or protection of productive or aesthetic resources in limiting development so as to maintain scenic the implementation of the NC CMP. values. More emphasis on protecting scenic Cumulative Impacts Management- Page 32 beauty could be included in AEC use standards. Although the general management objective for Estuarine System AECs includes safeguarding and protecting aesthetic values (15A NCAC 711.0203), nothing specific as to how this is to be done is included in the Use Standards. Without any standards, it would be difficult to deny a permit on the grounds that the resulting project would be too ugly! Whether any specific aesthetic standards are practical or advisable is open to question. The old cliche about beauty being in the eye of the beholder has enough truth to it to make absolute aesthetic standards difficult to formu- late. Whether an ocean beach is more beautiful with or without adjacent high rise hotels, for example, probably depends more on whether the person making the judgement is staying in one of the hotels than on any universal standard. It is likely that high risk of loss of aesthetic quality will also be a risk category that will be identified to provide information rather than one to be directly addressed by the NC CMP. Cumulative Impacts Management- Page 33 North Carolina!s approach to coastal area cumulative impacts management is based on .... ....... ............ identifying high risk areas and applying a combi- nation of management strategies appropriate to j:: j ::: i:"::: the specific situations within them. The proposi- . .. ........ tion that certain parts of the coastal area need to be treated differently from others is clearly ............ .... ..... implicit in this area-based cumulative impacts management strategy. Some areas, due to their particular characteristics or the intensity of development in them, are subject to adverse cumulative impacts, and others, at least present- ly, are not. The focus of management attention must be placed on those areas in which adverse cumulative impacts are, or have a high potential for becoming, serious problems. That means that those areas need to be treated differently from areas where adverse impacts are minor. While this idea is not foreign to the NC CMP, since AECs are treated differently from other areas, it has not been widely applied. All local governments are subject to the same Plan- ning Guidelines, and all permitted activities in a given AEC category must adhere to the same use standards. This uniform application of regula- tions, while it seems equitable and avoids the complications of identifying which areas come under which regulations, has serious short-com- ings in managing cumulative impacts. If high risk areas are to be treated differently to address their special situations, then different regulations must apply to them. In order to legally apply a different set of regulations to high risk areas, some mechanism of officially designating those areas will be neces- sary. Then the specific regulations applicable to them must be adopted. Both of these steps will require action by the CRC. The first two steps of the cumulative impacts management model, i.e., Relative Risk Assessment and Classification of Risks, are designed to perform the difficult task of identifying the areas that need special atten- tion. The rest of the model is designed to identify and apply the specific special attention needed. While these are two distinct steps, they are part of one management strategy. Either one without the other would be largely meaningless. Similar- ly, the CRC cannot be expected to approve the designation of an area as a high risk area without being clearly aware of the implications of that designation. The entire process, then, must be completed before it is introduced to the CRC. Cumulative Impacts Management- Page 34 The specific mechanisms for high risk assessment for individual projects is not avail- area designation and the specific regulations that able. The potential for application of such an may be proposed to apply to them must be devel- approach exists within the CAMA regulatory oped as part of the cumulative impacts manage- program, and alternative methodologies will be ment strategy. This is the policy dimension of examined in the development of I)CMs cumula- the strategy as opposed to the technical dimen- tive impacts management strategy. It is not sions discussed above, The rest of this Section likely, however, that objective cumulative impacts discusses some of the policy implications of using assessment methods will be incorporated into the alternative management mechanisms avail- CAMA permit application review in the near able to the NC CMP as effective tools for cumula- future. tive impacts management. The discussion of various possibilities is not meant to suggest that Cumulative impacts are landscape scale, they will be proposed, but only to identify and rather than site-specific, phenomena. The Cumu- explore as many alternatives as possible. lative Impacts Management Model described in this report follows a landscape-scale approach 7he CAMA RegUlatory PrograM toward identifying high risk areas. In order to apply the site and project specific CAMA regula- tory program to cumulative impacts management The CAMA regulatory program, consist- in the context of this model, it must be applied ing of AEC designation and direct state regula- differently in high risk areas than in the rest of tion of development, is the strongest management the coastal area. This would entail changing the tool available to the NC CMP. As such, it is a regulatory structure in high risk HUs by desig- primary potential implementation mechanism for nating new AECs, increasing the geographic cumulative impacts management. extent of present AECs, changing AEC use stan- dards, or some combination of these approaches. Cumulative Impact Considerations In CAUA Pennit Decisions Now AECs Since contribution to adverse cumulative While high risk areas, in their entirety, effects is a statutorily authorized basis for permit are not envisioned to be a type of AEC, cumula- denial, it would appear that individual review of tive impacts management in high risk areas could each permit application for its contribution to entail designation of parts of them as new AECs. adverse cumulative impacts would be the obvious The CRC has the option of designating new AECs way to apply the CAMA regulatory program to so long as the AECs fit within one of the general cumulative impacts management. This approach, categories authorized by CAMA. Several of the however, requires an objective and legally defen- AEC categories established by CAMA could be sible means of assessing the cumulative impacts particularly amenable to use in managing cumu- of a single proposed project in the context of lative and secondary impacts. everything else that already has, or will in the foreseeable future, impact the same resources. In 1989, the General Assembly amended The scientific and practical difficulties of this CAMA by adding two new categories of AECs: kind of cumulative impacts assessment have been Outstanding Resource Waters (ORWs) and Prima- discussed above (p. 3), and are so overwhelming ry Nursery Areas (PNAs). The statutory defini- as to make this approach infeasible at the present tion of these AEC categories authorizes the CRC time. to include within the area designated as AECs such contiguous land as the CRC reasonably NEPA, with its requirement for cumula- deems necessary" for the protection of the re- tive impacts assessment, has been in effect since source values involved. (NCGS �113A- 1970. Over the ensuing 24 years, many cumula- 11M)(8)(9)). This "contiguous area" authoriza- tive impact assessments have been attempted for tion reflects the realization that activities outside individual projects, and environmental managers the precise boundaries of the resources them- and scientist have expended great effort in trying selves may have substantial cumulative and to develop adequate assessment methodologies. secondary impacts on them. In spite of the time and effort invested in these attempts, an objective, scientifically sound, and While ORWs and PNAs are already understandable method of cumulative impact included in the Estuarine System AEC category, Cumulative Impacts Management- Page 35 their designation as distinct AECs including the icant coastal resource areas. Current rules land around them would have significant advan- include complex natural areas, areas that contain tages for cumulative impacts management. Both remnant species, unique geologic formations, and of these resources are included in the list of high significant architectural and historical resources value resource areas (Table 11). At least some of within this category (15A NCAC 7H.0504), but the HUs containing ORWs and PNAs are likely to the examples given in CAMA are more inclusive be identified as high risk areas; perhaps All of than this. The definition would seem to allow them should be. If these resource areas were AEC designation for any "environmental or distinct AECs in themselves, and if their presence natural resources of more than local significance." were a primary determinant of high risk, there would be no need for different AEC use standards The natural and cultural resource AEC in high risk areas. The presence of the resources category could be of great value in providing themselves would determine the use standards. protection for sensitive resources in high risk areas. The fact that this AEC category has The inclusion of contiguous lands within received little application in the past is not a these AEC categories would have particular comment on its usefulness so much as an artifact advantages in managing secondary impacts of its narrow interpretation in current rules and resulting from activities on surrounding lands. an arcane and difficult nomination and designa- The use standards for the AEC itself, rather than tion procedure. If the CRC should decide to make those for the Estuarine Shoreline AEC, would greater use of this AEC category and change the apply to contiguous lands. This would make the nomination and designation procedures, it could application of use standards specifically tailored become a significant component of a cumulative to protect these sensitive resources from second- impacts management strategy. ary impacts more straight-forward. In addition to the Estuarine Shoreline, The CAMA definition of the Coastal which has been an AEC since the initial approval Wetlands AEC also includes the "contiguous of the NC CMP, CAMA authorizes AEC designa- areas" clause that applies to ORWs and PNAs tion for shorelines of all public trust waters (NCGS 113A-113(b)(1)). While use standards for (NCGS 113A-113(b)(6)(b)) and for floodways and coastal wetlands are highly protective, coastal floodplains (NCGS 113A-113(b)(6)(c)). Designa- wetlands are still subject to secondary impacts tion of such areas as AECs could provide protec- from development of adjacent lands. The ability tion for riparian buffers and wetlands in areas to treat lands and non-tidal wetlands adjacent to upstream of estuarine waters. This could be a coastal wetlands differently from those in other valuable management tool in high risk HUs with estuarine shoreline areas would provide a valu- water quality degradation and in protecting able tool for cumulative and secondary impacts estuarine resources from stresses caused by management. upstream development. CAMA also authorizes AEC designation The rationale for AEC designation of for "renewable resource areas where uncontrolled estuarine shorelines is that "Development within Ohl, or incompatible development which results in the estuarine shorelines influences the quality of loss or reduction of continued long-range produc- estuarine life" (15A NCAC 7H.0209(c)). This tivity could jeopardize future water, food or fiber relationship between shoreline development and requirements of more than local concern" (NCGS aquatic life clearly applies not only to estuarine �113A-113(b)(3)). This statutory provision would shorelines but also to the shorelines of all water allow AEC designation for watersheds, aquifers, bodies. It is also clear that the quality and capacity use areas, prime forestry land, and quantity of water flowing into estuaries from similar areas likely to be included in some high upstream sources has a significant influence on risk areas. estuarine life. In order to adequately address management of cumulative impacts on overall The natural and cultural resource AEC water quality and aquatic life, protection of category is defined in CAMA as including "fragile upstream riparian areas is an indispensible or historic areas, and other areas containing management tool. The fact that this tool is environmental or natural resources of more than available as part of the CAMA regulatory pro- local significance" (NCGS 113A-113(b)(4)). This gram speaks strongly in favor of its implemen- definition is broad enough to include many signif- Cumulative Impacts Management- Page 36 tation through AEC designation of public trust PNAs could also be widened without necessarily shorelines and/or floodplains. establishing a separate AEC category, but to be a meaningful change, this would have to be accom- While designation of additional AECs panied by different use standards for shorelines would provide valuable tools for cumulative adjacent to PNAs. The Estuarine Shoreline AEC impacts management, the advisability and feasi- around ORWs has already been expanded, and bility of emphasizing this approach is open to different use standards apply. question. AEC designation should not be taken lightly nor considered a solution to all problems. It may also be appropriate to widen The designation process in itself is long and shoreline AECs in high risk areas where land- administratively difficult and must be accompa- based, rather than water-based, resources are nied by the development of appropriate use threatened. For example, many functionally standards. It would apply an additional regulato- significant fresh water wetlands lie adjacent to ry burden on the public and additional demands shorelines, especially in the Albemarle Sound on a limited DCM staff. Because of these consid- area. While these wetlands are subject to the erations, the CRC has been hesitant to expand �404 wetland regulatory program, they are not the scope of state regulation through designating afforded the same level of protection as are new AECs. coastal wetlands, even though they are likely to be equally important to the estuarine system. Using new AEC designation as a tool for Similar examples of land-based resources located cumulative impacts management should be near shorelines may be identified in the risk considered an option of last resort, not the first assessment. Widening the shoreline AEC to approach to be applied. It should be considered encompass the extent of these resources could be only in cases in which a resource area of recog- a useful tool in protecting both the resource areas nized great significance is demonstrably threat- themselves and adjacent estuarine waters from ened by development activities and in which no adverse cumulative and secondary impacts. other management tool is adequate to provide the necessary protection. Whether such situations Changes in Use Standards will be identified in the cumulative impacts risk assessment process remains to be seen. The least drastic approach to modifying the CAMA regulatory program for implementa- AEC Boundary Modifications tion of cumulative impacts management would be modification of AEC use standards in high risk Expanding the area encompassed in areas. Some development activities that would be already existing AECs would provide a more permissable under current use standards in most moderate approach to using the CAMA regulatory of the coastal area may not be appropriate in program to address cumulative and secondary certain high risk areas. For example, in areas impacts. Precendent for this approach to provid- designated high risk because of water quality ing higher levels of protection for sensitive areas impairment, marina siting standards could be already exists in the expansion of the Estuarine made more stringent, impervious surface limita- Shoreline AEC to 575 feet around ORWs. This tions could be tightened, or development could be same approach might be applicable to high risk limited to areas served by municipal sewer sys- HUs containing impaired or threatened waters in tems. which water quality impairment is linked to shoreline activities. Indeed, this might prove to These examples are merely hypothetical, be the most feasible way in which modifications but indicate the kinds of changes in use stan- to the AEC structure can be incorporated into dards that might be considered to implement cumulative impacts management. cumulative impacts management. Specific rule amendment proposals will be developed in the Including contiguous lands in the coastal fourth step of the cumulative impacts manage- wetlands AEC, as discussed above, might more ment model when appropriate implementation accurately be considered a boundary modification mechanisms are identified to address specific than a new AEC designation. This modification situations in high risk areas. would certainly make management of cumulative and secondary impacts on coastal wetlands more Since rule amendments changing AEC practical. The Estuarine Shoreline AEC around use standards to address new situations has been Cumulative Impacts Management- Page 37 an on-going process throughout the history of the while larger than that of site specific development NC CMP, it is a process that the CRC, DCM staff, projects, is still too limited to adequately address and the public are comfortable with. Modification regional phenomena. The regional risk assess- of AEC use standards applicable to AECs in high ment and coastal-area-wide cumulative impacts risk areas is, therefore, a feasible cumulative management program being developed by DCM impacts management mechanism. While it does will, however, provide the regional context into represent a somewhat different approach, in that which local planning can fit. The information the modified use standards would be applicable to bases developed for region-wide risk assessment only those portions of a given AEC category and management can provide the link between falling within certain high risk areas, it is not a state and local perspectives necessary to achiev- radical departure from the way in which the ing an integrated approach to cumulative impacts CAMA regulatory program has always worked. If management. there are situations in which development in A.ECs is a substantive contributing factor to The Population/Development'Resources adverse cumulative impacts and in which modi- Information System (PDRIS) developed by DCM fied use standards could be clearly shown to be of contains a wealth of information useful not only benefit in preventing those impacts, it is likely for regional management, but for local land use that the CRC would approve reasonable rule planning as well. A complete list of information modifications. included in the PDRIS is given in the Appendix. In addition, DCM's wetlands mapping and func- Land Use Planning tional assessment efforts have produced detailed information on this significant component of the The fact that the CAMA requirement for coastal area landscape. DCM is developing local land use planning applies to all of the mechanisms for providing this information to coastal area, not just to A.ECs, makes it a poten- local governments as part of the land use plan tially more useful tool for dealing with landscape update process. level cumulative impacts than is the CAMA Providing this information to local gov- regulatory program. The local planning compo- ernments will have several advantageous results: nent of the NC CMP, therefore, is expected to (1) accuracy and consistency of the information play a major role in cumulative impacts manage- used for planning will be improved; (2) local ment. governments will be relieved of many of the data In order to make land use planning a gathering requirements of land use plan updates; powerful implementation tool for cumulative (3) the use of information based on hydrologic impacts management, however, several changes units will enable better local understanding of the in current policies and procedures will be neces- effects of growth and development on the natural sary. Revisions to the Land Use Planning Guide- environment than is possible with ' information lines and modifications of planning procedures collected by political jurisdiction; and (4) data will likely be necessary to incorporate cumulative transfer and the use of common information will improve communication and coordination between impacts management into local planning pro- state and local governments. All of these results grams. Possible improvements to the planning will increase the value of local planning as a tool process include the use of more comprehensive for cumulative impacts management.' information in planning, basing local plans on the same hydrologic units used in regional cumulative The only barriers to providing PDRIS and impacts risk assessment, improved plan coordina- wetlands data to local governments are the tion and consistency, and more stringent local logistical problems of media, formats' timing, etc. and state implementation of land use plans. Information must be provided in fo;;r; in which Improved Informaffon for Planning local governments are able to access and use it. The wide size range of local governments in the It is unrealistic, except, in a very limited coastal area results in a range of computer and GIS capabilities and ability to use and manipu- sense, to expect local plans to include cumulative late information. Mechanisms for transferring impacts assessments unless a regional assess- and using information that account for these ment is available from which to tier to the local differences must be developed. A Project of level (Hunsaker, 1993). The scope of local plans, Special Merit grant awarded to DCM under the cumulative Impacts Management- Page 38 CZMA �309 Program for federal fiscal year 1994- planning for these HUs must be different than for 95 will provide funding to develop these mecha- other areas. Requiring that planning for high nisms. File or map formats, minimum computer risk areas specifically address the particular hardware and software configurations, transfer situations leading to the high risk designation is media, and delivery procedures will be deter- the only meaningful way in which local planning mined to facilitate widespread dissemination of can serve as an implementation mechanism the state information database. within the cumulative impacts management model. If local governments are required to plan If this more sophisticated information is differently for high risk HUs as distinct units to be valuable in improving cumulative impacts within a larger planning jurisdiction, it is only a management, it must be used meaningfully by small additional step to base the entire plan on a local governments. Since much of the information series of hydrologic units. will be new and in a format different from that historically used for local planning, local govern- Basing local planning on watershed units ments will need guidance and assistance in would also promote better understanding of applying it to their situations. DCM has started relationships between land use and water quality working with some local governments in the use and provide a basis for implementation of DEM of state-provided information to develop methods basin-wide plans through local planning and land for local applications. This effort will be expand- use management. It might also stimulate local ed over the next two years to include working governments to consider the implications of land relationships with several coastal area govern- use in a part of a watershed on the rest of the ments to develop applications appropriate to a watershed and on those downstream. range of local situations. There are obvious difficulties, however, in The diversity of local governments in the attempting to base local planning on hydrologic coastal area also results in a range in sophistica- units. The most apparent difficulty is the dispari- tion and interest in improving land use planning. ty between boundaries of HUs and planning Some communities are likely to embrace im- jurisdictions. Political jurisdictions do not con- proved information and techniques and immedi- form to watershed boundaries, resulting in many ately put them to use; others are likely to be HUs that overlap two or more planning jurisdic- hesitant. The availability of better information tions. Small municipalities may occupy only a will not result in an immediate and universal portion of a watershed and have no voice in what improvement in local land use plans. Over a happens in the rest of it. Of necessity, plans for period of time, however, it will increase the many HUs would be fragmented among different sophistication of local planning and will increase local planning bodies so that the advantages of the effectiveness of local planning in managing coordinated planning for those HUs could be lost. cumulative impacts. If approached realistically, however, this Hydrologic Unit Bawd Planning difficulty could be turned into a long term advan- tage. Planning by watershed units would require The most obvious framework for tiering local governments to examine relationships from the regional risk assessment to local plan- between land use and water quality. It should ning would be using the same hydrologic units for become apparent that what happens in part of a local planning as are being used in the regional watershed influences other parts, and what assessment. The data collected and analyses happens upstream certainly influences water performed for the regional assessment could be quality downstream. Given enough time, this provided in the same form to local governments, may result in a more coordinated approach to which would use this information as the basis for planning among different political jurisdictions sub-plans for each HU within their jurisdiction. that occupy portions of the same watershed. This approach would provide a common frame- Improved coordination among plans would, in work for regional and local cumulative impacts itself, increase the effectiveness of local planning management and for addressing the particular in cumulative impacts management. problems of high risk areas in local plans. Another potential difficulty with water- If local plans are to be effective in ad- shed-based planning is the fact that population dressing the problems of high risk areas, their and economic data are collected and reported by Cumulative Impacts Management- Page 39 political jurisdictions, not watersheds. This protection and population center-based planning difficulty has been largely overcome, however, in for community service needs would be most the development of the PDRIS. DCM and RTI appropriate. have developed methods for allocating and dis- tributing data reported on other geographic bases The feasibility of adopting and imple- to hydrologic units. This information will be menting a change to watershed-based planning in maintained in the PDRIS and will be readily CAMA land use plans depends upon the degree to available to local governments. which the involved parties - DCM, local govern- ments, and the CRC - choose to emphasize the Again, what at first appears to be a difficulties and shortcomings or the long term disadvantage of HU-based planning could become advantages. There would be some transitional a distinct advantage in the long term. Agricul- difficulties, and watershed-based planning is not tural agencies, such as SCS and ASCS, are a panacea. But the long term advantages of this moving toward collecting and reporting agricul- approach in the context of a resource protection tural data on the basis of the same HUs used in oriented planning program are great Indeed, the PDRIS. Both EPA and NOAA are actively hydrologic unit based planning may be the only promoting watersheds as logical data collection way to implement cumulative impacts manage- and environmental planning units. DEM's basin- ment in the CAMA planning program. wide approach to water quality planning and permitting uses river basins and sub-basins as Improved Coordination and Consistency analytical and planning units. If local govern- ments began to plan by these HUs, they would Cumulative impacts management cannot begin to collect and analyze local information on be successful if local actions are not coordinated the same basis. While there may be some diffi- and consistent with regional goals (Contant and culties in the short run, moving toward common, Wiggins,1991). After the regional assessment is environmentally-based units for data collection, performed and a cumulative impacts management analysis, and planning by local, state, and federal program developed for the entire NC coastal area, agencies would be a distinct long-term advantage it will be necessary for local plans to be consistent in cumulative impacts assessment and manage- with and provide local implementation for region- ment. al cumulative impacts management goals. The basis for achieving this is found in CAMA, which, Since planning by hydrologic units would in reference to land use plans, states that "The necessitate closer coordination among political plan shall be consistent with the goals of the jurisdictions sharing common watersheds, the coastal area management system ... and with the current disjointed timing of land use plan updates State guidelines adopted by the Conunission" would present a short-run difficulty. There is (G.S. 113A-110(a)). The State Guidelines also already an effort underway, however, to improve state: "All policies adopted by the local govern- coordination of plan@update timing among adja- ment as a part of the land use plan shall be cent and overlapping jurisdictions, such as coun- consistent with the overall coastal policy adopted ties and the municipalities within them. Chang- by the Coastal Resources Commission" (15A ing the organization of this rescheduling effort NCAC 7B.0203(d)). from a county to a river basin basis would over- come this difficulty. Some lag time will elapse Achieving consistency between regional before all updates can be coordinated by river cumulative impacts management strategies and basins. But once again, this short term difficulty local plans will require some changes in the basis could result in long term improvements in dealing for CRC review and certification of land use with cumulative impacts. plans. In addition to ensuring that the required procedures have been followed and the required While watershed-based planning is topics addressed, the CRC must ensure that the clearly relevant to environmental and resource policies in local plans are consistent with the management, it may not be particularly relevant basic goals of the NC CMP. In the context of to other planning needs. Provision of community cumulative impacts management, local policies services, for example, bears little relationship to must be consistent with policies developed in the watershed boundaries. In order to meet the regional strategy. The legal basis for this planning needs of local communities, a oombina- requirement is provided in the above quotations tion of watershed-based planning for resource from CAMA and the State Guidelines. Cumulative Impacts Management- Page 40 It is also necessary that local plans be Adopting a hydrologic unit basis for consistent and coordinated with others in the planning, as discussed above, would be a less same subregion. The Guidelines require that drastic change than shifting to regional planning "Meetings shall be held with the planning and and could overcome many of the problems of lack governing boards of all adjoining planning juris- of consistency and coordination. If all of the dictions to discuss planning concerns of mutual plans within a river basin were updated simulta- interesV' (15A NCAC 7B.0203(c)). This approach neously, and if local governments were required has proven to be ineffective, since there is no to coordinate plans for shared hydrologic units, explicit requirement that policies be consistent the opportunity for improved coordination would from one unit to another. This leads to uncoordi- at least be present. Perhaps over time it would nated and often conflicting policies in the plans of become a reality. adjacent jurisdictions, a situation that is more likely to result in adverse cumulative impacts Land Use Plan Implomentatfon than to alleviate them. Plans by themselves, however well coordi- This problem is exacerbated by the nated and comprehensive, will not be effective in current timing of land use plan updates. Plans managing cumulative impacts unless they are must be updated every five years beginning with implemented. Implementation at the local level the time of the first plan prepared by the local could be improved by requiring that all local government. Since municipalities can decide at ordinances and actions be consistent with the any time to prepare a land use plan for the first plan. CAMA now explicitly requires such consis- time, plan updates for municipalities often do not tency only in AECs (G.S. 113A-111). occur on the same schedule as updates for the county in which they are located or for other If CAMA were amended to require consis- nearby municipalities. This disjointed timing tency between land use plans and local ordinanc- works against coordinated planning and results in es, and if land use plans were required to be failure to consider common concerns and develop consistent with cumulative impacts management consistent policies. policies adopted by the CRC, a structure would be in place whereby cumulative impacts manage- A separate report is being prepared to ment through local land use planning could suggest specific changes to the land use planning become a reality. Short of that, the CAMA process to make it more effective in cumulative planning program will be, at best, an uneven impacts management, so only a few general implementation mechanism. possibilities will be discussed here. The over- riding concern must be putting plans in the Inter-Agency Coordination context of their region through coordinated timing and consistency of policies. All plans for a sub- region should be developed at the same time, and Whatever changes might be made to the policies should be consistent among plans and CAMA regulatory and land use planning pro- with general policies for the subregion and the grams to improve their effectiveness in managing entire Coastal Management Program. cumulative impacts, these management tools alone will be inadequate to the task. Although Perhaps the number of separate plans the management tools available to the NC CMP should be decreased, so that a county and all the are broad in scope, they are limited by the statu- municipalities in it produce one plan through tory authorities of other agencies and the struc- concerted effort rather than many plans through ture of North Carolina state government. While separate efforts. Possibly going a further step protection of water quality, for example, is a goal and shifting the planning process from a purely of the NC CMP, the regulatory authority for local to a regional basis would be most effective. water quality protection lies with DEM. Many Regional plans could then pay particular atten- other state, federal, and local agencies also play tion to and contain more comprehensive planning significant roles in determining land use patterns for local landscape units with high cumulative and managing resources in the North Carolina impacts risk and be less comprehensive for low coastal area. The decisions and actions of all risk landscape units. involved agencies must be consistent with cumu- lative impacts management. goals if those goals are to be achieved. Cumulative Impacts Management- Page 41 Other agencies, each focused on its own gies (DEM, 1991). This innovative program is authorities and responsibilities, will not automat- considered a national model for management of ically act consistently. DCM, as the lead agency cumulative impacts on water quality. in cumulative impacts management, will have to take the initiative in coordinating agency activi- Close coordination between DCM's cumu- ties to address the situations in high risk areas. lative impacts management strategy and DEM's Specific means of interagency coordination must Basinwide Planning Program is a primary goal of be included in the cumulative impacts strategy. the strategy (DCM, 1992b). Since both efforts are based on watershed units, and since water quality The coordinating role of the NC CMP was is a good indicator of cumulative impacts, the set forth in the original coastal management plan basis for coordination is obvious. The structure of (NOAA, 1978), which pictures the CMP as an how coordination will be implemented is being "umbrella" program coordinating the activities of developed through frequent consultations between all agencies involved in activities related to the two agencies. Several possibilities exist. coastal management. Implementation of this coordinating role, however, has not been achieved While basinwide plans are for entire river to the extent originally envisioned. Resource and basins, they are broken down into sub-basins for environmental management remains fragmented analysis and implementation. Currently DEM among various agencies, and the role of DCM is uses it own sub-basin delineations, roughly seen as limited to implementation of the specific equivalent to the eleven-digit SCS/TJSGS hydro- authorities of CAMA. Successful management of logic units. Further reducing the level of detailed cumulative impacts, however, will require that a analysis and implementation to the fourteen-digit More holistic approach be achieved and that the HU level used by DCM would make the analytical NC CMP become a true umbrella program, not units of both agencies directly equivalent. The dictating the actions of other agencies, but coordi- PDRIS could then be used by DEM to provide nating them into a cohesive program of coastal more detailed information on population, land use management. and water quality in each HU, increasing the level of precision of the basinwide plan. There are too many agencies and pro- grams pertinent to coastal management to at- DCKs analyses will provide identification tempt to discuss them all here. The relevance of of water quality high risk areas, which can be the some of them may not become apparent until the focus areas within the basinwide plan. When the assessment is completed and cumulative impacts high risk is a result primarily of upstream activi- management strategies are being devised. There ties, DCM can potentially influence treatment of are, however, some programs carried out by or those activities in the plan, extending the influ- involving other agencies that obviously relate to ence of the NC CMP over upstream activities that cumulative impacts management. These include influence coastal water quality. When activities DEMs Basinwide Planning Program, the Water within a coastal HU significantly contribute to Supply Planning Program of the Division of water quality impairment, the NC CMP can Water Resources, and the Coastal Nonpoint provide basinwide plan implementation through Pollution Control Program. land use planning and the CAMA regulatory program. BasinWide Planning Hydrologic unit-based planning with plan North Carolina's basinwide approach to updates coordinated by river basin would provide water quality management, designed and imple- an ideal implementation opportunity for land use mented by DEM, is the closest approximation to related aspects of basinwide plans. Changing to cumulative impacts management presently in this basis for CAMA land use planning would operation in the state. All water quality manage- provide a clear basis for coordination with basin- ment activities, including permitting, monitoring, wide planning, in addition to the intrinsic advan- modeling, nonpoint source assessments, and tages of HU-based planning discussed above. planning, are coordinated and integrated by river True interagency coordination requires adjust- basin. Water quality and aquatic resources are ments on the part of all programs involved. The assessed simultaneously throughout an entire CMP cannot expect to influence the actions of river basin - leading to the development of basin- DEM in regard to upstream activities unless it is wide water'4uality management plans and strate- Cumulative Impacts Management- Page 42 prepared, in turn, to accomodate the implomenta- decrease redundancy of effort by local govern- tion aspects of DEM's basinwide plans. ments. Water Supply Planning Information from water supply plans could also be used to identify HUs with potential The State Water Supply Plan Statute water supply problems, increasing the scope and (NCGS 143-3550-m)) requires local governments usefulness of the PDRIS. At some point in the that provide public water supply service to ana- future, when local water supplies become limiting lyze current water supply and demand, project to growth and regional solutions are necessary, future water needs, and plan for the continued water supply planning may form a basis for a provision of adequate water supplies. Water regional approach to growth planning and man- Supply Plans must also specify how much waste- agement. water is generated by the system and where it is discharged. Plans are submitted to the Division Coastal Nonpoint Pollution of Water Resources (DWR) and must be updated Control Program at least every live years. Based on these local plans, DWR develops a state water supply plan to The Coastal Nonpoint Pollution Control identify potential conflicts and areas for coordina- Program (CNPCP), established by Section 6217 of tion. the Coastal Zone Act Reauthorization Amend- ments of 1990, requires coastal states to develop Adequate water supply is a potential coordinated programs for control of nonpoint growth-limiting factor in some coastal communi- source pollution of coastal waters. The program, ties, particularly those dependent upon limited currently under development, will be implement- groundwater aquifers. Water Supply Plans are ed through changes to the state Nonpoint Source meant to identify those areas, bring them to the Management Program in DEM and to the NC attention of the local government, and ensure CMP. The central purpose of the CNPCP is to that appropriate adjustments are planned in ad- strengthen links between federal and state coast- vance and that state technical assistance is al management and waterquality programs in provided where needed. When water use conflicts order to enhance state and local efforts to manage or water shortages occur, DWR performs ground land use activities that degrade coastal waters water studies and recommends alternatives, and habitats (NOAA and EPA, 1993). It, thus, including Capacity Use Designation and other provides excellent opportunities for improving measures. inter-agency coordination in addressing the cumulative impacts of land uses. These water supply programs are an attempt to manage and plan for cumulative The CNPCP must contain enforceable demands on a finite resource, and, as such, are a policies and mechanisms to implement nonpoint form of cumulative impacts management. Local source management measures for a range of land Water Supply Plans are also closely related to use practices throughout the coastal area, and, in land use planning, since amounts and patterns of some instances, to a larger area. In areas with growth and development determine future water existing threatened or impaired waters or in demand. Water supply planning is another which new or substantially expanding land uses obvious area for coordination with the NC CMP's may contribute to future impairment, additional cumulative impacts management program. more stringent management measures must be applied. These CNPCP management measures DCM and DWR have begun discussing may provide a range of implementation mecha- ways in which the efforts can be coordinated. nisms for cumulative impacts management, One obvious possibility is to combine water particularly in high risk areas with existing or supply plan updates with CAMA land use plan potential water quality degradation. updates. Water supply planning is an important component of comprehensive planning, and both The primary purpose of the CNPCP is to are updated on the same five-year cycle. In implement management measures for nonpoint addition to increasing the scope and significance source pollution by more fully integrating federal, of CAMA land use plans in managing cumulative state, and local authorities. It is being developed impacts, including water supply planning would by DCM in close coordination with the Nonpoint Source Management Program (�319 Program in Cumulative Impacts Management- Page 43 DEM, and also involves coordination with several SAMP is a difficult, time-consuming, and other agencies with management or regulatory expensive process that requires the full commit- authorities related to potential nonpoint source ment of all parties and often necessitates the generating activities or nonpoint source controls. development of new implementation mechanisms. The other agencies involved, in addition to the It has been used with varying degrees of success �319 Program, include the stormwater, wetlands, in several states to address highly complex prob- groundwater, and basinwide planning programs lems that could not be handled in any other in DEM and the divisions of Soil and Water fashion. In most cases, SAMP is considered an Conservation, Land Resources, Environmental approach of last resort when all other manage- Health, Solid Waste Management, and Forest ment approaches have proven insufficient. The Resources. Seldom does any one effort attempt to formal SAMP process should not be used if a coordinate the activities of so many agencies. simpler solution is available. While the exact form of North Carolina's Due to its difficulties and the limitation CNPCP is yet to be determined, it is federally- of its use to unique situations in which alterna- mandated and must follow guidelines developed tive approaches are inadequate, SAMP is not a by NOAA and EPA. Thus, its development and suitable implementation mechanism for wide- implementation in a form closely approximating scale cumulative impacts management. Any federal requirements is virtually certain. The policies or management structures developed role of the CNPCP as an implementation mecha- through a SAMP would be limited to the specific nism for cumulative impacts management, howev- geographic area to which it applies. If SAMP is er, will depend upon the degree to which the two used as a means of cumulative impacts manage- efforts are integrated into an overall strategy. ment, its applicability will be limited to areas with particularly acute problems where other To ensure this integration, DCM is alternatives are inadequate. developing North Carolina's CNPCP in close coordination with development of the cumulative impacts management strategy. Analyses of land use and water quality impairment performed in cumulative impacts assessment will be used to identify areas in need of additional NPS manage- ment measures in the CNPCP. Since these same areas are also likely to be identified as high risk areas, the CNPCP will play a primary role in addressing the cumulative impacts of land uses within them. Special Area Management Planning SAMP is a tool for cooperative multi- agency management of areas of special impor- tance with intense use and management conflicts. Its use is normally limited to situations in which highly valuable resources are overtly threatened and no appropriate management framework exists. The SAMP process brings together all involved agencies, governmental levels, and user groups in an attempt to resolve conflicts and develop a mutually agreeable management struc- ture. Special administrative arrangements or new management forms are often created to increase regulatory coordination or to guide development (Brower and Carol, 1987). Cumulative Impacts Management- Page 44 As population and development continue to increase in the North Carolina coastal area, managing the cumulative and secondary impacts 0 development has become a necessity. The primary "CONCL mandate of the NC CMP is to guide ........... ..... ... wth and development so as to minimize envi- .... .... gro ronmental degradation. It is not possible to carry out this mandate successfully without assessing and managing the cumulative and indirect, as well as the individual and direct, impacts of development. This requires a more holistic management perspective and approach than have been used in the past. It is extremely difficult to assess the cumulative impacts of incremental development on complex ecological systems. Linking individu- al causes with cumulative effects in an objective and legally defensible manner is impractical with current knowledge and methods. While it would be desirable to include cumulative impacts assess- ments in CAMA permit reviews, detailed, cause and effects assessment is too complex, imprecise, and difficult to comprehend to form an acceptable basis for regulatory decision-making. Instead of cause and effect analysis, DCM is applying an area-based risk assessment ap- proach emphasizing management, rather than assessment, of cumulative impacts. This ap- proach identifies the activities that result in impacts and the status of resources that are affected. If either the level of impacting activities is intense or resources are already impaired, an area is at high risk of adverse cumulative im- pacts. Risk assessment can be applied without analysis or complete understanding of the com- plex details of cause and effect relationships and ecological thresholds. Risk assessment can identify which risks are greater or which areas are at higher risk so that time and attention can be focused on risk management rather than on ecological assessment. This change in emphasis allows the use of standard planning and management techniques in cumulative impacts management. Risk man- agement decisions can be made through the consideration of priority problems in light of available management options, resources, admin- istrative and legal structures, etc. This approach is, therefore, more amenable to public policy- making. It's objective is not to provide a precise assessment of cumulative impacts within an area nor to assess the cumulative impacts of specific Cumulative Impacts Management. Page 45 projects, but to identify areas at highest risk to of relative risk assessment, classification of risks, which the conventional tools of environmental goal-setting, identification of the most appropriate management can be applied. implementation mechanisms, and implementa- Since the cumulative impacts of individu- tion. al actions adversely affect public resources, Relative Risk Assessment cumlative impacts management is a legitimate function of government. Traditional government The first step consists of comparing environmental prograrnS, however, are designed conditions in relatively small landscape units to to deal with individual actions and resources one identify areas at high risk of adverse cumulative at a time. The structure of single-purpose agen- impacts. The landscape units being used are 348 cies often contrains their ability to take the small watersheds, or hydrologic units, of 5,000 to holistic approach necessary for successful cumula- 50,000 acres delineated by SCS. A large amount tive impacts management. of information is being collected for each of these units to indicate the intensity of land use and The NC CMP, however, is unusual in development pressure and the concentration and that its mandate includes a very broad and com- condition of natural resources. A series of indices plete statement of environmental management are being developed to summarize the indicator goals. It is not limited to a specific class of re- data and provide a basis for comparison among sources or a single type of activity, but is to hydrologic units to identify those at.highest risk address the entire range of human activities as of adverse cumulative impacts. they influence the economic, aesthetic, and ecol- ogical well-being of the coastal area. The legis- Classification of Risks lative findings and goal statements of CAMA provide a sound basis for a comprehensive cumu- High risk areas will be classified into lative impacts management program. categories based on conditions and causative factors present in them. An area may be at high Similarly, the management mechanisms risk of adverse cumulative impacts due either to available to the NC CMP provide a broad spec- the nature or condition of its natural environment trum of cumulative impacts management tools. or to the type and magnitude of human-induced The CAMA regulatory program, which specifically disturbances. Which management measures are includes adverse cumulative impacts as grounds most appropriate for a given area will depend for permit denial, focuses full state authority on upon its risk category. the most environmentally critical portions of the coastal area. The land use planning require- Goal Setting ments of CAMA, together with the authority to establish state planning guidelines, provides a Specific management goals, consistent coordinated state-local system of land use. plan- with the goals of CAMA, will be established for ning capable of including a strong cumulative each high risk category. Appropriate manage- impacts management component. The inter- ment objectives for a given area will depend upon agency coordinating function of the NC CMP, the nature of the risk and conditions present in backed up with legal requirements for state and the unit. federal consistency, provides the basis for imple- mentation of the holistic, inter-agency approach Identification of needed for cumulative impacts management. Implementation Mechanisms The Notth Carolina Model For each high risk area category, the most applicable alternative or combination of alternatives will be chosen from among the Although the statutory authority and management tools available in the NC CMP. tools for cumulative impacts management have Different situations and goals dictate the use of e)dsted in the NC CMP since its inception, they different management strategies. Various combi- have not been applied specifically for this pur- nations of regulatory action, land use planning, pose. Putting them together for the specific and inter-agency coordination will be devised to purpose of managing cumulative impacts requires address the situations of different high risk categories. a new analytical and structural model consisting Cumulative Impacts Management- Page 46 impimnentadon high risk areas, could also be a valuable manage- ment tool for maintaining riparian areas in water Specific policies and rules applicable to quality threatened areas. each category of high risk area will be developed to apply the appropriate implementation mecha- Several possibilities exist for applying nisms. Different management strategies, and AEC boundary modifications to cumulative im- thus different rules, will need to be applied to pacts management. Including contiguous land high risk areas than to other areas. This will areas around outstanding resource waters, prima- require CRC action to designate high risk areas ry nursery areas, and coastal wetlands within the and adopt appropriate rules for their manage- designated AEC area would allow management of ment. Implementation will also require close the resources and the lands most directly affect- coordination with other agencies in the applica- ing them under one set of rules designed to tion of their regulatory and management authori- protect the resources from cumulative and second- ties in high risk areas. ary impacts as well as direct impacts. Widening the estuarine shoreline AEC in water quality high Management Strategies risk areas could be valuable in protecting estuar- ine water quality from the impacts of shoreline acitivities. The management tools available in the NC CMP provide a basis for managing cumulative Modifying AEC use standards in existing impacts if they are applied effectively. The risk AECs within high risk areas is probably the most and area-based management strategy implies feasible way of applying the CAMA regulatory that certain parts of the coastal area, the high program to cumulative impacts management. risk areas, need to be treated differently from Applying somewhat different rules in high risk others. This will entail some changes in the way areas would reflect the unique situations of these that CAMA management mechanisms are ap- areas and the fact that activities that are appro- plied. priate elsewhere may not be appropriate in these areas. The CAMA Regulatory Program Land Use Planning The difficulties in performing objective and legally defensible cumulative impact assess- The local land use planning component of ments for individually proposed projects are so the NC CMP can be a critical aspect of cumula- great that this approach is presently an infeasible tive impacts management. Its use in this contex:t, way to use the CAMA regulatory program for however, will require some changes in planning cumulative impacts management. A more feasi- guidelines and procedures. ble approach would be to modify the CAMA regulatory structure as it applies to designated The regional risk assessment being used high risk areas. This could be done through to identify high risk areas provides a regional designating new AECs in high risk areas, increas- context into which local cumulative impacts ing the geographic extent of AECs in high risk management can fit. Transfer to local govern- areas, or applying different use 'Standards to ments of information gathered and analyzed in existing AECs in high risk areas. the regional assessment can provide the link be- tween regional and local perspectives necessary to While several CAMA-authorized AEC make this happen. Providing this information categories could be useful in cumulative impacts and assisting local governments in applying it to management, designation of new AECs is not an their local situations will improve the accuracy appropriate approach for wide-scale use. In and consistency of information used for planning limited cases, however, it should be considered. and help to focus attention on high risk areas and The natural and cultural resource AEC category, sensitive resources. in particular, could be of value in providing protection for sensitive resources of more than The most straight-forward way to apply local significance in high risk areas. The high regional information to local planning would be to risk designation would indicate the presence of use hydrologic units as planning units. Data and significant threats to those resources. The desig- analyses from the regional assessment could be nation of public trust shoreline AECs, at least in provided to local governments, which would use Cumulative Impacts Management- Page 47 this- information as the basis for sub-plans for local and state levels, cumulative impacts man- each HU within their jurisdictions. While there agement through local land use planning could be are difficulties in changing to watershed-based highly effective. planning, the long-term advantages in the context of a resource protection oriented planning pro- Inter-Agency coordination gram are compelling., Basing local plans on hydrologic units would improve the environmen- Many local, state, and federal agencies tal soundness of local plans and would fit local play significant roles in determining land use planning into a nested system of watershed units patterns and managing resources in the coastal that could integrate planning, cumulative impacts area. Cumulative impacts management requires management, and information management at that the actions of these agencies be coordinated the local, state, and federal levels. toward achieving common goals. The NC CMP must play the key role in coordinating agency In order for local land use planning to activities to address the situations in high risk specifically address the situations in high risk areas, and specific means of inter-agency coordi- areas, planning for those areas must be different nation must be included in a cumulative impacts than for other areas. Somewhat different plan- management strategy. ning guidelines need to be developed for applica- tion to high risk areas. The particular conditions The Division of Environmental Manage- leading to the high risk must be addressed and ment's Basinwide Water Quality Planning Pro- dealt with in plans for high risk HUs. The type gram, the Water Supply Planning Program imple- of special planning attention appropriate will mented by the Division of Water Resources, and depend upon the nature of conditions in the HU the Coastal Nonpoint Pollution Control Program and the nature of the risk. being developed by the Division of Coastal Man- agement provide excellent opportunities for inter- Cumulative impacts management will not agency coordination in cumulative impacts man- be successful unless local plans are consistent agement. All of these programs, as well as other with and provide local implementation for region- opportunities for coordination, must be integrated al cumulative impacts management goals. This into a cumulative impacts management strategy. requirement needs to be added to review criteria for land use plan certification, and the regional In particularly severe situations in which goals need to be incorporated into the NC CMP. the problems of high risk areas cannot be ad- The goals should include specific objectives for dressed by other means, coordination and man- local action in each category of high risk area. agement could be achieved through development of Special Area Management Plans. Since SAMP Improving coordination among plans in is a difficult process that requires the full com- the same subregion is perhaps the most pressing mitment of all parties and often necessitates the change needed to address cumulative impacts development of new implementation mechanisms, through local planning. This could best be its practicality for wide-scale cumulative impacts achieved by timing land use plan updates on a management is limited. river basin basis. Updating all plans within a river basin at the same time and requiring local Conclusions governments to coordinate plans for shared hydrologic units would provide a sound basis for The potential for successful cumulative integrated watershed planning. This approach impacts management exists within the North would also present the opportunity for imple- Carolina Coastal Management Program. The menting the DEM basinwide plan for the river basic statutory authorities and program struc- basin. tures are in place, and the regional assessment Plans must be implemented to be effec- being performed by DCM will identify areas at tive. CAMA needs to be amended to require highest risk. An overall cumulative impacts consistency between land use plans and local management strategy must be developed, adopted ordinances. If land use plans and local ordinanc- by the CRC, and implemented, however, to make es are consistent with cumulative impacts man- the effort successful. The cumulative impacts agement 'als and policies adopted by the CRC, management strategy must include a means of 90 legally designating high risk areas, together with and if the plans are implemented at both the Cumulative Impacts Management- Page 48 specific means of addressing the risks in those program alone, It stresses the need for a renewed areas. inter-agency and state-local cooperative effort "to establish a comprehensive plan for the protection, The CAMA land use planning program preservation, orderly development, and manage- and inter-agency coordination are the most ment of the coastal area olNorth Carolina" (G.S. promising implementation mechanisms for cumu- 113A-102(a)). As such, it encourages the ftdl lative impacts management. The CAMA regula- implementation of CAMA through realization of tory program has limited value as a cumulative the vision for coastal management expressed by impacts management tool because of the limited the General Assembly in 1974 and in North Caro- geographic area to which it applies and the lina's original coastal plan (NOAA, 1978). difficulty of assessing the cumulative impacts of individual projects. The use of Special Area Management Planning in cumulative impacts management is limited to highly unique situa- tion8 because of its difficulty and expense. Incorporating CAMA land use planning into a cumulative impacts management strategy will necessitate several changes in planning procedures and guidelines. Planning should be done by hydrological units, with particular atten- tion to HUs designated as high risk areas. pecific guidelines for treatment of high risk areas in local plans need to be incorporated into S the planning guidelines, and local policies for those areas must be consistent with regional goals. Land use plan updates should be per- formed simultaneously for all jurisdictions in a river basin to allow for better coordination and for implementation of the basinwide plan. DCM must take the initiative in achiev- ing coordination with other agencies in address- ing situations in high risk areas. When appropri- ate, DCM can play a role in programs of other agencies by providing information, helping identi- fy problem areas, and participating in plans and decisions. This is being performed with Basin- wide Planning, Water Supply Planning, and the Coastal Nonpoint Pollution Control Program. When active DCM involvement is impractical or inappropriate, state consistency should be fully implemented to ensure consistent action in regard to cumulative impacts management. To the extent possible, formal consistency agreements should be developed with those agencies most involved in activities influencing the coastal area. Application of this cumulative impacts management strategy to the North Carolina Coastal Area will provide a comprehensive means of managing and minimizing adverse effects of growth and development. The strategy recognizes that cumulative impacts are the result of total patterns of growth and development and, thus, cannot be managed through the CAMA regulatory Cumulativo Impacts Managemont- Page 49 I I I I I I I I I I I I . I I I I I I I Cumulative Impacts Management- Page 50 1 REFERENCES CITED Barnthouse, L.W. and G.W. Suter (eds.) 1986. User's Manual for Ecological Risk Assessment. ORNL-6251. Oak Ridge National Laboratory, Oak Ridge, TN. Beanlands, , G.E., W.J. Erckmann, G.H. Orians, J. O'Riordan, D. Policansky, M.H. Sadar, and B. Sadler (eds.). 1986. Cumulative Environmental Effects: A Binational Perspective. The Canadian Environmental Research Council and The United States National Research Council, Ottawa, Ontario and Washington, D.C. Bedford, B. L. 1990. Increasing the scale of analysis: The challenge of cumulative impact assessment for Great Lakes wetlands. In Proceedings ofan International Symposium: Wetlands ofthe Great Lakes: Protection and Restoration Policies: Status of the Science, edited by J. Kusler and R. Smardon, pp. 186-194. Association of State Wetland Managers and Great Lakes Research Consortium, NY. Bedford, B.L. and E.M. Preston. 1988. Developing the scientific basis for assessing cumulative effects of wetland loss and degradation on landscape systems of wetlands: scientific status, prospects, and regulatory perspectives. Environmental Management 12(5):751-771. Bell, C.R. et al. 1983. Currituck County Outer Banks Carrying Capacity Study. Department of City & Regional Planning, Univ. of North Carolina, Chapel Hill. Brower,D.J. and D. S. Carol. 1987. Managing Land- Use Conflicts: Case Studies in Special Area Manage ment. Duke University Press. Durham, NC. Clark, W.C. 1986. The cumulative impacts of human activities on the atmosphere. In G.E. Beanlands, et al., (eds.) Cumulative Environmental Effects: A Binational Perspective. Canadian Environmental Assessment Research Council/U.S. National Research Council. Ottawa, Ont. and Washington, D.C. Contant, C.F- and L.L. Wiggins. 1991. Defining and analyzing cumulative environmental impacts. Environmental Impact Assessment Review 11:297-309. DCM. 1992a. Final Assessment of the North Carolina Coastal Management Program. Report to the Office of Ocean and Coastal Resource Management, NOAA, U.S. Dept. of Commerce performed under the Coastal Zone Enhancement Grants Program, �309, CZMA. NC Division of Coastal Management, Raleigh. January 10, 1992. DCM. 1992b. Final Strategy for Achieving Enhancements to the North Carolina Coastal Management Program. Proposal to the Office of Ocean and Coastal Resource Management, NOAA, U.S. Dept. of Commerce for implementation of the Coastal Zone Enhancement Grants Program, �309, CZMA. NC Division of Coastal Management, Raleigh. March 25, 1992. DEM. 1991. North Carolina's Whole Basin Approach to Water Quality Management: Program Description. Report No. 91-08. NC Dept. of Environment, Health and Natural Resources, Div. of Environmental Management, Water Quality Section, Raleigh, NC. Dickert, T., J. Sorenson, R. Hyman, and J. Burke. 1976. Collaborative Land Use Planning for the Coastal Zone: Halfmoon Bay Case Study. Vol. II. IURD Monograph 28. Institute of Urban and Regional Development, Univ. of California, Berkeley. Dickert, T.G. and A.E. Tuttle. 1985. Cumulative impact assessment in environmental planning. a coastal wetland watershed example. Environmental Impact Assessment Review. 5:37-64. Cumulative Impacts Management- Page 51 Dodd, R.C., G. McMahon, and S. Stichter. 1992. Watershed Planning in the Albemarle-Pamlico Estuarine System. Report 1 -Annual Average Nutrient Budgets. Center for Environmental Analysis, Research Triangle Institute. APES publication no. 92-10. Albemarle-Pamlico Estuarine Study, NC Dept. of Environment, Health and Natural Resources, Raleigh. Dodd, R.C., P.A. Cunningham, R.J. Curry, and S.J. Stichter. 1992. Watershed Planning in the Albemarle- Pamlico Estuarine System. Report 6 - Subbasin Profiles and Critical Areas. Center for Environmen- tal Analysis, Research Triangle Institute. APES publication no. 93-01. Albemarle-Pamlico Estuarine Study, NC Dept. of Environment, Health and Natural Resources, Raleigh. Gosselink, J.G., G.P. Shaffer, L.C. Lee, D.M. Burdick, D.L. Childers, N.C. Leibowitz, S.C. Hamilton, R. Boumans, D. Cushman, S. Fields, M. Koch, and J.M. Visser. 1990. Landscape conservation in a forested wetland watershed: Can we manage cumulative impacts? BioScience 40, No. 8:588-600. Gosselink, J.G. and L.C. Lee. 1989. Cumulative impact assessment in bottomland hardwood forests. Wetlands 9:83-174. Hardin, G. 1968. The Tragedy of the Commons. Science 162:1243-1248. Hunsaker, C.T., R.L. Graham, G.W. Suter, R.V. ONeill, L.W. Barnthouse, and R.H. Gardner. 1990. Assessing ecological risk on a regional scale. Environmental Management 14(3):433-445. Hunsaker, C.T. 1993. Ecosystem assessment methods for cumulative effects at the regional scale. Environmental Analysis: The NEPA Experience, pp. 480-491. Oak Ridge National Laboratory. Oak Ridge, TN. Institute for Environmental Negotiation. 1991. Management of Cumulative Impacts in Virginia: Identifying the Issues and Assessing the Opportunities.. Report prepared for the Virginia Council on the Environment's Coastal Resource Management Program. Univ. of Virginia, Charlottesville. December, 1991. Johnston, C.A., N.E. Detenbeck, J.P. Bonde and G.J. Niemi, 1988. Geographic information systems fo cumulative impact assessment. Photogrammetric Engineering and Remote Sensing, Vol. 54, No. 11, pp. 1609-1615. Lee, L.C. and J.G. 0osselink. 1988. Cumulative impacts on wetlands: linking scientific assessments and regulatory alternatives. Environmental Management 12(5):591-602. Leibowitz, S.G., B. Abbruzzese, P.R. Adamus, L.E. Hughes, and J.T. Irish. 1992. A Synoptic Approach to Cumulative Impact Assessment: A Proposed Methodology. EPA/600/R-92/167, US EPAEnvironmen- tal Research Laboratory, Corvallis, OR. Leibowitz, S-G, E.M. Preston, L.Y. Arnaut, N.E. Detenbeck, C.A. Hagley, M. E. Kentula, RX Olson, W. D. Sanville, and R.R. Sumner. 1992. Wetlands Research Plan FY92-96. EPA/600/R-921060. EPA Environmental Research Laboratory, Corvallis, OR. NOAA. 1978. State of North Carolina Coastal Management Program and Final Environmental Impact Statement. Office of Coastal Zone Management, National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, U.S. Dept. of Commerce. Washington, D.C. NOAA and EPA. 1993. Coastal Nonpoint Pollution Control Program. Program Development and Approval Guidance. National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration and U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Water. Washington, D.C. January, 1993. Science Advisory Board. 1990. ReducingRisk: Setting Priorities and Strategies for Environmental Protection. SAB-EC-90-021. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Science Advisory Board, Washington, D.C. Cumulative Impacts Management- Page 52 SCS. 1992. Plan of Work for a Hydrologic Unit River Basin Study - State of North Carolina. USDA, Soil Conservation Service, Raleigh, NC. January 14, 1992. Williamson, S.C., 1992. Cumulative Impacts Assessment and Management Planning: Lessons Learned to Date. USFWS National Ecology Research Center, Fort Collins, CO. Cumulative Impacts Management- Page 53 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I Cumulative Impacts Management- Page 54 1 APPENDICES CUMULATIVE IMPACT INDICATORS CONTAINED IN PC-BASED POPULATION/DEVELOPMENT/RESOURCES INFORMATION SYSTEM Agriculture: Uvestock and Poultry Development Beef Feedlots (< 300 Head, > 300 Head) Building Permits -All residential Dairy Farms (< 70 Head, > 70 Head) Building Permits -Amusement/ Recreation Hog Farms (< 200 Head, > 200 Head) Building Permits -Multi-family Residential Horse Stables 200 Head, > 200 Head) Building Permits -One-family Residential Poultry Farms 15,000 Birds, > 15,000 Birds) Building Permits -Hotels and Motels Building Permits -Retail Agriculture: Farming Building Permits -industrial Land in Farms (acres, % of HU) Highway Mileage: Land with Best Mgmt Practices (acres, % of HU) Total (miles) Land w/o Best Mgmt Practices (acres, % of HU) Primary (miles, % of total) Land in Conservation Tillage (acres, % of HU) Secondary (miles, % of total) Land w/o Conservation Tillage (acres, % of HU) Paved (miles, % of total) Harvested Cropland (acres, % of HU) Unpaved (miles, % of total) Hay Crops (acres, % of HU) Rail lines (miles) Irrigated Land (acres, % of HU) Increase of primary & secondary roads (miles, %) Pasture Land (acres, % of HU) Increase of paved vs. unpaved Roads (miles, %) Row Crops (acres, % of HU) Primary Economic Estuarine Waters (acres, % of HU) Ag-Related Business (number, employees, income) Freshwater Lakes Farms (number, employees, income) HU Name Fisheries Business (number, employees, income) Receiving HU Forestry/Wood- Using Business (number, employees, Receiving Water Body income) Primary Water Body Lodging Establishments (number, employees, Secondary Water Body income) Shoreline Manufacturing Establishments (number, employees, Waterways w/ Vegetated Buffers (miles, % of HU) income) Population 1970 Marinas (number, employees, income) Population 1980 Mining Establishments (number, employees, in- Population 1990 come) Population Growth '70-'80 Recreation Business (number, employees, income) Population Growth '80-'90 Restaurants (number, employees, income) Counties Retail Establishments (number, employees, income) Total HU size Land area (acres, % of HU) Water area (acres, % of HU) Groundwater Stream length (miles) Groundwater Contamination Incidents Stream order (miles, % of stream length) Groundwater Class (acres, % of HU) Groundwater Contamination Area (acres, % of HU) Groundwater Capacity Use Areas (acres, % of HU) Cumulative Impacts Management- Page 55 Land and Estuarine Resources Shellfish Anadromous Fish Streams (miles, % of streams) Shellfish Waters (acres, % of HU) Coastal Reserve Waters (acres, % of HU) Shellfish Closures- Permanent (acres, % of HU) Coastal Reserve Lands (acres, % of HU) Shellfish Closures-Temporary (acres, % of HU) Federal Ownership: National Parks (acres, % of HU) Water Quality-Open water National Forests (acres, % of HU) Class B. Waters (acres, % of water area) Military Reservations (acres, % of HU) Class C Waters (acres, % of water area) USFWS Refuges (acres, % of HU) HQW Waters (acres, % of water area) Federal Ownership--other (acres, % of HU) NSW Waters (acres, % of water area) State Ownership: ORW Waters (acres, % of water area) Game Lands (acres, % of HU) Swamp Waters (acres, % of water area) State parks (acres, % of HU) SA Waters (acres, % of water area) State Forests (acres, % of HU) SB Waters (acres, % of water area) State Ownership--other (acres, % of HU) SC Waters (acres, % of water area) Natural Heritage Inventory Sites (count) WS-1 Waters (acres, % of water area) Primary Nursery Areas (acres, % of water area) WS-11 Waters (acres, % of water area) Private Preservation (acres, % of HU) WS-111 Waters (acres, % of water area) Secondary Nursery Areas (acres, % of water area) Threatened/Endangered Species Habitat Water Quality-Streams Water Supply Watersheds (acres, % of HU) Class B Streams (miles, % of streams) Class C Streams (miles, % of streams) Land Use HQW Streams (miles, % of streams) Total Wetland Area (acres, % of HU) NSW Streams (miles, % of streams) High Value Wetland (acres, % of HU) ORW Streams (miles, % of streams) Medium Value Wetlands (acres, % of HU) Swamp Water Streams (miles, % of streams) Low Value Wetlands (acres, % of HU) SA Streams (miles, % of streams) Predominant Land Cover SI3 Streams (miles, % of streams) SC Streams (miles, % of streams) Population and Housing WS-1 Streams (miles, % of streams) Avg Seasonal Population WS-11 Streams (miles, % of streams) Peak Seasonal Population WS-111 Streams (miles, % of streams) Units w/o indoor plumbing Units with Septic Tanks Water Quality-Use Support Units on Central Water Systems Algal Blooms (Count, Extent/Severity) Units on Central Sewer Fish Kills (Count, Extent/Severity) Units with Wells Streams Fully Supporting (miles, % of streams) Streams Support Threatened (miles, % of streams) Permits Streams Partially Supporting (miles, % of streams) Air Emission Permits - PSD Streams Non-Supporting (miles, % of streams) Air Emission Permits - Toxic Waters Fully Supporting (acres, % of water area) CAMA Minor Permits Waters Support Threatened (acres, % of water CAMA General Permits area) CAMA Major Permits Water Partially Supporting (acres, % of water area) CAMA Exemptions Waters Non Supporting (acres, % of water area) CWA Sect. 404/10 Permits Landfill Permits - Municipal Landfill Permits - Industrial Non-Discharge Permits NPDES Permits - Industrial NPDES Permits - Other NPDES Permits - POTW Stormwater Discharge Permits Sedimentation Control Plans Septic Tank Permits Cumulative Impacts Management- Page 56 GIS DATABASES IN POPULATION/DEVELOPMENT/RESOURCES INFORMATION SYSTEM Ambient Water Quality Monitoring Sites Natural Heritage Element Occurrence Sites Anadromous Fish Spawning Areas Natural Areas Artificial Marine Reefs Outstanding Resource Waters Bottom Sediment Sampling Sites Peat Resources Business Locations by SIC Code Proposed Critical Habitat Areas CAMA Major Permits SCS Hydrologic Unit Boundaries Census Blocks Shipwreck Locations Census Block Groups Soil Associations - General Closed Shellfish Areas Soil Series - Detailed Coastal Marinas Solid Waste Facilities Coastal Reserves Spiny Mussel Locations County Boundaries with Shorelines State Owned Complexes Federally Owned Lands State Parks Fisheries Nursery Areas Stream Gauging Stations Geodetic Control - NAD83 Submerged Rooted Vascular Plants (SAV) Geology - general bedrock, faults, dikes, and sills Superfund Sites Ground Water RechargelDischarge Areas Surface Water Intakes Hard Bottom/Live Bottom Trawl and Dive Locations Transportation - primary roads Hazardous Waste Facilities Transportation - detailed Historic Sites and Districts Transportation - general Hurricane Storm Surge Inundation Areas USGS 1:24,000 Scale Neatlines Hydrography - detailed USGS 1:100,000 Scale Neatlines Hydrography - general Water Supply Watersheds land Use/Land Cover from TM Imagery - 1918 Wetland Restoration Sites Military Airspace Wetland Types Municipal Boundaries Wetland Functional Significance National Wetlands Inventory Wildlife Resources Commission Gamelands NPDES Permit Sites CUMUlative Impacts Management- Page 57 NOAA COASTAL SERVICES CTR LIBRARY I 3 6668 14111698 0 1 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I