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











                                The Continued Assessment and Management
                            of Cumulative Impacts on Kenai River Fish Habitat



                                                        By
                                                 Glenn A. Seaman


                                             Technical RWrt No. 95-6







                                                                        4.,
















                                       Alaska Department of Fish and Game
                                         Habitat and Restoration Wivision
                                                    August 1995

                                                              O-VMM-O@'N'N-
                                                            A rdM1wNZ2
                                                             4
     SH
     157.8
     .R66                                                     IWW
     no.95-6











                        The Continued Assessment and Management
                     of Cumulative Impacts on Kenai River Fish Habitat



                                                By
                                         Glenn A. Seaman


                                     Technical Report No. 95-6







                                          DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE NOAA
                                    COASTAL SERVICES CENTER
                                    2234 SOUTH HOBSON AVENUE
                                    CHARLESTON, SC 29405-2413




                                       PrOpGrtY Of CSC Libraz7



                                          Janet Kowalski
                                             Director
                                   Habitat and Restoration Division
                                Alaska Department of Fish and Game
                                          P.O. Box 25526
                                     Juneau, Alaska 99802-5526

                                           August 1995










                                             TABLE OF CONTENTS



           Acknowledgements       .........................................                             ii

           Chapter 1: Introduction     ......................................                           I

           Chapter 2: Agency Activities and Authorities
              A. Background       .........................................                             3
              B. Purpose    ............................................                                4
              C. Process    ............................................                                4
              D. Results    ............................................                                5
              E. Discussion/Recommendations        ...............................                      7


           Chapter 3: Application of GIS/Database System
              A. Background       ........................................                             11
              B. Purpose    ...........................................                                11
              C. Process    ...........................................                                12
              D. Results    ...........................................                                12
              E. Discussion/Recommendations        ..............................                      17

           Chapter 4: Conclusion and Recommendations         ........................                  24

           Literature Cited    ..........................................                              26

           Appendices
              A:  Summary of Agency Habitat-Related Authorities and Activities in the Kenai River
                  Watershed, Alaska
              B:  Distribution List for Summary of Agency Authorities and Activities
              C:  Information on Planning and Public Involvement Process for the Florida Keys
                  National Marine Sanctuary
              D:  Executive Summary from Liepitz (1994), "An Assessment of the Cumulative Impacts
                  of Development and Human Uses on Fish Habitat in the Kenai River"
              E:  List of Tables and Figures from Liepitz (1994)
              F:  May 5 Meeting Agenda on "Continued Use of ADF&G and KPB GIS/Database
                  Systems in the Continued Assessment of Cumulative Impacts" and List of Meeting
                  Participants
              G:  Proposal/Work Plan Summary for National Marine Fisheries Service Grant
              H:  "Upper Cook Inlet Fisheries and - Habitat Plan," outline of Governor Knowles
                  presentation at the April 1995 Anchorage Chamber of Commerce meeting









                                              ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS



                This study was financed through the Alaska Coastal Management Program under a grant
                provided by Office of Ocean and Coastal Resource Management, National Oceanic and
                Atmospheric Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce. Specific federal funding for
                this project was provided under the Section 309 (Enhancement Grant Program) of the federal
                Coastal Zone Management Act.

                Several people played a key role in the completion of this project. Special thanks are
                extended to Alaska Department of Fish and Game (ADF&G) staff Frank Wallis (Analyst
                Programmer) and Gary Liepitz (Habitat Biologist) for their work in establishing the Kenai
                River GIS/database system, identification of system maintenance needs, assistance in setting
                the agenda for and running the May 1995 (meeting of potential database users), and their
                review of the draft. products. Other ADF&G staff included Al Carson, who assisted in the
                compilation of information for the summary agency authorities and activities, and Ann
                Anderson, who assisted in the typing, formatting, and editing the summary table. I would
                also like to thank Lance Trasky and Betsy Parry for critical review the draft report.

                This project was completed in cooperation with the Kenai Peninsula Borough (KPB). I
                would like to thank Jim Wadell (GIS Supervisor) and Dick Troeger (former Planning
                Director) for their assistance in identifying system maintenance needs, assistance in the May
                1995 meeting, and their review and comments of draft products. I would also like to thank
                Lisa Parker (current Planning Director) for her review of draft report.

                Lastly, I would like to thank all participants in the May 1995 meeting of potential users of
                the Kenai River GIS/database system. This includes representatives from several state and
                federal agencies and the KPB.




               CHAPTER1
                Introduction           @L









                                   'CHAI'TER 1: INTRODUCTION


          The Kenai River drainage supports the largest recreational fishery in Alaska and is the
          major contributor to the Cook Inlet commercial sockeye salmon fishery. In 1992, for
          example, the Kenai River recreational and commercial fisheries contributed over $70
          million to Alaska's economy.        The nearshore waters of the Kenai River mainstem.
          provides critical rearing habitat for over 80 percent of the Kenai River chinook salmon
          population. Much of these nearshore waters and associated shoreland habitats have been
          significantly altered by commercial, residentiat, and recreation uses and activities. Since
          the late 1970's, the public and state and federal management agencies have been
          concerned with the cumulative adverse effects of past and future uses and activities on
          fish habitat and ability of the Kenai River to produce salmon.

          The State of Alaska initiated a study in July 1992 under the Section 309 Program as a
          Project of Special Merit to assess and control these impacts. During the first two years
          of this Section 309 project (July 92 to June 94), the Alaska Department of Fish and Game
          (ADF&G) and Kenai Peninsula Borough (KPB):               1) developed and implemented a
          cumulative impact assessment methodology to evaluate the cumulative impacts of
          development and other uses on fish habitat (Liepitz 1994), 2) produced a summary of
          potential non-regulatory mechanisms to control these impacts (Fink, Rozen, and Seaman
          1993), and 3) developed an analysis of the socioeconomic value of Kenai River salmon
          fisheries to the local economy (Tremaine 1994). The KPB, also initiated efforts to revise
          or develop new enforceable policies for the KPB Coastal Management Program to more
          effectively control cumulative impacts (Isaacs, Moore, and Wainwright 1994). Efforts to
          develop policies were put on hold, awaiting the outcome of a KPB initiative to establish
          zoning or other local land use controls for policy implementation on private lands.

          The Kenai River cumulative impact project has completed its third and final year of study
          under the Section 309 Enhancement Grant ProgrAm of the federal Coastal Zone
          Management Act. Two tasks were identified to bring this study to conclusion under
          Section 309 funding. The first task was to conduct a hydrological evaluation of the
          effects of select structures, both upstream and downstream, on fish habitat.             This
          evaluation was intended to confirm or revise the habitat evaluation models used in the
          initial cumulative impact assessment represented in Liepitz 1994' and further evaluate the
          hydrological effects of instrearn structures.   The results of this effort are reported in
          Dorava (in press).      The second task-the subject of this report-was to develop
          recommendations for an integrated approach to continue to assess and manage the
          cumulative impacts of development and other uses on fish habitat. This analysis is
          described in this report as follows:

             Agency Authorities and Activities -- Chapter 2 Numerous federal, state, and local land
              managers and regulators are involved in the assessment and management of uses and



              ' Hereafter, the phrase "initial cumulative impact assessment" is used to mean the impact assessment
          approach and results as presented in Liepitz 1994, "An Assessment of the Cumulative Impacts of Development
          and Human Uses on Fish Habitat in the Kenai River."








                   activities on the Kenai River that may affect Kenai River fish habitat.           A clear
                   understanding of agency authorities and activities is an essential prerequisite to the
                   formulation of recommendations for a program to continue to assess and manage
                   cumulative impacts. This chapter briefly describes the process and format for identifying
                   agency authorities and activities and describes an evaluation of this approach. An initial
                   summary of agency authorities and activities is included in the appendix.

                0  Application of GISIDatabase System -- Chapter 3 A Geographical Information System
                   (GIS)/database system-a type of information management system'-was developed as a
                   tool to manage and evaluate information under this study, and is a critical component of
                   Kenai River cumulative impact assessment methodology. While the initial      urpose of the
                   GIS/database system was to generate the 1994 cumulative impact assessmentreport, the
                   intent was to develop a dynamic system that would be updated, responsive to user needs,
                   and continue to assist in the ongoing assessment and management of cumulative impacts.
                   This maintainable component of ADF&G's information management system, if
                   implemented, will help ensure the continued assessment, management, and evaluation of
                   cumulative impacts. The process and results of this evaluation are described in this
                   chapter.

                ï¿½  Conclusion and Recommendations -- Chapter 4 This chapter provides a conclusion and
                   summary of recommendations for the development of an integrated program. for the
                   continued assessment and management of cumulative impacts.

                ï¿½  Literature Cited The section includes references for the literature cited in this report.

                ï¿½  Appendices A number of appendices are included as reference materials.




















                    A "GIS/database system* is a type of computer "information management system." These terms are used
               interchangeably in this document.


                                                             2




                                                          CHAPTER 2
                                                 Agency Activities and Authorities









                              CHAPTER 2: IDENTIFICATION OF AGENCY
                                      AUTHORITIES AND ACTIVITIES


              A. BACKGROUND

              Agency and public interest in the management of Kenai River fish habitat and the many
              uses of the river is very high.        Numerous federal, state, and local agencies have
              regulatory and management authority, or otherwise participate in the review of
              development and other activities in or affecting the Kenai River fish habitat. Many non-
              governmental organizations, such as sport fishing, property owner, guiding, and
              commercial fishing organizations, have their own habitat-related programs and/or are
              active participants in other governmental regulatory or management programs. The large
0             number of players, programs, and activities on can be overwhelming and form an
0             institutional barriers in the assessment, management, and control of cumulative impacts.
0             The potential for barriers and confusion was realized in the KPB's efforts in early 1994
0             to develop enforceable policies for the borough's coastal management plan to more
0             effectively manage and control the cumulative impacts of development and other uses on
0             fish habitat'. The Kenai River Policy Working Group (KRPWG)-composed of agencies,
0             interest groups, and citizens at large-was established to guide this effort. Some of the
0             more prevalent concerns regarding other agency authorities and activities and how these
              concerns created an impediment to policy development efforts are summarized below.

                  Agency Activities on Public Lands Most of the KRPWG participants did not have a clear
                  understanding of all activities of state, federal, and local governments and regulators on
                  the Kenai River. Several KRPWG participants advocated that efforts to develop policies
                  should be halted until we had a clear understanding of agency activities. Others indicated
                  that the habitat impacts on public lands should be addressed before the activities on
                  private lands should be regulated.

              0   Agency Regulatory and Management Authorities for Activities on Public Lands Many
                  KRPWG participants did not have clear understanding of state, federal, and local agencies
                  role in regulating uses and activities in and adjacent to the Kenai River.           Others
                  questioned the agencies' ability to implement coastal management policies on public lands
                  and waters, and were reluctant to develop policies without an assurance that the policy
                  could be implemented. The regulatory and management structure was too complex to
                  explain in the meeting. A written summar    .y was needed.

              0   Authorities for Control of Activities on Private Lands? Over 40 percent of the Kenai
                  River mainstern is in private ownership. Most participants understood that agencies had
                  very little regulatory authority over activities on private lands. Federal agencies have
                  adequate control over federal lands and may control activities on private lands that
                  involve the dredge and fill of wetlands. State regulatory authority is generally limited to
                  state lands and to both private and public activities below the ordinary high water mark.


                  3 See Isaacs, Moore, and Wainwright (1994) for a description of the process used, membership of the
              policy working group, and a summary of other aspects of this effort.

                                                              3








                 The KPB currently regulates subdivision approvals and limited activities nNuiring a
                 borough floodplain permit. The KPB, City of Soldotna, and City of Kenai have planning
                 and zoning authority, but only the City of Soldotna has adopted ordinances to - rotect the
                                                                                                  .P
                 river. Several participants felt that efforts to develop enforceable policies should cease
                 until a more comprehensive implementation authority is developed by the KP'B.

                 Kenai River Working Groups Authority, Mission, and Potential Duplication Many
                 participants raised concerns about role of the KRPWG group, and how this group relates
                 to other federal, state, or borough working groups addressing Kenai River issues. Others
                 questioned whether the various agency work groups complemented or duplicated the
                 efforts of other groups. KRPWG participants inability to describe the function of all
                 groups impeded progress of the group.

                 Institutional Coordination      Several  participants expressed the desire for better
                 coordination among federal, state, and local groups. The issue of agency coordination
                 was not in the scope of this project. However, several participants indicated a difficulty
                 in addressing this issue without a clear understanding of agency activities.

             The KRPWG met six times, with the final meeting in June 1994. While the KRPWG did
             not complete the development of enforceable policies, all participants expressed an interest
                                                                    4
             in continuing to meet to address this important issue.    Furthermore, all participants agreed
             that a clearer understanding of agency authorities and activities, as well as non-governmental
             organizations, was needed. ADF&G prepared a summary of agency regulatory and
             management authorities and activities related to the protection of fish habitat to address this
             need. Due to lack of time, we did not attempt to summarize the activities of non-
             governmental groups because the task.

             B. PURPOSE


             The overall purpose of this effort is to: (1) summarize federal, state, and KPB management
             and regulatory authorities with respect to Kenai River fish habitat; and (2) summarize agency
             activities related to protection, management, and restoration of fish habitat in the Kenai River
             drainage.   A secondary purpose was to facilitate agency and public participation in
             government regulatory and management programs and activities. Finally, we also intended
             to evaluate the effectiveness of this approach in summarizing agency authorities and.
             activities, identify possible improvements to the table or alternative approaches, and assess
             public and agency interest in preparation of future updates.

             C. PROCESS


             The process used to develop the summary is outlined below.

             1. Develop FormatlRequest Infonnation: ADF&G project staff developed a format and


                 4 Efforts to develop enforceable policies were put on hold in FY95, with effort shifting to a KPB
             Assembly-led effort to develop an overlay district or zoning to regulate activities on private lands.

                                                            4








                prepared sample entries describing ADF&G/Habitat and Restoration Division authorities
                and activities. Agency staff were then requested to comment on the format and, provide
                the requested information (September 1994). WordPerfect 5.1 tables were used to
                document information.

 N           2. Complete Draft Table and Distribute to Agencies for Review: ADF&G project staff
                completed and distributed a draft summary for agency review (December 1994).
                Reviewers were asked to verify accuracy and completeness.

 N           3. Summary Completed and Distributed to Interested Parties: The first summary was
                completed and distributed in February 1995. Copies were sent to over 70 individuals
                from agencies and districts involved in Kenai River issues (see Appendix B for
                distribution). This includes all members of the KRPWG, the "contacts" in the summary
                (see Appendix A), and the participants in the Environmental Protection Agency's (EPA's)
                "Kenai River Watershed Interagency Coordination Group" (KRWICG).

             4. Request Comments on Summary: Agencies were requested to update and comment on the
                table in May 1995. Project staff informally surveyed agencies and public recipients of
                the summary in person or by phone on the extent of use, utility of the table, what
                improvements could be made,.and whether it should be updated. Project staff also sought
                agency input at the May 1995 meeting of the KRWICG sponsored by EPA.

             5. Complete Final Summary: A final summary was prepared.

             D. RESULTS

 ol          The final version of the summary table (July 27) for purposes of this report is included in
             Appendix A. A discussion of the proc   ess used to develop the summary, table contents, and
             the user survey is provided below.

 01
             Process


 01          The table was an effective means to summarize agency authorities and activities. Agencies
             were cooperative and timely in providing assistance. However, the large quantity of
             information received and other tasks to complete this table required much more time than
             anticipated. Our goal was have the summary table be accurate and complete at the time of
             release. The level of agency interest in addressing Kenai River fish habitat issues is very
             high, which translates into a great deal of activity and change in agency activities.
             Schedules, contacts, project direction, or other aspects of ongoing projects changed
             frequently. New agency activities were added weekly. Activity changes and addition of
             many new projects made it very difficult to prepare an accurate, up-to-date summary. In
             addition, because of the dynamic nature of agency actions, the table was outdated soon after
             release. Any future efforts to update this summary, or some derivative thereof, on a routine
             basis should take these factors into account. Routine updates will require a significant
             commitment of staff time.





                                                          5








               Summaa Table Contents

               A description of the contents of Appendix A is provided below.

               Column 1: Agency and Division -- identifies the agency and division of that agency which
                            has lead for the authority and activity descriptions that follow

               Column 2: Authority or Activity Description -- brief description of authority or activity
                            (limited to ongoing or imminent/funded projects)

                            Funding Source -- statement of primary funding source, not including the
                            funding for in-kind services provided by cooperators or participaEng agencies

                            Cooperators -- listing of major cooperating entities, others may participate but
                            these are the main participants

                            Contacts -- includes names and phone numbers of project leaders to provide a
                            point of contact for additional information
               Column 3:    MUestones/Products/Dates -- includes          a general description of project                      lo
                            milestones, products that will result from the activity and the: anticipated
                            completion date

               Column 4: Public/Agency Participation -- general description of opportunities for agency
                            and public involvement

               User Surygy

               The department surveyed over 20 individuals from the public and agencies to evaluate the
               utility of the summary table. We also polled the participants at a May 1995 meeting of the
               KRWICG. Agency and public response to this informal survey is summarizeAl below.

               1. Did you use the summary? Ir so, how? Ir not, why?

                  Most state, federal, and local indicated they used the summary. The summary table was
                  used to identify state-funded agency activities and other agency grant projects,
                  inform/educate new agency staff or policy makers on Kenai River projects amd activities,
                  and to assist in responding to questions from the public of what other agencies were doing
                  and who to contact. The KPB provided copies of the summary to all members of the
                  KPB Planning Commission and Assembly. One planning commissioner indicated he used
                  the table extensively while another had not, but noted its usefulness in the future. The
                  few agency staff who did not use the summary didn't use it because of the lack of time,
                  familiarity with the document, or because they did not have the need to use the table
                  because their responsibilities were narrow in focus. In all cases, agencies supported the
                  concept -and felt it was a worthwhile effort. While no one had a complete grasp of all
                  agency activities, the table has greater utility for agency staff with limited responsibilities
                  on the river. ADF&G Habitat and Restoration Division Kenai River permitting staff and

                                                               6








                  Alaska Department of Natural Resources (DNR), Department of Parks and                Outdoor
                  Recreation (DPOR) Kenai River Special Management Area had a better knowledge of the
                  range of agency activities without the table.

                  Approximately two thirds of the interviewed public, including representatives of non-
                  governmental organizations, had used the summary. The summary was used to identify
                  and find phone numbers for agency contacts and to generally gain a better understanding
                  of agency authorities and activities. Public users seemed to be more overwhelmed by the
                  length of the summary and extent of activities. Since they did not have any specific
                  authority or had limited time to be involved in the activities, the table included more
                  information than they needed. Those not using the table had either lost it, did not have
                  the time or interest to monitor or be involved in activities, and/or they were not familiar
                  with its contents and potential utility. All favored the concept behind the summary and
                  thought it was a worthwhile effort.

               2. Did you find the summary to be an effective and useful reference in describi 9
                  agency authorities and activities? What changes, if any, should be made to the
                  table?


                  Both agencies and public users felt that the summary was an effective and useful
                  reference source. A few agency contacts noted that it included the appropriate level of
                  detail and information for the agencies, which either have specific authorities on the river
                  or are involved in the Kenai River as part of their job. These agency contacts felt it
                  contained too much detail for public users. However, the public users interviewed did
                  not recommend substantive changes. Most users acknowledged the table as a reference
                  document, and felt it addressed their basic information needs. Any modifications to the
                  format should consider the target audience and purpose; however, specialized needs might
                  be met through preparation of customized summaries to meet those needs.

               3. Do you think the table should be updated, and if so, how often?

                  All individuals surveyed, including those which had not used the table, felt the summary
                  table should be periodically updated. No one was aware of other vehicles to keep track
                  of agency activities on the river. Recommendations for the update interval ranged from
                  quarterly to annually, with most individuals indicating it should be updated semi-annually.

               E. DISCUSSION/RECOND4ENDATIONS

               A clear understanding of agency authorities and activities is an essential prerequisite to
               development of an integrated program in the continuing assessment and management of
               cumulative impacts. Efforts of the KPB and the KRPWG to develop enforceable policies to
               protect the Kenai River illustrated how institutional barriers can frustrate efforts to manage
               and control cumulative impacts. This effort to summarize agency authorities and activities
               was undertaken in an attempt to provide some clarity. Concerns raised by public and agency
               participants of KRPWG was previously described in the preceding "Background" section of
               this chapter. The following discussion and recommendations are provided in the context of
               those concerns.


                                                              7








               Agency Authorities: The summary helped many users gain a better understanding of agency
               regulatory and management authorities over activities in or adjacent to the Kenai River. The
               summary indicates that state and federal agencies have sufficiently broad and coml           '3rehensive
               authority to regulate and control activities on state and federal lands and waters that may
               affect Kenai River fish habitat. While state and federal agencies may not fully exercise their
               regulatory or management authorities, they could be invoked if there is enough public and
               agency interest and the funds to support it. A few KRPWG participants questioned whether
               enforceable polices of the KPB Coastal Management Plan would be implemented on public
               lands. We believe that state and federal agencies have the ability to implement the
               enforceable policies of a coastal plan on public lands and waters through existing
               management and regulatory authorities. The KPB has sufficient planning znd zoning
               authority to regulate upland land use activities, but to date has not exercised that authority.

               Agency Activities: The concern was raised at the KRPWG meetings that stateand federal
               agencies need to "clean-up their act" and address habitat impacts on public lands, before the
               impacts on private lands should be addressed. This concerned was raised at numerous
               meetings, and acted as an impediment to policy discussions. Most recipients of the summary
               indicated the table helped clarify that agencies are undertaking substantial efforts beyond the
               issuance of permits to manage or control cumulative impacts on public lands.' After
               reviewing the table, and learning more of these efforts through other means, most individuals
               surveyed were surprised by the number of activities and felt agencies were doing a good job
               with the means and resources available. A few others felt the agencies should be doing a
                         6
               lot more.    In any event, the clarification of agency activities provided in this table should
               facilitate efforts in policy development.

               Control of Activities on Private Lands: Efforts are underway by the KPB to develop an
               overlay district or zoning of activities on private lands (see Appendix A, KPB 0, page 30).
               Local review of activities on private lands, if developed and implemented by the borough,
               would play a critical role in a comprehensive approach to manage and control cumulative
               impacts. The outcome of this effort is in the hands of the borough.

               Potential Overlap or Duplication of Effort: It was a challenging effort to understand and
               clearly document the authorities and activities of all agencies working for Kena-i River fish
               habitat conservation and how they might interrelate. Based on our analysis, there is very
               little duplication of agency effort on the Kenai River. As previously describiA, the EPA
               organized the KRWICG with the intent of providing a forum for agencies to discuss and
               coordinate agency efforts on the Kenai River. The information exchange at this meeting may
               have helped to avoid agency duplication and enhance coordination.



                  5 Readers should note that the summary table does not identify all individual projects, but summarized the
               programs. For example, using EVOS settlement funds (see Appendix A, ADF&G/H&R #6, page 3), ADF&G
               has a program to purchase critical fish habitat and fund restoration projects. The summary describes this effort,
               but does not list the actual land purchase or demonstration projects.

                    This has lead to a state-federal summit meeting scheduled for November 1, 1995 (see Appendix A, FWS
                4, page 21).


                                                                  8









                Agency Coordination: There is general agreement among agencies, their staff, and the
                public that closer coordination is needed. However, there is little agreement on what form
                the additional coordination might take. Opinions range from development of a Kenai River
                interagency permit center to a recommendation that state and federal agencies relinquish their
                authority to a Kenai River "super agency" would have exclusive responsibility for the
                regulation and management of all Kenai River activities. The purpose of this study and
                report was not to reach consensus on this issue or even present an ADF&G position on this
                question. Instead, the purpose of this study provide is provide a better understanding of
                current government authorities and activities to provide a foundation for subsequent
                discussions on the issue of improved government management and regulatory actions on the
                Kenai River.


                Several initiatives have been completed or are underway to improve agency permitting and
                coordination. To facilitate more timely approval of projects, state agencies developed several
                project descriptions with standard conditions to address Alaska Coastal Management Program
                (ACMP) consistency requirements    .7  These "pre-ACMP approvals" have been established
                for certain bank restoration and protection projects, ladders and steps, floating docks,
                cantilevered walkways and platforms, and maintenance dredging. The state and KPB have
                also taken action to address these concerns through the establishment of a "Kenai River
                Center" (see Appendix A, KPB #4, page 31 and Appendix G, pages 4 and 5). The
                establishment of this public information and coordinated permit center is one of the avenues
                being discussed to facilitate coordination between the primary regulatory agencies on river.

                To facilitate coordination and public involvement, a few KRPWG participants suggested that
                some form of Kenai River committee be established to provide some oversight to government
                agencies. Most of these KRPWG participants suggested a composition similar to the
                KRPWG (i.e., state, federal, and local government agencies with review, regulatory, or
                management authority; representatives from interest groups; and representatives from the
                public at large). The closest existing organization to this at present is the Kenai River
                Special Management Area (KRSMA) Advisory Board (see Appendix A, DNR/DPOR, page
                11). This board has no directive authority over DNR or other agencies, and was established
                to advise to the DNR Commissioner on KRSMA plans and issues. Governor Knowles has
                proposed to "Revitalize [the] Kenai River Advisory Committee" to, in part, improve
                coordination among state resource agencies (see Appendix H).











                   7 Under the ACMP, these projects are referred to a *B List" or "general concurrence" projects. While
                the ACMP requirements for qualifying projects have been met, applicants still required to obtain permits from
                appropriate state and federal agencies.

                                                              9








           The management structure, public-state-federal-local government-public process, and overall
           experiences of the Florida Keys National Marine Sanctuary (FKNMS) might be considered
           in discussions of coordination beyond the establishment of a Kenai River Center (see
           Appendix Q. The FKNMS was established under federal statute to address many complex,
           multifaceted, and controversial water quality, fish and wildlife habitat, and other resource
           issues. A detailed state-federal-local-public coordination process was establishe@[ through
           federal legislation to provide recommendations to state and federal agencies and establish a
           management plan. The process involves, in part, the establishment of- (1) an "Interagency
           Core Group," composed of federal, state, and local agencies with direct jurisdictional
           responsibility in the sanctuary was formed to direct and oversee the management plan
           process; (2) a "Strategy Identification Work Group," composed of local scientists and
           management experts, to generate initial strategies and implementation requirements; and (3)
           a "Sanctuary Advisory Council," composed public representatives, to ensure public input into
           the plan and advise and assist in implementation. Information of the FKNMS coordination
           and plan development processes is included in Appendix C. An independent, third-party
           evaluation of the operation and function of the "Sanctuary Advisory Council" is also included
           for reference. While the approach of the FKNMS may be too elaborate and costly for the
           Kenai River, the state may be able to learn from their experiences.

           Summary Update/Maintenance: All individuals surveyed strongly supported the concept
           and purpose behind the summary table and felt it should continued to be updated. This
           summary was intended to be a reference document, addressing most of the agencies' and
           public's information needs. Most users suggested that the summary be updated and
           maintained in a similar form as an overall reference. Specialized needs could be met through
           preparation of customized summaries.
























                                                        10                                                            0





                                                                                               CHAPTER 3
                                                                                     Application of GIS/Database System








                 CHAPTER 3: APPLICATION OF GIS/DATABASE SYSTEMS


            A.BACKGROUND


            The methodology to assess the cumulative impacts of development and other uses on
            Kenai River fish habitat is described in detail in Liepitz (1994). The executive summary
            from that report is included in Appendix D. An ad hoc interagency group of fisheries
            scientists assisted in developing the methodology. Funding constraints forced the group
            to chose between (a) a broad-based/general cumulative impact assessment approach that
            would address the entire watershed and (b) a strategic/detail assessment approach that
            focuses on the core problem within a smaller geographic area. The group agreed that the
            core problem was the cumulative loss or degradation of critical chinook salmon rearing
            habitat on the mainstem of the Kenai River, and selected this as the focus of the
            cumulative impact assessment. Agencies felt that the assessment needed to be sufficiently
            detailed and comprehensive so as to: (1) clearly define the core problem and the causes
            and effects; (2) be persuasive to the public, agencies, and policy makers that the problem
            is significant and must be addressed; and (3) develop a tool that could be used in
            subsequent implementation and monitoring of cumulative impacts. The interagency group
            felt that a general assessment of the entire watershed or ecosystem would not accomplish
            this. The interagency group opted for the strategic/detailed approach.

            The study area included all.67 linear miles of the Kenai River mainstem and the adjacent
            shorelands within approximately one-half mile of the river. It did not include the river's
            37 major tributaries or the Trail Lake System. The impact assessment methodology
            incorporated a variety of assessment techniques including aerial photograph analysis, a
            field inventory and classification of habitat types and structures, and the development and
            use of GIS/database system. In cooperation with the KPB, a Kenai River GIS/database
            system was created for data management and analysis.            This system is a central
            component of the impact assessment methodology, -,and enabled ADF&G to prepare
            extensive geographic and data analyses related to property ownership; habitat, vegetation,
            substrate, and cover types; habitat alterations from development and other uses; and
            habitat/impact modeling (e.g., see list of tables and figures from Liepitz 1994 in
            Appendix E).     The GIS/database system was developed both to complete the initial
            cumulative impact assessment (as presented in Liepitz 1994), to function as a tool that
            could be used in evaluating the effects of projects, and to assist in the future assessment
            of cumulative impacts. While there was no funding commitment beyond the initial
            cumulative impact assessment, ADF&G developed a system that could be maintained and
            updated.   Further evaluation indicated that additions to the system design would be
            necessary to make a fully functioning system to assess and manage cumulative impacts in
            the future.


            B. PURPOSE


            The overall purpose of this task is to explore the potential role of the Kenai River
            assessment approach and the corresponding GIS/database system in the long-term
            management of cumulative impacts. The goal is to recommend and outline the role to


                                                         11








                this system to establish the needs and framework for implementation.

                C. PROCESS


                The process had four primary components:

                1. Conduct Preliminary Evaluation: The first step was to review the assessment approach
                   and GIS/database system from the perspective of system maintenance. It was anticipated
                   that the this information management system would assist in future analysis and function
                   as implementation tool for regulatory and management agencies. Project staff consulted
                   with KPB staff, ADF&G permitting staff, and DNR/DPOR Kenai River Special
                   Management Area staff to help clarify the issues, problems, and information management
                   needs.

                2. Make Initial System Design Changes and Add DatalGeographic Information Based on the
                   initial evaluation and discussions with agencies in 1 above, several information
                   management needs and resulting changes to system design were identified. These system
                   design changes were implemented in preparation for the interagency meeting with
                   potential database users described in 3 below.

                3. Meet With Potential Database UserslContributors and Identify General Approach The
                   department and KPB scheduled a meeting with all potential users of the database to assist
                   in defining the applicability of the GIS/database system in the continued assessment of
                   impacts and management of the river.

                4. Detail the Approach and Estimate Costs Based on input from the May 5 interagency
                   meeting, the ADF&G and the KPB outlined the steps to design and maintain a
                   GIS/database system. However, funding is not currently available to fully -implement the
                   recommendations. This analysis represents a documentation of needs that could be used
                   to secure funding and cooperation of other agencies to implement the recommendations.

                D. RESULTS


                This section outlines system development advisories (i.e., considerations that should be taken
                into account in developing a maintainable information management system) and the results
                of the preliminary system analysis, identification of initial system changes, and the meeting
                with potential database users and contributors.

                System Development Advisories

                ADF&G and KPB systems analysts provided several advisories or sideboards that should be
                considered in the design and development of a maintainable GIS/database system:

                1. Keep the System Small and Simple: GIS/ditabase systems should be kept small, simple,
                   and manageable. Complex systems require additional staff and are difficult to maintain,
                   costly to update, and eventually lose their effectiveness. With declining state and federal


                                                             12








                  revenues, it will be difficult to  acquire long-term funding to keep complex systems
                  current.


               2. System Must be Frequently Used:    Information management systems should address only
                  priority information management    needs to ensure the system will be frequently used.
                  System design should be preceded with a clear definition of the problems and needs of
                  users. The design should cater to the existing needs within the specified constraints and
                  aimed at extending user acceptance.

               3. System Does Not Replicate Other Systems: Information management systems should not
                  replicate other local, state, federal agency information management systems. The design
                  of GIS/database systems should be preceded by an evaluation of other agencies'
                  information management systems. Duplication should be avoided and information sharing
                  should be maximized. GIS/database systems should address unique needs that are not met
                  by existing information management systems.

               4. Planfor System Maintenance: The cost and commitment to maintain a system should be
                  taken into consideration and planned for during system development or update. A system
                  that is not periodically updated will fail to provide current information and consequently
                  will not be used. The design of simple systems and establishment of funding and other
                  agency commitments to update the system will provide a platform for continued use and
                  long-term benefits.

               The above criteria for system maintenance will provide for an effective, long-term
               information management system. ADF&G has considered these criteria in the evaluation of
               the use of Kenai River information management system in the continued assessment and
               management of cumulative impacts.

               Preliminga Evaluation

               The Kenai River GIS/database system is maintained on a SUN Workstation in the ADF&G
               Anchorage office. The department reviewed the assessment approach and GIS/database
               system from the perspective of system maintenance, future analysis, and implementation.
               The results of this initial review of the problems and information management needs is
               summarized below.


                    Data Collection and Analysis is Adequate The initial cumulative impact assessment
                    represented a comprehensive database and analysis. From ADF&G's perspective,
                    future collection of this data and periodic analyses should provide an adequate indicator
                    of overall success in controlling cumulative impacts. In addition, the impact analysis
                    and associated modeling would provide a useful tool in project evaluation to determine
                    the impact of one or more projects.

                    Design a System to Allowfor Annual Reviews The system should be designed to allow
                    for annual reviews of changes to number of structures, habitat alterations, and changes
                    in habitat units. Updates should be identified by year.


                                                             13








             ï¿½     Remote Access to the Database The primary users of the GIS/database system are
                   expected to be ADF&G and DPOR. The KPB may. also be a frequent user if they
                   assert zoning and permitting authority through the development of a local. ordinance.
                   It was determined that a single, fixed location in Anchorage for GIS/dambase would
                   not be adequate to meet the needs of permitters in the field or agency staff'not located
                   in Anchorage ADF&G office (e.g., both DPOR and KPB staff). Remote access to the
                   database is needed to make full use of the information management system by agency
                   staff. Notebook personal computers were identified at the appropriate means to
                   provide remote access.

             ï¿½     Photographs Should be Included in the Database During the 1993/1994 Kenai River
                   field surveys, one or more photographs were taken of each land parcel to complement
                   the documentation of existing conditions and evaluation of changes over 6me. It was
                   determined that the incorporation of digitized photographs in the database would be a
                   valuable asset. Ready access to photographs     ' along with other information in the
                   GIS/database would assist in future documentation of changes to parcels, reviews of
                   proposed projects in the office, and the monitoring of permitted projects.

             ï¿½     Minor Refinements to the GIS, Database, and System Design In 1994, The GIS and
                   associated databases were deemed adequate for purposes of initial cumulative impact
                   assessment. Our review of the systems indicated that several minor refinements to
                   geographic and database components are needed to address the primary needs of
                   regulators and land managers. For example, modifications were needed to close
                   polygons for all coverages, add new parcels, and add and verify parcel identifiers.

             ï¿½     Permit Tracking System A permit tracking system should be included as, part of the
                   Kenai River GIS/database system. At the onset, this should include permit tracking
                   for the two principal permitting agencies, ADF&G and DPOR. If the KPB assumes
                   permitting authority, this could be amended in the future to include K]?B permits.
                   More abbreviated information for required federal permits might also be included.


             Initial Systems Design Changes/Add Data and Geog=hic Information

             Efforts during first three quarters on this task were devoted primarily     to making minor
             refinements to the Kenai River GIS/database system, scanning photographs, and transferring
             information to notebook personal computers. This involved the preparation of numerous
             programs for system maintenance, export of geographic and attribute data from the SUN
             workstation to a personal computer, and other needs to make the system fully operational and
             user friendly. This effort was necessary to prepare a framework and recommendations for
             discussion among potential database users and contributors.

             Meetine with Database Users and Contributors

             ADF&G met with potential users, contributors, and participants in maintaining the database
             on May 5, 1995. Representatives from the following agencies participated in the meeting:
             ADF&G, KPB, DNR/DPOR, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS), U.S. Forest

                                                           14








               Service/Chugach National Forest (FS), and the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
               (EPA). The Nature Conservancy (TNQ and Natural Resource Conservation Service (NRCS)
               also participated in the meeting. A copy of the May 5 meeting agenda and list of
               participants are included in Appendix F.

               The purpose of meeting was to: a) educate potential users on the Kenai River GIS/database
               system, b) verify the users/contributors of the database and the form of use/contribution, c)
               understand other agency information management systems, d) understand users data needs,
               and e) develop ideas or recommendations on changes or improvements to ADF&G's and
               KPB's GIS/database systems related to the Kenai River. ADF&G provided a brief overview
               and demonstration of the current system and how it could be used for the continued
               assessment and management of cumulative impacts. This presentation was followed by a
               discussion of user problems or issues, identification data and information management needs,
               expected and required system inputs and outputs, program implementation and feedback, and
               fiscal needs. A summary of the meeting and discussion is provided below.

               Problem Definition The initial cumulative impact assessment addressed the alteration of
               chinook fish rearing habitat from shoreline development and other uses along the mainstem
               of the Kenai River. Meeting participants agreed that this remains the main problem affecting
               chinook salmon production in the Kenai River. However, several participants cautioned
               against the dangers of limiting the geographic coverage of impact assessment to a small
               portion of the Kenai River watershed. Some felt that key tributaries in the Kenai River
               watershed may also be experiencing stresses on fish habitat. A number of participants also
               noted that water quality degradation is a significant localized problem on the Kenai River;
               for example, water quality degradation has been documented below storm drains and the
               sewage outfall with the City of Soldotna.

               Several other concerns were brought up under the topic of "problems" which actually
               represent information "needs." These are listed under the following section.

               Data/Information Management Needs Numerous information management needs were
               identified that could potentially be incorporated into the Kenai River GIS/database system.
               These needs include:


                  Increased Geographic Coverage The system should be expanded to include the Kenai
                  River tributaries and associated wetlands. The type of information in the GIS/database
                  (soils, vegetation, structures, habitat parameters, etc.) should be collected for the entire
                  watershed. Expansion of the information management system should first address the
                  more threatened tributaries. - As appropriate, additional models would need to be
                  developed for other salmonid species (i.e., sockeye, coho, and pink salmon; rainbow
                  trout; Dolly Varden). There was group consensus that this is the top priority for
                  expanding the database.

                  Permit Monitoring System Several agencies expressed the need for a Kenai River permit
                  monitoring system. ADF&G also believes this is important and has recommended it be
                  developed.








              ï¿½   Water Quality Information There is very little water quality information available for the
                  Kenai River system. Localized water quality problems have been identified where storm
                  drains enter the river within the City of Soldotna. It was not felt that water quality
                  information should be added the GIS/database system because so little data was available.

              ï¿½   Better Information on Recreation Use More information is needed on the effects of
                  sockeye salmon bank fishing on chinook rearing habitat. A survey of bank fishing areas
                  and numbers of bank fisherman during the sockeye fishery is currently underway (see
                  Appendix A, ADF&G/SF #12, page 8). The GIS/database currently includes information
                  on bank tramping. Modifications to the database would likely be made after completion
                  of this study.

              ï¿½   Wildlife Use of Riparian Habitats A few participants felt that information on wildlife
                  movement corridors (particularly brown bears, moose, and caribou) should be added to
                  the database. While this information may be useful to some users, it is not directly
                  related to fish habitat and was not prioritized for inclusion in the database.

              ï¿½   Public Access Points, Septic System Location and 2"Ype, Location of Transportation and
                  Utilities  The KPB indicated that this information is included in the borough's
                  GIS/database system. Information could be obtained from the borough.                                    OP

              ï¿½   Fish Spawning and Rearing Areas Several individuals indicated a need for site specific
                  data. Very little site specific data is available on these subjects. Consequently, it was
                  not felt that any modifications were needed.

              ï¿½   Location of Core Timber Harvest and Spruce Beetle Affected Areas, Locations of
                  Endangered Species While this information is needed for some management and
                  regulatory decisions, it was felt that other sources were adequate to obtain this
                  information.


              Most of the above information needs were related to       the desire to develop a drainage-
              wide/more comprehensive cumulative impact assessment and information management
              system. Many other remaining information needs related more to the lack of information,
              rather than access to, or management of, the information. Group discussions also revealed
              that much of the information that is available and/or can be reasonably obtained through
              other sources is not directly related to protection of fish habitat, which is the focus of
              ADF&G's Kenai River GIS/database system. As the entity responsible for mEdntaining the
              system, ADF&G is concerned that the system would get too complex and expensive to
              maintain. With each added data comes an increase in time and expense to maintain the
              system. It also does not appear that this information would be used frequently.

              System Design/Implementation/Feedback There was consensus within the               group that
              ADF&G should continue to house and assume responsibility for maintaining. the system.
              Few changes in system design were recommended.              Most participants felt that the
              information in the system and outputs or analyses provided in Liepitz 1994 provided the
              essential information for the management of fish habitat. The few recommended changes


                                                            16








             were related to the desire to better monitor and evaluate changes in fish habitat and uses -and
             activities over time.

             To update and maintain the system, ADF&G would need to undertake a cooperative effort
             with DPOR, KPB, and other agencies active on the river. The goal is to develop an
             efficient, cost effective approach to collect the needed data and update the system. Several
             agencies at the meeting indicated a willingness to assist in this effort. Some form of
             cooperative agreement and other formal documentation of the approach is needed for
             implementation. It is also likely that this approach would require additional funding.

             Modifications to the existing program design would allow the preparation of annual and
             multiple year reports. To develop an integrated program, participants agreed that the
             problem statement, goals, models, and other analytical tools should be periodically revisited.
             No specific time period was agreed to but state, federal, and local agencies are undertaking
             a number of efforts to increase coordination.

             Fiscal Needs No agencies had ready access to funding to assist in maintaining or otherwise
             revising the Kenai River GIS/database system. A few agencies had grant programs that
             might be used to support system maintenance. Agencies would have to apply on a
             competitive basis for these funds.

             E. DISCUSSION/RECOMMENDATIONS


             Based on the May 5 meeting and subsequent discussions with DPOR and KPB, is was
             concluded that the existing Kenai River database seems to satisfy the major user needs.
             Information on habitat types, structures, and other habitat alterations is sufficiently
             comprehensive to meet the primary regulatory, management, and other user needs. It
             appears that most other information needs are related more to the absence of information
             rather than to problems with information access and management. Other information is
             readily available through other sources, and several studies have been completed and others
             underway to synthesize available information and indicate where it can be obtained (see
             Appendix A, EPA #5, page 28). The benefits of expanding the database does not seem to
             outweigh the disadvantages associated with increased complexity and maintenance costs.
             Those desiring to expand the database were unable to guarantee long-term funding to revise
             the system or support system maintenance.

             Maintenance of the current Kenai River GIS/database system is the top priority. The
             department has not yet secured funding to maintain the current system, and cannot entertain
             expanding the system until the existing system maintenance needs are met. With some
             modifications, the existing GIS/database system can play a very important role in the
             continued assessment and management of cumulative impacts. The department's analysis of
             role of the GIS/database is provided in Table 1. The summary has been divided into three
             sections: (1) System Improvements, which identifies the tasks or system changes desired to
             make a fully operational and maintainable GIS/database system; (2) Routine System
             Maintenance, which describes the recommended steps to update and maintain the system; and
             (3) Priority For Future Expansion, which describes the priority for future expansion once the
             maintenance needs of existing system for the Kenai River mainstem have been met.

                                                            17








              The KPB, DPOR, and ADF&G are working together to establish a "Kenai River Center"
              (see Appendix A, KPB #4, page 31, and Appendix G, pages 4 and 5). As currently
              envisioned, the center would house ADF&G, KPB, and DPOR permitting staff in a central
              office in Soldotna. ADF&G's Kenai River GIS/database system would function as the
              primary information management system for this office. As needed, the KPB GIIS/database
              system would assist in providing information included in that system but not included in the
              ADF&G system. As part of the NMFS grant, ADF&G has acquired funds to purchasing a
              notebook computer for field and office use and for making some of the system improvements
              (e.g., tasks A, B, part of C and D. Additional tasks may be addressed as the center is
              organized and if additional funds are acquired.







































                                                           18






               Table 1: Recommended tasks to update and maintain the Kenai River GIS/database system.
                              TASK                   PROBLEM OR NEED/WORK DESCRIPTION                   - RESPONSIBILITIES/REQUIRED WORK                   COST ESTI:M7A@TE@

                  SYSTEM IMPROVEMENTS

                  A. Permit Tracking System         A simple permit tracking system is needed         1. ADF&G Analyst Programmer - meet with            1. 5 wks/$7.5K
                                                    to monitor activities requiring an ADF&G             permitting staff to finalize needs, write
                                                    Fish Habitat, DNR/DPOR, KPB floodplain               and test program.
                                                    permit, and, if developed and approved by         2. ADF&G Habitat Biologist - assist                2. 3 wks/$1.5K
                                                    KPB, a borough KPB overlayfland use                  programmer, participate in meetings and
                                                    permit.                                              help design system


                  B. GISIDatabase Cleanup           In FY95, several necessary operational            1 .ADF&G Analyst Programmer -                      1. 2 wks/$3.OK
                                                    enhancements to the system design need               programming
                                                    made to provide a fully operational or            2. ADF&G Cartographer - serialize numbers          2. 3 wks/$2.5K
                                                    maintainable system (e.g., changes to get            and changes to parcels
                                                    uniformity in parcel identifiers, add access
                                                    information and information on federal lands
                                                    and campsites, close all polygons, develop
                                                    program to serialize parcel numbers by
                                                    location, and develop a program to change
                                                    parcel boundaries and ownership
                                                    information).

                  C. Complete Photograph            Most photographs compiled as part of the          1. ADF&G Analyst Programmer -                      1. 2 wks/$3.OK
                  Inventory and Access              initial cumulative impact assessment were            programming
                  System                            scanned/digitized in FY95. Programs are           2. ADF&G Cartographer or Technician -              2. 8 wks/$7.0 to
                                                    needed establish photograph inventory                check photographs and data entry                   $1 O.OK
                                                    tracking system by date, photographer, and
                                                    other identifying criteria like storage location
                                                    and subject matter. Additional programming
                                                    is necessary to create instantaneous access
                                                    to photographs in the GISIdatabase system
                                                    using ArcInfo.                                  I









                             TASK                   PROBLEM OR NEEDfWORK DESCRIPTION                      RESPONSIBILITIES/REQUIRED WORK                   COST ESTIMATE

                 D. Develop System to              The system was initially designed to assess         1. ADF&G Analyst Programmer -                     1. 5 wks/$7.5K
                 Monitor Habitat and               impacts for fixed point in time to complete            programming and meetings with
                 Stnicture Changes in Parcels      the initial cumulative impact assessment               GIS/database users to clearly establish
                                                   (i.e., Liepitz 1994). System design changes            needs
                                                   are needed to monitor habitat and structure        2.  ADF&G Habitat Biologist - assist Analyst       2. 1 wk/$1.5K
                                                   changes over time. Programs would be                   Programmer, establish data collection
                                                   developed to automatically track additions,            forms for updating the database
                                                   deletions, and other changes over time and
                                                   produce annual reports. Data entry systems
                                                   will be developed.
                 E. Staff Training                 At present, only the ADF&G Analyst                 1.  ADF&G Analyst Programmer and/or                1. 4 wksf$6.OK
                                                   Programmer and the impact assessment                   Habitat Biologist - staff training and
                                                   project leader are the only staff fully trained        demonstrations (cost estimate for first
                                                   on the use of the Kenai River GIS/database             year, costs should diminish in
                                                   system. Other ADF&G permitting, DPOR                   subsequent years after ADF&G and other
                                                   Park Rangers, KPB planners, and other                  database users are trained)
                                                   active GlSfdatabase users will require
                                                   training. ADF&G is often called upon to
                                                   provide demonstrations and make
                                                   presentations to various user groups and
                                                   agencies. Training requests are likely to
                                                   continue to pose significant demands on
                                                   staff time.





                            TASK           -FPROBLEM OR NEED/WORK DESCRIPTION                          RESPONSIBILITIES/REQUIRED WORK                 COST ESTIMATE

                ROUTINE SYSTEM MAINTENANCE NEEDS

                AA. Update Database From         The survey data in the Kenai River                1 . ADF&G Habitat Biologist - review permit       1. 6 wks/$7.5K
                Initial Cumulative Impact        GIS/database system is current to 1993                files and complete update forms
                Assessment                       (end of field season for preparation of the       2.  DPOR Park Ranger - review permit files        2. no estimate
                                                 initial cumulative impact assessment). The            and complete update forms                        available
                                                 most cost effective means to do this would        3.  ADF&G Clerical or Technician - data           3. 2 wks/$1.5K
                                                 be review ADF&G and DPOR permits and                  entry
                                                 work completed from 1993 to 1995 to
                                                 determine changes in habitat and structures.
                                                 Since not all habitat alterations documented
                                                 in the Kenai River GIS/database system
                                                 require a state permit, some alterations will
                                                 not be detected by this approach. ADF&G
                                                 permitters and DPOR park rangers familiar
                                                 with the river would also attempt to identify
                                                 habitat and structure changes for uses and
                                                 activities which do not require a state
                                                 permit. It was recommended the data be
                                                 updated by early 1996.

                BB. SubsequentlAnnual            Once the GIS/database is updated in AA            1 . ADF&G Habitat Biologist - complete            1. 3 wks/$3.OK
                Updates                          above, a routine system for updates should            required forms to update database
                                                 be implemented. Agencies recommended              2.  DPOR Park Ranger - complete required          2. no estimate
                                                 that perrnitters, park rangers, and other .           forms to update database                         available
                                                 agency or local government staff active on        3.  KPB and Other Agency Staff - complete         3.
                                                 the Kenai River should update forms when              required forms to update database
                                                 permitted projects are completed. Also,           4.  ADF&G Clerical or Technician - data           4. 2 wks/$1.5K
                                                 other habitat and structure changes not               entry
                                                 requiring a permit should be observed and
                                                 documented. A. memorandum of
                                                 agreement, letter of agreement, or other
                                                 less formal agreement among participants in
                                                 this effort should be considered.               I









                            TASK                  PROBLEM OR NEED/WORK DESCRIPTION                    RESPONSIBILITIEVREQUIRED WORK                   COST
                                                                                                                                                              STIMATE

                CC. Comprehensive Review         The efforts described in AA and BB above          11. ADF&G and DPOR Staff and Support       a     1. no cost estimate
                and Field Surveys                will help this review by updating the                comprehensive review would likely be             available
                                                 GIS/database system, but will not be                 completed by ADF&G and DPOR
                                                 comprehensive. Agencies suggest that
                                                 comprehensive review be completed every
                                                 five years. These efforts are not likely to be
                                                 comprehensive (particularly for those uses
                                                 or habitat alterations that do not require a
                                                 state, federal, or local permit). Cost could
                                                 be minimized the through use and
                                                 development of new technologies using
                                                 aerial photographs.
                DD. Respond to GISI              The ADF&G, DPOR, and KPB are the                  1. ADF&G Analyst Programmer and/or               1. 4 wks/$6.OK per
                Database Inquiries               primary users of the database and will               Cartographer - respond to agency,                year
                                                 maintain a copy of the database on a                 legislative, local government, and
                                                 notebook personal computer. Other state              interest group inquiries of the database
                                                 and federal agencies and interest groups
                                                 indicated that they do not currently have a
                                                 need to have GIS/database system but
                                                 would like the opportunity to make periodic
                                                 inquiries. Responding to inquiries requires
                                                 significant ADF&G staff time and would be
                                               I limited to allocated time.











                             TASK                  PROBLEM OR NEEDAVORK DESCRIPTION                   RESPONS191LITIES/REQUIRED WORK                 COST ESTI


                 PRIORITY FUTURE EXPANSION

                 Increase Geographic              A strategic/detailed cumulative impact           1. ADF&G and DPOR Staff and Support -           1  150K to 300K
                 Coverage to Include Kenai        assessment approach to evaluate the                 agency project staff and support for            depending of
                 River Watershed                  cumulative impact of uses on the mainstern          expanding the cumulative impact                 study design,
                                                  of Kenai River. At the May 1995                     assessment to the Kenai River tributaries;      number of
                                                  interagency meetings, the top priority for          field surveys would be complemented             tributaries
                                                  expanding the GIS/database system to                with aerial photography interpretive            included, and
                                                  evaluate fish habitat and document. habitat         techniques to reduce cost                       other factors
                                                  alterations on the tributaries of the Kenai
                                                  River watershed (these were not included in
                                                  the initial cumulative impact assessment). If
                                                  funding is not available to assess the entire
                                                  watershed, priority should be given to those
                                                  drainages with significant private ownership
                                                  or public lands subject to adverse habitat
                                                  alteration from development or other uses.
                                                  Chinook salmon would not be a appropriate
                                                  indicator species in the tributaries of the
                                                  Kenai River, which are used more
                                                  extensively for rearing by other salmonid
                                                  species. HEP models would need to be
                                                  developed for other key or indicator salmon
                                                  species in the Kenai River tributaries.





                                                                                                                      CHAPTER 4
                                                                                                     'Ji     Conclusion and Recommendations









                     CHAPTER 4: CONCLUSION AND RECOMMENDATIONS



           The goal of the second task was to develop recommendations for an integrated approach to
           continue to assess, manage, and control cumulative impacts.                     Williamson (1993)
           recommended an approach to cumulative impacts assessment and management planning
           which includes integration among various interests. This approach includes four phases,
           summarized by Williamson as follows:

              (1) in the scoping phase, define the ecological situation in specific terms of individual
              problem statement and select one strategy for each problem; (2) in the analysis phase,
              investigate and document the problems and their causes in detail using the best available
              data and analytical tools and then set several goals; (3) in the interpretation phase, develop
              and document options, estimate changes using mathematical models, and develop a plan;
              and (4) in the direction phase, implement and incrementally improve the management plan
              and systematically evaluate, improve, and update the problem statements, data, analytical
              tools, and mathematically models.

           The cumulative impact assessment-steps 1 and 2-was addressed in the first two years of the
           project. The results of the assessment are documented in Liepitz (1994). Most aspects of step
           3, the interpretation phase, have been completed (e.g., modeling) or are ongoing (e.g.,
           developing solutions, or policies). This report deals more with step 4-the direction phase-to
           look at implementation and future efforts to evaluate, improve, and update the problem
           statements, data, analytical tools, and models. If we are to be effective in controlling cumulative
           impacts, we must have a good understanding of agency authorities and activities and then
           develop and implement a means for continuing assessment and reevaluation.

           This project focused on (1) developing a clear understanding of federal, state, and local agency
           authorities and activities related to protection, maintenance, and restoration of fish habitat in the
           Kenai River watershed and (2) evaluating the role of the KPB and ADF&G GIS/database
           systems in the continued assessment and management of cumulative impacts. Our concluding
           recommendations regarding these two areas are outlined below.

           Agency Authorities and Activities

           Agency regulatory and management authorities over the Kenai River are fairly static, whereas
           the activities and projects to implement those authorities, due to great deal of interest in the
           Kenai River, changes frequently. . An effort to periodically review, monitor, and summarize
           agency activities, for the benefit of both governmental agencies and the public, should be
           undertaken. We suggest a summary, similar to that provided in Appendix A, be updated and
           distributed at least semi-annually. This summary has been effective in both informing the
           agencies and public of agency activities, how they can be involved, and where they can go for
           additional information. A summary will also help ensure that agency activities complement, not
           duplicate one another.





                                                            24








             A number of public and agency participants in the May 5 meeting on the Kenai River
             GIS/database system suggested that agency coordination and public communication on Kenai
             River issues could be improved. The large number of agency activities on the Kenai River
             supports the need to take a closer look at agency coordination. Additional coordination and
             integration of agency activities could direct limited funds to the best use for the benefit of fish
             habitat and production. Federal and state agencies and the KPB should collectively evaluate
             options regarding interagency coordination. ADF&G and KPB have allocated funds in FY96
             toward the establishment of a "Kenai River Center" to provide information to the public and
             function as single point of contact for acquiring state and borough permits. The establishment
             of this office will likely address many of the coordination needs. However, it must be
             emphasized that establishment of this office and additional coordination efforts, if any, will
             require additional staff and funding beyond existing levels.

             Kenai River GIS/Database System
             ADF&G's Kenai River GIS/database system was established as the centrEd information
             management system for the initial cumulative impact assessment. It was our intent that this be
             a dynamic system that would continue to be updated and respond to user needs, and assist in the
             ongoing assessment, management, and control of cumulative impacts. In cooperation with KPB
             and other potential users, the department conducted a thorough evaluation of Oe system and
             developed recommendations on how we could maintain and update the system. It was agreed
             that the ADF&G's Kenai River GIS/database system should function as the primary information
             management system for the future assessment and management of cumulative impacts from
             development and other uses affecting Kenai River fish habitat. This evaluation has identified
             potential changes to the system design and provided estimates of staff and asso@iated costs to
             collect information and routinely update the system. The production of periodic progress reports
             assessing our progress on control of cumulative impacts would also be helpful to managers and
             the public.

             The recommendations in Chapter 4, Table 1, should be considered a start in defining the
             maintenance needs of the Kenai River GIS/database system. We recommend ADF&G,
             DNR/DPOR, and KPB consider these recommendations in formation of the Kenai River Center
             and subsequent' efforts to secure funding for long-term operation of the center and the
             maintenance of this Kenai River information management system. Agreements should be
             developed among the key agencies to assist in data collection and maintenance of the Kenai
             River GIS/database system.                                                                                     is
                                                                                                                            49
                                                                                                                            40













                                                             25



   I I--    LITERATURE CITED             @L




 I





                                         LITERATURE CITED


         Dorava, J. In Press. Hydraulic characteristics near streamside structures along the Kenai
         River, Alaska. Water-Resources Investigation Report. U.S. Geological Survey, Anchorage,
         Alaska


         Fink, M., C. Rozen, and G.A. Seaman. 1994. Non-regulatory mechanisms for habitat
         protection. Alaska Department of Fish and Game, Anchorage, 27 pp plus appendices

         Isaacs, J., L. Moore, N. Wainwiright. 1994. Kenai River fish habitat cumulative impacts
         project: report to the Policy Working Group and the Kenai Peninsula Borough. Printed by
         Kenai Peninsula Borough, Soldotna, Alaska 28pp plus appendices

         Liepitz, G.S. 1994. An assessment of the cumulative impacts of development and human
         uses fish habitat in the Kenai River. Tech. Rpt. 94-6, Alaska Department of Fish and Game,
         Anchorage, 63pp plus appendices

         Tremaine, R. 1994. A socioeconomic assessment of Kenai River fish production on the
         regional economy. Printed by Kenai Peninsula Borough, Soldotna, Alaska. 24pp plus
         appendices

         Williamson, S.C. 1993. Cumulative impact assessment and management planning: lessons
         learned to date. In Enviromnental Analysis: 77ze AEPA Experience, pages 391-407, CRC
         Press, Inc., Boca Raton, Florida
























04


                                                      26





                                          APPENDICES









                              APPENDIX A




                         SUMMARY OF AGENCY
            FISH HABITAT-RELATED AUTHORITIES AND ACTIVITIES
                  IN THE KENAI RIVER WATERSHED, ALASKA



                               JULY 1995










                  LIST OF ACRONYMS

                  AS         Alaska Statute(s)                                                  HB          House Bill
                  ACMP       Alaska Coastal Management Program                                  HEP         Habitat Evaluation Procedure
                  ADF&G      Alaska Department of Fish and Game                                 HWG         Habitat Working Group
                  Adv. Bd.   Kenai River Special Management Area       Advisory Board           ISTEA       Intermodal Surface Transportation Efficiency Act
                  ANCSA      Alaska Native Claims Settlement Act                                KAP         Kenai Area Plan
                  AS         Alaska Statute(s)                                                  KPB         Kenai Peninsula Borough
                  BLM        Bureau of Land Management                                          KRCAC       Kenai River Citizens Advisory Council
                  CFMD       Commercial Fisheries Management and Development Div.               KRSMA       Kenai River Special Management Area
                  CFR        Code of Federal Regulations                                        KRWG        Kenai River Working Group
                  CIRI       Cook Inlet Region Incorporated                                     KRWICG      Kenai River Watershed Interagency Coordination Group
                  Corps      U.S. Army Corps of Engineers                                       KSWCD       Kenai Soil and Water Conservation District
                  CWA        Clean Water Act                                                    MOU         Memorandum of Understanding
                  CZMA       Coastal Zone Management Act                                        MRCRC       Marine Recreation Citizens Review Committee
                  DCRA       Alaska Department of Community and Regional Affairs                N/A         Not Applicable
                  DEC        Alaska Department of Environmental Conservation                    NBS         National Biological Survey
                  DGC        Division of Governmental Coordination                              NEPA        National Environmental Protection Act
                  DJ/W13     Dingell-Johnson/Wallop-Breaux                                      NMFS        National Marine Fisheries Service
                  DM&W       Division of Mining and Water                                       NOAA        National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration
                  DNR        Alaska Department of Natural Resources                             NPDES       National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System
                  DOF        Division of Forestry                                               NPS         National Park Service
                  DO&G       Division of Oil and Gas                                            NRCS        Natural Resources Conservation Service (formerly the Soil
                  DOI        U.S. Department of the Interior                                                Conservation Service)
                  DOL        Division of Land                                                   NWR         National Wildlife Refuge
                  DOT&PF     Alaska Department of Transportation and Public Facilities          PIL         Public Law
                  DPOR       Division of Parks and Outdoor Recreation                           PUMP        Public Use Management Plan
                  EA         Environmental Assessment                                           R&H         River and Harbors
                  EIS        Environmental Impact Statement                                     RCD         Resource Conservation District
                  EPA        Environmental Protection Agency                                    ROW         Right(s)-of-Way
                  EVOS       Exxon Valdez oil spill                                             SB          Senate Bill
                  FHA        Federal Highway Administration                                     SCS         Soil Conservation Service
                  FMP        Fishery Management Plan or Forest Management Plan                  SF          Sport Fish Division
                  FS         U.S. Forest Service                                                TNC         The Nature Conservancy
                             U S. Fish ana     iiame tiervice                                   USDA        U.S. Department of Agriculture
                  GIS        Geographic Information System                                      UKRPT       Upper Kenai River Planning Team
                  H&R        Habitat and Restoration Division                                   USGS        U.S. Geological Survey
                  HabPro     Kenai River Habitat Protection Program









                                                                                                                                                    . . . .......
                                                                                                                                                                                         AGENCY.,:
              AGENCY.: 011:@:                      ACTIVITY DESCRIPTION/FUNDING                                                                                                PUBLIdi
           ::ORGANIZATION::::                SOURCE/COOPERATORS/CONTACT PERSON
                                                                                                                               PRODUCTS/D                                          ATICIPATION:.
                              ...... .                                                                                                         A                               ::PA

            STA TE GOVERNMENT

            ADF&G                   11) Regulatory   Authority     Title 16 Permitting.                         Permits Issued as Required                                la)  For projects on the
            Ha bitat and                   ADF&G    issues Fish Habitat Permits that may prevent                                                                               ACMP A-list
            Restoration                    free and unobstructed movement of any fish species.                                                                                 (categorically
            Division                       For waters that support anadromous fish, the                                                                                        consistent) or B-list
                                           department must evaluate effects of projects on                                                                                     (general concurrence)
                                           spawning, rearing, and migration habitats. Examples           of                                                                    there is no formal
                                           projects requiring permits include stream bank                                                                                      interagency/ public
                                           protection and stabilization, dock construction,                                                                                    review process; for C-
                                           installation of bridges and culverts, crossing streams,                                                                             list (individual reviews)
                                           and instrearn dredging and debris removal.                                                                                          the 6 AAC 50 process
                                           Monitor and enforce Title 16 permit requirements.                                                                                   applies (permits also
                                                                                                                                                                               public noticed)
                                        Funding Source -- General funds
                                        Cooperators -- Other divisions in ADF&G
                                        Contacts -- Gay Muhlberg and Stewart Seaberg (ADF&G)

                                                                                                    - --- - --- - - - - - --- - - - - - --- - - - - - --- - - - -- - - - -
                                    (2) FY95 Kenai River 309/Task 1.                                            (a) Conduct Research: ADF&G Habitat                       (a) N/A
                                           Evaluate the hydrological effects of man-made                            Biologist and USGS Hydrologist; completed
                                           structures on Kenai River physical processes and fish                    with exception of low water evaluation
                                           habitat parameters (i.e., water velocity, substrate,                 (b) Draft Research Report: estimated                      (b) N /A
                                           cover)                                                                   completion 5/95
                                                                                                                (c) Final Report: estimated completion and                (c) Print and distribute to
                                        Funding Source -- Section 309 of the CZMA                                   availability (i.e., printed) 8/95                          public and agencies
                                        Cooperative -- USGS
                                        Contact -- Gary Liepitz (ADF&G) @ 267-2281

                                    (3) FY95 Kenai River 309fTask 2.                                            (a) Summarize Agency and Non-governmental                 (a) Available on request
                                           Develop recommendations for the continued assessment                     Activities and Authorities: veparation of
                                           and management of cumulative impacts (this table and                     this table, summary of current, scheduled,
                                           report is a product of this task)                                        and proposed projects; updated
                                                                                                                    periodically
                                        Funding Source -- Section 309 of the CZMA/ADF&G                         (b) Evaluate Role of Kenai River GISIdatabse              (b) Utilize existing groups
                                        Cooperators -- KPB, state and federal agencies *                            System on the Continued Assessment:                        for public review
                                        Contacts -- Glenn Seaman (ADF&G) @ 267-2331; Harriet                        evaluate role in coordination with other
                                        Wegner (KPB) @ 276-4441                                                     agencies and KPB
                                                                                                                (c) Report Available: estimated completion                (c)  Report available on
                                 t                                                                             ... and availability 8195    - - - - ---------          I ---request



        July 27, 1995                                                                                                                                                                                Page 1








            AGENCY...:OR:.,@,
                                               ACTIVITY DESCRIPTIONtFUNDING
                                                                                                                     ... MILESTONESI:
                                       .. ....                                                                                                                  POOLICiAGENCY
                                                                                                                                                               'PARTICIPATION
                                                                                 PERSON:
                                         ....... ....
                                (4) Phase 11--ADF&G-EPA     Public Outreach Prooect/FY95.             (a) Present wetland habitat protection               (a) N/A -- completed
                                    Goals of project are to:                                              methods and materials: hold seven weekly
                                    ï¿½  To provide to watershed residents, business owners,                evening presentations lasting from one to
                                       and recreational users information on the watershed                two hours, with course-specific
                                       components' natural history and habitat values.                    demonstration materials, poster sessions,
                                    ï¿½  To familiarize watershed property owners and                       displays, and course-specific handouts
                                       recreational users with the range of riparian and   wetland    (b) Produce streambank habitat restorationl          M Video will be available
                                       habitat protection tools available to them.                        protection manual and one-page diagram:              to libraries, schools,
                                    ï¿½  To present feasible and cost effective methods to                  revise and expand the 1985 stream bank               and will be used in
                                       protect and /or restore riparian and wetlands habitat.             revegetation information by incorporating            public meetings
                                    ï¿½  To provide hands-on demonstration materials , including            new bioengineering, revegetation, and
                                       plants, materials used for bioengineering projects,                plant handling and identification techniques
                                       models of elevated walks, coir, earth anchoring devices,           by 1/96
                                       and associated hardware, as well as diagrams and               (c) Provide watershed conservation                   (c) N/A
                                       photos.                                                            information through Public Service
                                    ï¿½  To familiarize attendants with the permitting system               Announcements (PSAW and a video:
                                       required for many bank and wetlands projects.                      products will include information on
                                    ï¿½  To promote a sense of watershed stewardship and a                  streambank restoration measures, bank
                                       willingness to actively participate in large and small             angling and boating etiquette and
                                       watershed conservation activities.                                 examples of prime salmon rearing habitat
                                                                                                          (completed)
                                    Funding Sources -- EPA Grant; SB 183
                                    Cooperators -- State, local, and federal agencies, non-profit
                                    groups, landowners, business, and recreational users
                                    interested in Kenai River watershed conservation
                                  -Contact -- Lance Trasky (ADF&GI @ 267-2342                        - --- - - - - - --- - - - - - --- - - - -            ------------- - - --











       July 27, 1995                                                                                                                                                               Page 2








             A ENCY QR:.                                    DESCRIPTION/FUNDING                                                                          .... . .. .
                                                ACTIVITY
                                                                                                                          MILESTONES!.
                                                                                                                                                                    PU LIC/A10 N Y:
            OR        ATIONI.:.            SOURCE/COOPERATORSICONTACT. PERSON                                                                                        PARTICIPATION:.,

                                  (5) SB 183/3 Million Appropriated to ADF&G (also see 3                 (a) Ranking of Lands for Purchase: prepared           (a) available upon request
                                      above).                                                                by ADF&G with input from see 3(c) above,
                                      ï¿½ Funds for restoration and protection of services and                 completed summer of 95
                                        species in the Kenai Watershed that were injured in              (b) ADF&G Citizens Committee: establish               (b) N/A
                                        EVOS (e.g., commercial and sportfishing, pink salmon,                Kenai River Citizens Advisory Commiittee
                                        sockeye salmon, bald eagles).                                        (KRCAC) of 11 citizens to provide public
                                      ï¿½ Funds are used for purchase of Kenai River waterfront                input in the land purchase selection
                                        lands important for the production of the Kenai River,               process; meeting held as needed                   (c) NA
                                        habitat protection/resto ration demonstration projects,          (c) Initial Land Selection: summer of 95              (d) NIA
                                        establishment of conservation easements and                      (d) Negotiation: fall of 95                           (e) In cooperation with
                                        associated land trusts, preparation of education                 (e) Small Scale Public Demonstration Proiect              DPOR, FINS, and
                                        materials.                                                           Process: projects selected to allow work              landowners
                                                                                                             to completed by fall 96                           M   In cooperation with
                                      Funding Source -- SB183                                            (f) ADF&G PubficlLeased Site Protection and               DPOR and FINS
                                      Cooperators -- FINS, DPOR, landowners                                  Restoration: plans in development to
                                      Contacts -- Lance Trasky (ADF&G) @ 267-2342; Kathrin                   undertake habitat protection and
                                      Sundet (ADF&G) @ 267-2295                                              restoration projects on ADF&G public and
                                                                                                             leased sites, completed summer 96
                                                                                                                                                 --- - - - --- - - - -- - - - -
                                  (6) EVOS Small Parcel Ac(luisition Program.                            (a) Accept Nominations: nomination update             (a) N/A
                                        Purchase small land parcels (less than 1000 acres)                   process ongoing (a number of nominations
                                        important to the resources and the services that were                received for Kenai River watershed)
                                        injured in the EVOS. Focuses on key habitats (e.g.,              (b) Evaluate and Score Nominations: Habitat           (b) HWG includes ADF&G,
                                        very important/critical fish and wildlife habitats) and              Work Group (HWG) evaluation ongoing                   DNR, FS, and DOI
                                        strategic parcels (e.g., important access sites or               (c) Trustees to Review Nominations: Trustees          (c) Comments solicited,
                                        enhancement opportunities).                                          to decide which parcels to pursue, request            public hearing at
                                                                                                             appraisals, and negotiate; ongoing                    Trustees' meeting
                                      Funding Source -- EVOS                                             (d) Initiate Appraisals: through 95                   (d) N/A
                                      Cooperative -- DOI                                                 (e) Purchase Lands: summer 95 through 96              (e) NIA
                                      Contact -- Mark Kuwada     (ADF&G) @ 267-2277 or 278-
                                                                                                        - --- - - - - - --- - - - - - --- - - - ---         L ------------- - - --











        July 27, 1995                                                                                                                                                                   Page 3







               GENCY.-.OW:..
                                              :,.:.ACTI.ITY..                                                            MILESTONES                               PUBLICIAGENCY
                                                            DESCRIPTION/F.UNDING
          :::@.::ORGANIZATIOW.
                                          @WURCEXOOPERATORWcoN*Ac
                                                                                                                           DUCTS/DATeS.1::::::@...::...::
                                                                                                                                                                      kTICIPATION.:
                                                                                                                                                .......... ...
                                  (7) H8306/Riparian Tax Incentive Proaram.                             To be  Developed (ordinance to be developed          To be Developed
                                     ï¿½  Municipalities along the Kenai River may establish a tax        by KPB)
                                        incentive for: (1) protecting the Kenai River or a
                                        tributary from degradation of fish habitat due to public
                                        or private uses or (2) restoring riparian fish habitat along
                                        or in the Kenai River and tributaries that has been
                                        damaged by land use practices.
                                     ï¿½ ADF&G must certify the project protects or restores
                                        habitat; criteria will be established in local ordinance.

                                     Funding Source -- None secured yet
                                     Cooperators -- KPB (see KPB #5)
                                     Contacts -- Bill Evans (KPB) @ 262-4441; Lance Trasky
                                     (ADF&G) @ 267-2342

                                  (8) NMFS $1 Million Grant.                                            (a) Work Plan Submitted to NMFS.- 6/95                   Appropriate agency
                                        The state will receive $926,000 NMFS grant for the              (b) Receipt of Funding: 8/95                             and public involvement
                                        Kenai River drainage to protect and restore fish habitat.       (c) Initiate Planning for Habitat Protection and         to be developed (too
                                        Proposed projects include: (1) establishment of a Kenai             Restoration Projects: fall 95                        early in the process to
                                        River Center to provide information on the Kenai River,                                                                  determine public
                                        accept permit applications, help determine permit                                                                        involvement
                                        applications and provide technical assistance, and                                                                       opportunities.
                                        generally assist the public in designine means and
                                        methods to protect the watershed; (2) prioritize
                                        restoration projects on public lands; (3) fund fish habitat
                                        protection and restoration demonstration projects on
                                        private ands; (4) fund fish habitat restoration projects on
                                        public lands; (5) identify plant selection and harvest
                                        sites for restoration projects; and (6) study the
                                        mechanics of accelerated erosions from boat wakes and
                                        develop recommendations to protect fish habitat from
                                        such erosion.'


                                     Funding Source -- NMFS
                                     Cooperators -- ADF&G, federal agencies, local
                                     governments, intprAqt nrnuns
                                     Contact -- Lance Trasky (ADF&G) @ 267-2342


                             An  abbreviated summary of the NMFS grant proposal/work program is included in Appendix G of this publication. Refer to Appendix G for a
                 more detailed  description of these tasks.

        July 27, 1995                                                                                                                                                                 Page 4



         I I / / 11 @ / / / / / , , 1 ol                             r , r , r                          di A & A                                                        A & A A A A A db










                              p
                                               :.:..ACTivrrY btscRIPTION/FUNDI G                                            MIL       NEW    . . .
            ..AIUN .... Y@;@ 0                                                                                                                                        POUWAGENCY,
                                                                                                                                                                        PARTICIPATION
          _:OAGAN1                         SOURCE/COOPERATORS/CONTACT, PERSON                                                                S
                       TIOW,                                                                                             PRODUCTSMATt

           BOARD OF               (1) Board  of Fisheries Authority  to Allocate  and  Protect  Kenai      (a) Board of Fisheries Meeting.    Scheduled to       (a) The  Board of   Fisheries
           FISHERIES                  River Fish Stocks.                                                      address Kenai River issues during it's 1/96            holds public meetings
                                         The Board members are appointed by the        Governor for           meeting                                                and takes testimony
                                         overlapping terms of three years. The Board of                                                                              from citizens and
                                         Fisheries has authority to conserve fish and allocate                                                                       interest groups
                                         portions of fish stocks among users. The Board usually
                                         relies on methods, means, escapement, timing, and area
                                         rules and conditions to allocate and conserve fisheries.
                                         (See ADF&G SF and CFMD # 15, page 8).

                                      Funding Source -- General funds
                                      Cooperators -- public, commercial and sport fishing
                                      interests, landowners, businesses, local governments,
                                      federal government, ADF&G, DPOR
                                      Contact -- Larry Engle, Chairman of the Board @ 745-
                                      4132.

           ADF&G                  (1) Management Authority - Opening and Closing Commercial                (a) Emergency Orders: issued as necessary             (a) Information made
           Sport Fish                 and Sport Fishing Seasons.                                                                                                     available on a daily
           Division and                  SF and CFMD are delegated the Commissioner's                                                                                basis by phone
           Commercial                    authority to open and close fisheries as necessary to             jb) Annual Management Reports: prepared by            (b) Reports available upon
           Fisheries                     reach escapement goals established by the Board of                   February 1 annually                                    request
           Management and                Fisheries.                                                        (c) Board of Fisheries Meetings: address              (c) The Board of Fisheries
           Development                                                                                        Kenai River issues every third year                    holds public meetings
           Division                   Funding Sources -- General funds and DJ/WB funds                                                                               and takes testimony
                                      Cooperators -- Board of Fisheries, commercial and sport                                                                        from citizens and
                                      fishing interests                                                                                                              interest groups
                                      Contacts -- Dave Nelson and Paul Ruesch (ADF&G) @ 262-
                                      9368

                                  (2) Sockeye Enumeration Studies.                                         Ja) Field Operations: during June-August              (a) Data available daily to
                                         CFMD maintains a sonar to count red salmon adults                                                                           public
                                         entering the Kenai River.                                         (b) Annual Report: prepared six to eight              (b) Report available upon
                                                                                                              months after field season                              request
                                      Funding Source -- General funds
                                      Cooperative -- SF
                               I --Contact -- Ken Tarbox (ADF&G) @ 262-9368
                                                                                                                                                                --------------- - -






        July 27, 1995                                                                                                                                                                      Page 6








                                                 :..ACTIVITY DESCRIPTION /FUND ING
                                                                                                                                MILESTONESF
              4ENCY.                                                                                                                                                            Lic?AdENCY
             ORGANIZ                                                                   PERSON                                                                                  RTICIPATION::
                                                                                                .. .. ..                     PROD
                                    (3) Chinook  Assessment Studies.                                           (a) Field Operations: during   May-August               (a) Data available daily   t7o
                                           SF maintains a sonar to count king salmon entering          the                                                                 public by phone
                                           Kenai River, conducts a creel survey to estimate fishing            (b) Annual Reports: published in Fishery      Data      (b) Report available upon
                                           effort and samples fish caught for age composition.                    Series six to eight months after field                   request
                                           Information is used to estimate total return by age and                season
                                           spawning escapement.

                                        Funding Source -- DJ/WB funds
                                        Cooperative -- CFMD
                                        Contact -- Steve Hammarstrom (ADF&G) @ 262-9368;
                                        Debby Burwen (ADF&G) @ 267-2218

                                    14) Sockeye Ane Comoosition Study.                                         (a) Field Operations: Fishwheel used to                 (a) Data available daily to
                                           CFMD conducts sampling studies of returning adult red                  capture salmon daily June-August                         public by phone
                                           salmon to determine the age structure, weight, and size             (b) Annual Report: prepared six to eight                (b) Report available upon
                                           of Kenai River red salmon.                                             months after field season                                request

                                        Funding Source -- General funds
                                        Cooperative -- SF
                                      -Contact -- Ken Tarbox (ADF&G1 @ 262-9368             - -- - -- - --- - - - - - --- - - - - - --- - - - - --- - - - -- - - - -
                                    (5) Investiaations of Sockeye Rearing Conditions-in the Kenai              (a) Field Operations: from April-November               (a) NIA
                                        River.                                                                 (b) Annual Reports: prepared six to eight               (b) Annual report prepared
                                           CFMD conducts investigations of physical conditions                    months after field season                                by March available
                                           and biological factors to determine the rearing                                                                                 upon request
                                           conditions for sockeye in the Kenai River system.                   (c) Future Studies: scheduled to continue               (c) N/A
                                                                                                                  through 1997
                                        Funding Source -- EVOS
                                        Cooperative -- SF
                                      -Contact -- Ken Tarbox (ADF&G) @ 262-9368                                                                                       -- - - - -- - - - -
                                    (6) Coho Assessment Taming Study.                                          (a) Field Operations: from April-September              (a) N /A
                                           SF tags juvenile coho to determine extent of                        (b) Annual Report: published in SF fishery              (b) Report available upon
                                           commercial fish interception and enumeration of                        Data Series six to eight months after field              request
                                           escapement of adults into the Kenai River. CFMD                        season
                                           samples the comurierd9al fish.ary. The infnrrnatinn is
                                           used to estimate total harvest.


                                        Funding Source -- DJ/WB funds
                                        Cooperators -- SF, CFMD
                                      _Contact      Jay Carlon (ADF&G) @ 262-9368                                                                                - -------------
                                                                                                            E                                                       E












































         July 27, 1996                                                                                                                                                                           Page 6





                                                                                                                             I k A 'I A k A k d'% Ak '10h 'dw, 'dh AdIk 'dIL Aak 'EL     A@ 'ek AML 'dh@ AIL 'ah










                                        ... ...... .
                                                ACTIVIT
                                                         Y: DESCRIPTION [FUNDING                                          MILESTONES[                               PUBLIC/AGENCY..::
           ORGANIZ ATIOMI....'            SOURCEICOOPERATORS/CONTACT PERSON                                             PRODUCTs/DATES::.                            PARTICIPATION
                                     ..........


                                 17) Russian River Sockeye Weir Study.                                   (a) Field Operations:  from May-October               (a) Data available on a
                                        SF operates a weir to enumerate     adult sockeye   returning                                                              daily basis by phone
                                        to the Russian River, conducts a creel survey to                 (b) Annual Report: published in SF Fishery            (b) Report available upon
                                        estimate harvest and effort. Information is used to                  Data Series six to eight months after field           request
                                        estimate total return by age and spawning escapement.                season

                                     Funding Source -- General funds
                                     Cooperative -- SF
                                     Contact -- Larry Marsh (ADF&G) @ 262-9368

                                 (8) Sockeye Limnology Studies.                                          (a) Field Operations: from April-November             (a) N/A
                                        CFMD conducts limnology studies in Skilak and Kenai              (b) Annual Report: prepared by March                  (b) Report available upon
                                        lakes to determine rearing conditions for rearing red                following year                                        request
                                        salmon.                                                          (c) Future Studies: scheduled to continue             (c) N/A
                                                                                                             through 1997
                                     Funding Source -- General funds
                                     Cooperative -- SF
                                     Contact -- Dana Schmidt     IADF&G) @ 262-8369

                                 (9) Russian River Sockeye Studies.                                      (a) Field Operations: from May-September              (a) N/A
                                        CFMD studies the limnology of the Russian River system           (b) Annual Report: prepared by March                  (b) Report available upon
                                        and monitors the magnitude     of sockeye fry out-                                                                         request
                                        migrating the Russian River.                                     (c) Future Studies: scheduled to continue             (c) N/A
                                                                                                             through 1997
                                     Funding Source -- General funds
                                     Cooperators -- SF
                                     Contact -- B ruce King (ADF&G) @ 262-9368

                                 (10) Sockeye Genetic Research.                                          (a) Field Operations: from July-October               (al N/A
                                        CFMD investigates the genetic differences of returning           (b) Annual Reports: prepared by March                 (b) Report available upon
                                        adult red salmon. This information allows for more                                                                         request
                                        precise management of sockeye sub-populations.                   (c) Future Studies: scheduled to continue             (c) N/A
                                                                                                             through 1997
                                     Funding Source -- General funds
                                     Cooperative -- SF
                                     Son act -- Ken Tarb   .ox (ADF&G) @ 262-9368                                                                             ------------- - - - -






       July 27, 1995                                                                                                                                                                    Page 7










                       
      
      AGENCY OR                        ACTIVITY DESCRIPTION/FUNDING						MILESTONES/								PUBLIC/AGENCY
	ORGANIZATION		      SOURCE/COOPERATORS/CONTACT PERSON						PRODUCTS/DATES						      PARTICIPATION
                                         
                                (11) Outreach Activities.                                           (a) Community School Presenters: ongoing            (a) Staff available upon
                                                                                                                                                            request as time  
                                    ï¿½ SF and CFMD staff present programs on water quality,                                                                  permits 
                                      environmental protection, and fish harvest allocations in                                                         (b) N/A   
                                      community schools.                                            (b) Adopt-A-Stream Program: Slikok Adopt-A-
                                    ï¿½ CFMD participates in monitoring water quality and fish            Stream program begins in 1990, receives
                                      populations in Slikok Creek, a tributary to the Kenai             FWS conservation award in 1993
                                      River.


                                   Funding Source -- General funds, DJ/WB funds
                                   Cooperators -- ADF&G, DEC, FWS, local governments, KPB
                                   schools
                                   Contact -- Ken Tarbox, Dave Nelson, and Mary King
                                   (ADF&G) @ 262-9368

                                (12) Sockeye Sport and Personal Use Harvest Studies.                (a) Annual Report: published in SF Fishery           (a) Report available upon
                                	 SF conducts fishery surveys of sport fish and personal            Data Series                                           request
                                     use fisheries to estimate harvest.


                                    Funding Source -- DJ/WB funds
                                    Cooperators -- personal use and sport fishers
                                    Contact ---Kevin Delaney (ADF&G) @ 267-2226
                                (13) Kenai River Access Program.                                    (a) Sportsman Lodge is Scheduled for. design              All three projects are
                                         Federal law mandates that 12.5% of DJ/WB funds be              completion by fall 1995. Construction is              reviewed by the UKRPT                                         used to provide power boating access. The most                 tentatively scheduled for 1996.
                                         current projects are acquisition of the Sportsman's        (b) The Pillars is Scheduled for. permitting in           (see DNR/DPOR #5,  
                                         Lodge, The Pillars, and the Cooper Landing launch.             early 1995. Construction is slated for                page 12). 
                                         (also see DOT&PF project #3 on page 16)                        1995. Open to the public in 1996.                     Public and agency review
                                                                                                    (c) The Cooper Landing Launch is Scheduled			  through public notice and
                                    Funding Source -- DJ/WB and DOT&PF funds                            for. Land purchase is slated for early                state ACMP process. 
                                    Cooperators -- FWS, FS, CIRI, DPOR, ADF&G                           1995. Design and construction tentatively
                                    Conact -- Kelly Hepler (ADF&G) @ 267-2195                          slated for 1996.
                                









       July 27, 1995															   Page 8



  









                                                                                                                                                                                NCY.
                                                                                                                                                                    UBLY.C/A
                                                                                                                          MILESTONE    I:
            A., EIYC'Yi@V                 .:::::::::ACTIVITY.. DESCRIPTION/FUN DING,.                                                 S
                                         S  URCEICOOPERATORSICONTACT             PERSON
            RGANIZATION                    0                                                                          PRODUCTS/DATES..                             PARTICIPATION..

                                (141 Ur)g)er Kenai River Rainbow   Trout Study.                         (a) Field Operations: during   May-September          (a) N/A
                                       Study will provide information on population     size and
                                       age composition for rainbow trout harvested      between         1b) Annual Report: prepared    by 12/15/95            (b) Report available upon
                                       Skilak and Kenai Lake.                                                                                                    request after 12/15/95
                                                                                                        (c) Report Findings to Board of Fisheries: to         (c) The Board of Fisheries
                                     Funding Source -- General funds                                        be presented at 1/96 meeting                         holds public meetings
                                     Cooperators -- CFMD, Board of Fisheries, sport fishing                                                                      and takes testimony
                                     interest groups, and FWS                                                                                                    from citizens and
                                     Contact --  Susie McCarron (ADF&G) @ 267-2164                                                                               interest groups

                                0 5) Task Force to Study Angler lmoacts on Fish Habitat.                la) Field Operations: Identify Kenai River bank       (a) N/A
                                       The Board of Fisheries requested ADF&G to organize a                 areas to identify areas impacted by 9/95
                                       technical task force to identify and review regulatory
                                       options to protect the Kenai River fish habitat while            (b) Identify, Review, and Select Management           (b) Report available upon
                                       allowing a sustainable sockeye fishery in the Kenai                  Options: The task force will formulate a             request
                                       River. The task force will have representatives from                 set of recommendations after consultation
                                       ADF&G, DPOR, and FWS.                                                with Cooperators and landowners by
                                                                                                            12/95
                                    Funding Source -- General funds                                                                                           (c) The Board of Fisheries
                                    Cooperators -- KPB, Cities of Soldotna and Kenai, sport             (c) Present Report to Board of Fisheries:                holds public meetings
                                    fish organizations, landowners, commercial fish                         ADF&G will present report to Board of                and takes testimony
                                    organizations, ADF&G, FWS, FS, DPOR                                     Fisheries meeting during its 1/96 meeting.           from citizens and
                                    Contact -- Doug Vincent-Lang (ADF&G) @ 267-2353                                                                              interest groups



















      July 27, 1995                                                                                                                                                                    Page 9








                   PW
                                              ..:::ACTIVITY DESCRIPTION/FUNDING                                                                                        PU61LIWAdENCY
                                                                                                                            MILES   ONESt
                       TI                                                                                                                                                                  ......
           OAGAW:4A:                      S66iA:d/CO609RATORS/COI4TA,CT PER                                                    U&SibATE                                 'AkTICIPATION.
                           .......                                                    RSON,                              PROD

           ADF&G                 (1) Facilitated Discussions on Utmer Cook Inlet Fisheries                This effort is still in the formative stages.           Public involvement
           Commissioners                ADF&G will contract with third-party facilitator to:      (a)     Milestones, products, and schedules will be             process will be developed
           office                       gather and analyze information and identify additional            developed in the near furture.
                                        information needed to improve fisheries management in
                                        Cook Inlet and Kenai and Susitna drainages; (b) faciliate
                                        discussions with all user groups, citizens and local
                                        governments to develop ideas and options related to
                                        fish habitat, escapement, personal use, and fisheries
                                        maintenance; and Jc) prepare recommendations for the
                                        boards.2

                                     Funding Source -- General funds
                                     Cooperators -- ADF&G Divisions
                                     Contact -- Rob Bosworth, Deputy Commissioner (ADF&G)
                                     @ 465-4100

           DEC                   (1) Regulatory Authority - Waste Water Disr)osal and Water               Ongoing                                                 (a) Public comments and
                                     Quality.                                                                                                                         public hearings on
                                     ï¿½ Enforces water quality laws and regulations for all                                                                            proposed permits
                                        discharges into the Kenai River.
                                     ï¿½ DEC comments on water quality permits issued by the
                                        Corps under section 10 and section 404.

                                     Funding Source -- General funds
                                     Cooperators -- KPB, ADF&G, FWS, local governments
                                     Contact -- Scott Forgue (DEC) @ 262-5210

                                 (2) Public Outreach - Pollution Prevention.                              Ongoing                                                 (a) Participation is
                                        DEC provides advisory information to private and                                                                              available to interested
                                        government organizations to promote reduction of                                                                              parties upon request
                                        wastes and pollutants into the Kenai River and the
                                        watershed.


                                     Funding Sources -- State, federal, and private funds
                                     Cooperators -- KPB schools, KPB, local governments, local
                                     industries and businesses, local recycling organizations,
                                     Green Star program
                                     Contact -- Dave Wigglesworth (DEC) @ 563-6529


                         2 See Appendix H of this publication for Governor Knowles' "Upper Cook Inlet Fisheries & Habitat Plan," April 1995

       July 27, 1995                                                                                                                                                                      Page 10



                                                                            .00000000000000000000ooogoooooooooo



                                                                                                                                             00      000      0      0   000       0   000




                      OR.,
           A                                  ACTIVITY DESCRIPTIOWFUNDING                                             MILESTONESV                             PUBLIWAGENCY
             G
          OAGAN:IZ: TlOk::@   ..:::::::::@:..:..@...@@[email protected]/COOPERATORS/CONTACT PERSON                  PROD UCTSIDATES..                           PARTICIPATION

          DNR                  (1) Regulatory Authority     KRSMA.                                   (a) Permits Issued as  Required                      (a) For projects on the
          DPOR                        The KRSMA includes the waters of Skilak and Kenai                                                                      ACMP A-list
                                      Lakes,the Kenai River, and portions of the Moose and                                                                   (categorically
                                      Funny rivers. The DPOR is responsible for administering                                                                consistent) or B-list
                                      the KRSMA and issues permits for structures and other                                                                  (general concurrence)
                                      activities occurring in the waters of the KRSMA.                                                                       there is no formal
                                                                                                                                                             agency/public review
                                   Funding Source -- Program funds                                                                                           process; for C-list
                                   Cooperators -- FWS, FS, ADF&G, KPB                                                                                        (individual reviews) the
                                   Contact -- Chris Titus (DNR) @ 262-5581.                                                                                  6 AAC 50 process
                                                                                                                                                             applies (permits also
                                                                                                                                                             public noticed).
                                                                                                     (b) Agency MOU. The DPOR has a MOU with              (b) N/A
                                                                                                         the FS and the FWS to cooperatively
                                                                                                         manage the Kenai River in areas where
                                                                                                         jurisdictions overlap.
                                                                                                                       --- - - - - - --- - - - - --- - - - -- - - - -
                               (2) Management Authority -- KRSMA.                                    (a) Advisory Board.: The KRSMA Advisory              (a) KRSMA Adv. Bd.
                                      The DPOR manages the KRSMA and associated facilities               Board meets to review and discuss                   meets monthly
                                      per AS 41. Activities include planning, developing, and            KRSMA issues.                                    (b) N/A
                                      operating facilities such as boat launches and                 (b) Agency MOU.     The DPOR has a MOU with
                                      campgrounds and routine patrols on the river. DPOR                 the FS and the  FWS to cooperatively
                                      also is responsible for administering the Kenai  River             manage the Kenai River in areas where
                                      Comprehensive Management Plan.                                     jurisdictions overlap.

                                   Funding Source -- Program funds
                                   Cooperators -- FWS, FS, ADF&G, DNR, KPI3, interest
                                   groups
                                 -Contact -- Chris Titus (DNR) @ 262-5581___________L               - --- - - - - - --- - - - - - --- - - - -           -------------- - -












      July 27, 1995                                                                                                                                                              Page 11


    





        AGENCY OR                     ACTIVITY DESCRIPTION/FUNDING    							MILESTONES/									
        ORGANIZATION                 SOURCE/COOPERATORS/CONTACT PERSON                                     PRODUCTS/DATES                     				PUBLIC/AGENCY
                                                                                                                                                                  PARTICIPATION
                               (3) EVOS  Marine Recreation Project.                                (a) Preliminary Engineering Completed:  all                    
                                                                                                       three by 9/95                                            (a) N/A          
                                     These funds are to be used for restoration of                 (b) Projects Scheduled: all completed by 9/96
                                     recreational services or amenities affected by the EVOS.                                                                   (b) Public and agency
                                     Three projects are proposed for the Kenai River: Bing's                                                                        involvement through
                                     Landing State Recreation Site-install boardwalk and                                                                            public notice and state 
                                     fisher's access ladder, Morgan's Landing-install                                                                               ACMP review process.     
                                     boardwalk and fishing ladder and platform, Slicock
                                     Creek-replace boardwalk and install cantilevered
                                     walkways. Projects will improve public access and help
                                     prevent bank damage.

                                  Funding Source -- EVOS
                                  Cooperators -- State, federal, local governments, local
                                  interest groups, public
                                  Contact -- Chris Titus (DPOR) @ 262-5581                       
                               (4) Public Outreach Program Participation.                         (a) Each Program Schedules Public Events:                     (a)  Agencies cooperate
                                     The DPOR participates in six programs as follows:                (e.g., Kenai Riverfest occurs in second                        with the six program 
                                     Kenai River Sportfishing Inc's "HabPro" program, Kenai           week of June). These events occur                              sponsers to do these
                                     River Habitat Awareness Days, Kenai Riverfest, Kenai             annually.                                                      public events.
                                     River Public Lands Cleanup. Volunteer Water Watch,
                                     and King Salmon Fund.

                                  Funding Source -- Program funds
                                  Cooperators -- Organizations listed above
                                  Contacts -- Chris Titus (DNR) @ 262-5581

                               (5) Cooperative Land Management Plan for Upper Kenai River.        (a) Prepare and Distribute Meeting Summary:                      (a) Report is available to 
                                     Planning among agencies and private landowners                   by 6/95                                                          the public upon 
                                     regarding land use plan goals, objectives, objectives,                                                                            request.
                                     and future conditions for the waters and lands (within
                                     1/4 mile from each bank) of the Kenai River between          (b) Determine Course of Action for Upper                         (b) Future meetins of Upper Kenai River
                                     Skilak and Kenai Lakes and the Russian River up to               Kenai River: by 10/95                                            Planning Team will be public noticed.  
                                     lower Russian Lake. Project will result in recommended
                                     actions and items for landowners to address.


                                  Funding Source -- Program funds
                                  Cooperators -- FS, FWS, KPB, CIRI, ADF&G
                                  Contact    Chris Titus (DNR) @ 262-5581




       July 27, 1995                                                                                           Page 12



               








                                                                                                                     MILESTONES                                    IC AGENCY
                                            ACTIVITY. DESCAIPTIONIFUNDING
          A EN       OR:
            GANIZATION''               SOURCE/COOPERATORS/CONTACT.. PERSON                                        PAODUCTS/DATE                               PARTICIPATION
                                                                                                                                     S.@        .......


         DNR                   (1) Mananement/Reaulatory    Authority--Oil and Gas Leases.          Ongoing                                              DNR has its own public
         DO&G                     *  The DO&G has authority under AS 35.05. 180 to issue                                                                 review process under
                                     oil and gas leases on subsurface lands owned by the                                                                 AS 38; leases and permits
                                     state. Most lands identified for leasing included on a                                                              also reviewed for
                                     five-year lease schedule.                                                                                           consistency with the
                                  *  The DO&G issues permits for seismic surveys and                                                                     ACMP.
                                     surface. activities associated with oil and gas leases.
                                     DOL also shares some regulatory responsibility of some
                                     activities associated with development of a lease.

                                  Funding Source -- Program funds
                                  Cooperators -- Other state agencies
                                  Contacts -- Director (Vacant) (DNR) @ 762-2547

         DNR                   (1) Management/Regulatory Authority--Minina Claims and               Ongoing                                              Many permits and leases
         DM&W                     Water Rights.                                                                                                          are public noticed.
                                  ï¿½  DM&W oversees state mineral exploration, development                                                                Agency and public
                                     and leasing programs, excluding oil, gas, and                                                                       involvement also provided
                                     geothermal energy on state land; maintains state                                                                    through ACMP
                                     records of mineral claims; administers the state's                                                                  consistency review
                                     Surface Coal Mining Control and Reclamation Program;                                                                process.
                                     and provides mineral information to the public and
                                     technical assistance to the mining industry.
                                  ï¿½ Manages, plans, and authorizes use of Alaska's water
                                     resource. Collects and provides information on quantity
                                     of water and issues permits and water rights.

                                  Funding Source -- Program funds
                                  Cooperators -- Other agencies
                                  Contact -- Jules Tileston, Director (DNR) @ 762-4225















     July 27, 1995                                                                                                                                                             Page 13







                                              ACTIVITY: DESCRIPTION/FUNDING._                                                                . .. ...
                                                                                                                                                                 OUBILIdIAGENCY:
             G N
                                                               ORS 0 TAC' PE SON                                          DU
                                                                    /C N
            R A   IZAT                                                                                                 RO
                                                                                                                                                                                    . .........
          DNR                   (1) Technical Assistance.                                              Ongoing                                               N/A
          DOA                       *  Assist agency upon request in collecting, identifying,
                                       and evaluating plant materials (e.g., Deep Creek).
                                    *  Assist agencies in bioengineering and streambank
                                       restoration (e.g., assisting DPOR in reviewing soils
                                       bioengineering design for Pillars Access Project and
                                       assist ADF&G for Kenai Riverbend Campground).

                                    Funding Sources -- DPOR RSA, general funds
                                    Cooperators -- DPOR, ADF&G, other agencies
                                    Contact -- Nancy Moore (DNR) @ 745-4469
                                                                                             - -- - --- - - - - - --- - - - - - --- - - -                  -- - - - -- - - - -
                                (2) Kenai Soil and Water Conservation District.                        Ongoing                                               Involve agencies, public,
                                       The Kenai Soil and Water Conservation District consists                                                               and other interested
                                       of a local governmental subdivisions of the state                                                                     individuals as appropriate
                                       responsible for the conservation, use, and development                                                                for the cooperative
                                       of natural resources within their boundaries. The Kenai                                                               efforts.
                                       district connects landowners with technical and financial
                                       assistance needed to solve resource development and
                                       conservation problems.

                                    Funding Sources -- Limited state funding, grants, income
                                    producing products
                                    Cooperators -- Federal, state, and local agencies, private
                                    landowners, Native organizations
                                    Contact -- Mike Swan (DNR) @ 262-1014
          DNR                   (1) Management/Reaulatory Authority--State Lands.                      Ongoing                                               Many permits and leases
          DOL                          Functions as the primary manager of state-owned lands                                                                 public noticed. Agency
                                       in the Kenai River watershed that are outside the                                                                     and public involvement
                                       KRSMA boundary. Responsibilities include land                                                                         provided through ACMP
                                       classification, selling land, and leasing state lands for                                                             consistency review
                                       recreation, commercial, and industrial uses.                                                                          process.

                                    Funding Source -- General funds
                                    Cooperators -- Other state agencies
                                    Contact -- DNR Public Information Center @ 762-2261
                                                                                                                                                           -------------       - - -





      July 27, 1996                                                                                                                                                                 Page 14









                                                                                                                                                                     PUBU61AGENCY
                                                A TIVITY                                                                  MILESTONE
                                                           bESCRIPTION[FUNDING
           ORGANIZAtIO:                   SOURCE/COOPERATORS/CONTACT               PERSON                               PRODUCTSMATES                                 PARTICIPATION,:
                                 ...... ... ...


                                 12) Kenai Area Plan IKAP).                                              (a) Revise Plan: Existing   KAP will be  revised      (a) Plan will be distributed
                                        The DOL is in the process of formulating the KAP.       The          in response to comments received.                     for public review
                                        KAP will propose management recommendations for                      Completed by fall 1995.
                                        vacant, unappropriated, and unreserved state lands in            (b) Workshops and Public Meetings: Once the           (b) Agencies and districts
                                        the KPB.                                                             KAP has been revised, DNR will hold public            invited to participate
                                                                                                             sessions in communities on the Kenai
                                     Funding Source -- Program funds                                         Peninsula. Completed by 1995.
                                     Cooperators -- DEC, ADF&G, KPB, DCRA, NPS, FS, FWS,                 (c) Plan Completion: The KAP will be                  (c) Draft plans distributed
                                     DOT&PF, other divisions of DNR                                          distributed for public review. The plan will          for public review
                                     Contact -- Bruce Talbot (DNR) @ 762-2253.                               be revised and adopted by DNR.
                                                                                                             Completed by 6/96.

          DNR                    (1) Moose Pass Coor)erative Spruce Bark Beetle Pro*ect.                 (a) Draft E4: by 1/95                                 (a) and (b) Distributed to
          DOF                           The FS and DNR/DOF have signed a cooperative                     (b) Final EA: by 5/95                                     interested parties and
                                        agreement to coordinate planning on approximately                                                                          available for public
                                        27,000 acres of state and federal lands in the upper                                                                       review
                                        Kenai River watershed. The four action alternatives              (c) Adopt Alternative:   for USFS lands by 7/95       (c) Public and agency
                                        developed calls for logging of 1,699 acres to 5,181                                                                        review of alternatives
                                        acres of bark beetle infested spruce trees. Most of the          (d) Implement Alternative: develop forest land        (d) Public and agency
                                        alternatives call for logging along the shore of Kenai               use plans on state lands by 6/96.                     review of plans
                                        Lake.


                                     Funding Source -- Forest Health Initiative
                                     Cooperators -- DNR, FS, ADF&G, KPB, DEC, interest
                                     groups, citizens
                                     Contact -- Jim Peterson (DNR) @ 262-4124; Duane Harp
                                     (FS) @ 224-3374

                                 (2) Moose Pass Small Tract Logging Offerings-                           (a) Sale Planned.- mid-1 995 and late 1995            (a) The public and other
                                        The DOF plans to offer three or four small timber sales                                                                    interested parties will
                                        on state lands in the Moose Pass area. These tracts are                                                                    have opportunity to
                                        excluded from the Moose Pass project described above.                                                                      review logging plans in
                                                                                                                                                                   1995.
                                     Funding Source -- Program funds
                                     Cooperators -- ADF&G, KPB, interest groups, citizens
                                     Contact -- Jim Peterson (DNR) @ 262-4124







       July 27, 1995                                                                                                                                                                   Page 15





           AGENCY:                           ACTIVITY DESCRIPTION/FUNDING                                          MILESTONESi..                          PUBLICIAGENCY
                                        SOURCE/COOPERATORS/CONTACT. PERSON
                                                                                                                PROD                                       PARTICIPATION
        :.::::)0RGANi2AT,!.,. N                                                          .. .. ..... .. .. . .....

          DGC                  (1) Administer ACMP                                                 (a) Review District Plans and Amendments:          (a) 60- and 45-day public
                                     DGC has overall authority for the overseeing the                 as needed, no plan amendments submitted            reviews provided at
                                     development and implementation of the ACMP. We                   at this time.                                      various stages of the
                                     respect to the KP13 and Kenai River, DGC is responsible                                                             planning process per 6
                                     for: (a) reviewing and preparing staff recommendations                                                              AAC 85.
                                     to the Alaska Coastal Policy Council for approval of          (b) Coordinate Consistency Reviews: as             (b) Detail agency public
                                     coastal district plans and amendment; (b) coordinating           needed when a federal permit and/or more           involvement process
                                     the ACMP consistency review of projects in the coastal           than one state agency permit required.             required through 6
                                     zone the require a permit from a federal agency and/or                                                              AAC 50.
                                     more than one state agency; and (c) update or revise          (c) Revise Classification of Agency Approvals:     (c) Same as Mabove.
                                     the ACMP "Classificaiton of Agency Approvals" or                 every one or two years or as needed; the
                                     "ABC"   liSt.3                                                   "ABC" list was recently revised including
                                                                                                      floating docks, bank restoration and
                                   Funding Source -- Program funds and NOAA coastal                   enhancement projects, ladders and steps,
                                   management funds                                                   cantilevered walkways and platforms, and
                                   Cooperators -- ADF&G, DNR, DEC, KP13                               maintenance dredging on the B-List/general
                                   Contact -- Maureen McCrea, Project Analyst (DGQ @ 269-             concurrence projects (i.e., no further
                                   7473                                                               consistency review required if conditions
                                                                                                      met, allow for more timely issuance of
                                                                                                      agency permits).

          DOT&PF               (1) Move DOUPF maintenance and ooeration facility in                (a) Negotiations With City of Soldotna For         (a) N/A
                                   Soldotna.                                                          New Site: By 9/95.
                                     The DOT&PF facility is currently located on land              (b) Plan and Design New Facility: By 1/96.         (b) N/A
                                     adjacent to the north bank of the Kenai River in
                                     Soldotna. This facility is used to store road de-icing
                                     chemicals in a manner that may result in inadvertent
                                     pollution of the river. The Legislature appropriated
                                     funds to plan and design a new facility during the 1995
                                     session.


                                   Funding Source -- General funds
                                   Cooperators -- KPB, City of Soldotna, citizens
                                   Contact -- Roger Head (DOT&PF) @ 762-4275                                                                       L




                        3   The "ABC" list under 6 AAC 50.050 is used to classify permits on three lists: A List, for permits that are have no potential to adversely
               impact coastal resources and uses (no ACMP review required); 8 List, for routine projects that can be made consistent with ACMP with standard
                                                                                                                            IN












































               conditions (no further consistency reviews reviews if the conditions are met); and C List, for non-routine projects that must be evaluated on a case-by-
               case basis to determine consistency with the ACMP (project the must undergo an individual project review).

       Jufy 27, 1995                                                                                                                                                         Page 16







                                                                                                                                                                    PUBLICIAGENCY
           .AGii@iCr.                          ACTIVITY DESCRIPTioN/FuNDiNG                                               MILESTONES[_.:
                                                                                                                                                                    PARTICIPATION-:
                                         SOURCE/COOPERATORS/CONTACT: PERSON                                            PRODUCT8/DATES.:,:
          ORGA   NI A


                                (2) Sterling Highway Rehabilitation,                                    (a) Public Review of EIS: completed     by  12/95     (a) EIS available for
                                       The DOT&PF proposes to rehabilitate the Sterling                                                                           review upon request
                                       Highway from the Sterling Highway "Y" to Cooper                  (b) Preliminary Design: completed by 12/97            (b) N/A
                                       Landing (milepost 36 to 60). Much of the route is                (c) Construction: completed by 12/99                  (c) Public and agency
                                       adjacent to the Kenai River.                                                                                               review through public
                                                                                                                                                                  notice and state ACMP
                                    Funding Sources -- ISTEA funds                                                                                                process.
                                    Cooperators -- local businesses,   citizens, ADF&G, and
                                    Corps
                                    Contact -- Steve Horn (DOT&PF) @ 266-1737
                                                                                               - -- - --- - - - - - --- - - - - - --- - - - - --- - - - -- - - - -
                                (3) Uvver Kenai River Wayside.                                          (a? Final Design: by 12/95                            (a) N/A
                                       The DOT&PF proposes to contract with DPOR to create              (b) Complete Construction: by 8/96                    (b) Public and agency
                                       a wayside area at the Kenai Lake bridge. Facilities                                                                        review through public
                                       include parking, interpretation area, rest area facilities                                                                 notice and state ACMP
                                       and a boat launch ramp. (see ADF&G Sport Fish and                                                                          process.
                                       Commercial Fisheries project # 13 on page 8)

                                    Funding Source -- ISTEA funds
                                    Cooperators -- local businesses, citizens, ADF&G, and
                                    Corps
                                    Contact -- Tom Young (DPOR) @ 762        -2645

                                (4) Sterling Highway-Soldotna Urban.                                    (a) Preliminary Design: by 6/96                       (a) N/A
                                       The DOT&PF proposes to upgrade and rehabilitate the              (b) Construction: to be determined                    (b) Public and agency
                                       Sterling Highway through Soldotna. Project includes                                                                        review through public
                                       widening the street and the Kenai River bridge.                                                                            notice and state ACMP
                                                                                                                                                                  process.
                                    Funding Source -- ISTEA funds
                                    Cooperators -- City of Soldotna, businesses, citizens,
                                    ADF&G, and Corps
                                    Contact -- Vince Rhea (DOT&PF) @ 266-1583

                                (5) Soldotna Water Quality lmorovement.                                 (a) Construction Phase: complete by 8/96              (a) Public and agency
                                       The DOT&PF proposes to construct a storm water                                                                             review through public
                                       sedimentation basin at west end of Mary Dale Street in                                                                     notice and state ACMP
                                       Soldotna.                                                                                                                  process.

                                    Funding Source -- ISTEA funds
                                    Cooperators -- City of Soldotna, businesses, citizens,
                                    ADF&G, Corps
                                    Contact -- Jim Childers (DOT&PF) @ 266-1547





      July 27, 1996                                                                                                                                                                   Page 17





                                                 ACTIVITY DESCRIPTION/FUNDING                                                MILESTONES/                                PUBLICAGENCY
         :::,:,.ORGANIZAT1ON.:..:@:                                                  PERSON.                              PRODUCTS/
                                         ...... . ..                                                                                    Pi@TES
                                         ....... ...........


          FEDER4L AGEMES

          CORPS                   (1) Reaulatory Authority      Clean Water Act and Rivers and              (a) Permits Issued as Required                         (a) All permits are public
                                      Harbors Act.                                                                                                                     noticed. The public
                                         The Corps administers federal wetlands laws and                                                                               has opportunity to
                                         regulations on the Kenai River. Responsibilities include:                                                                     comment through the
                                         wetlands determinations, individual permits, nationwide                                                                       ACMP review process.
                                         permits, and general permits for the KRSMA. Authorities
                                         are Section 404 of the Clean Water Act and Section 10
                                         of the Rivers and Harbors Act.


                                      Funding Source -- Program funding
                                      Cooperators -- ADF&G, DEC, FWS, FS
                                      Contacts -- Hank Baij (Corps) @ 753-2724

          NRCS                    (1) NRCS Assistance to Private Landowners.                                (a) Complete Requests for Conservation Plans:          (a) Conservation plans are
                                         NRCS currently works with 50 private landowners                       ongoing                                                 reviewed and
                                         within the Kenai River watershed. The conservation                                                                            approved by KSWCD
                                         plans are developed for individual landowners to better            (b) Identify New Cooperators: ongoing                  (b) Same as (a)
                                         manage their forestry and agricultural lands. NRCS has
                                         50 land treatment practices which are recommended in
                                         these plans. NRCS assists the owner in implementing
                                         recommended practices by annually monitoring
                                         development of plans and in some cases cost share
                                         subsidies are available.


                                      Funding Source -- Ongoing funds
                                      Cooperators -- Private landowners
                                    -Contact -- Deb Swanson-(.NRCS) @ 283-8732           - -- - -- - --- - - - - - --- - - - - - --- - - - - --- - - - --
                                  (2) Small Watershed Program (PL-566)                                      (a) Identify Watershed for Planning: by                (a) Planning effort led by
                                         NRCS provides technical and financial assistance to                   9/30/96                                                 KSWCD with
                                         develop and implement watershed plans that address                                                                            participation of
                                         watershed protection, flood control, recreation, wildlife,                                                                    Cooperators
                                         water supply, and groundwater recharge.

                                      Funding Source -- ongoing funds
                                      Cooperators -- private landowners, federal, state, and local
                                      governments, Native organizations
                                      Contact    Terry Nelson (NRCS) @ 271-2424
                               L                                                                          -------- - --------- - ------ - - - -                   -------------- - -



       July 27, 1996                                                                                                                                                                        Page 18









                                                                                                                                                  F
                                             ACTIVITY. DESCRIPTIOWFUNDING                                         MILESTONEW:
                                                                                                                                                          PUBLIWAGENCY
                           ....                                                                                                                                 CIPATION
                                       SOURCE/COOPERATORS/CONTACT PERSON.                                       ROIJUCTSIDATES,
               . . . .. . . . . .


                               (3) River Basins Surveys and Investigations.                       (a) Publication Available: by 10/95                (a) Report available upon
                                  ï¿½  NRCS cooperates with other agencies in conducting                                                                   request after 10/95.
                                     river basin studies. For example, the Kenai River Basin
                                     Survey provides detailed soil and vegetation maps and
                                     interpretations useful to all landowners and managers
                                     along the Kenai River. Information in Kenai River Land
                                     Owners Guide, KPB GIS, and ADF&G GIS.
                                  ï¿½ Other examples of products include City of Soldotna
                                     Kenai River Bank Inventory Report (1989) and Kenai
                                     River Cooperative Baseline Study (1994).

                                  Funding Source -- NRCS funding or contractual
                                  Cooperators -- Private landowners, federal, state, and local
                                  governments, Native organizations
                                  Contact -- D eb Swanson (NRCS) @ 262-9295

                               (4) Data Gathered on Precipitation and Temperature.                (a) Monitor Established Sites: ongoing             (a) Snow survey report
                                     The NRCS maintains nine automated sites where                                                                       available upon request
                                     climatic data is gathered daily or hourly. Kenai River
                                     watershed snow pack is measured on a monthly basis.

                                  Funding Source -- Ongoing funds
                                  Cooperators -- Public and private landowners
                                  Contact -- R ick McClure (NRCS) @ 271-2424

                               (5) Soil Survey Program.                                           (a) Initiate Kenai Lowlands Soil Survey: 1995      (a) Soil survey report
                                     The NRCS will launch a new soil survey of the Kenai                                                                 available upon request
                                     lowlands to update the existing 1962 information. The                                                               to KSWCD
                                     extent of the Kenai River watershed to be included in
                                     the survey depends on whether the FWS will pay for the
                                     survey on Kenai NWR lands.

                                  Funding Source -- Ongoing funds
                                  Cooperators -- state, federal, and local agencies,
                                  landowners, KSWCD
                                -Contact -- Doug Van Patten (NRCS) @ 235-8177









      July 27, 1995                                                                                                                                                        Page 19





                                                ACTIVITY DESCRIPTION /FUNDING                                             MILESTONES/                                PUBLIC/AGENCY
            ACWNCY O.k: m:
         @@i::@@bk6ANIIZATbk@:             OURCE/COOPERATORS/CONTACT.OERSON.
                                                                                                                       PRODUCTS/DATE                ..... ..
                                                                                                                                                       ......       PART

                                 (6) Kenai Peninsula Resource Conservation District.                    (a) Board of Directors Meeting:     Scheduled  for     (a) Meetings are open   to
                                        The NRCS has sponsored formation of the RCD for the                 6[8/95.                                                the public
                                        Kenai Peninsula communities. The coordinator's
                                        position is funded by the USDA. The RCD Board of                (b) Board Reviews and Prioritizes Proposals:           (b) Meetings are open   to
                                        Directors are volunteers from Kenai Peninsula                       By 8195.                                               the public
                                        communities. The Board of Directors will review and
                                        prioritize proposals submitted which use or assist in
                                        conservation of natural resources. RCD will assist in
                                        project development by linking proponents to agencies
                                        with expertise and to potential sources of financing.

                                     Funding Source -- USDA funds
                                     Cooperators -- private landowners, federal, state and local
                                     governments, interest groups
                                     Contact -- Af Poindexter (NRCS1 @ 283-8732

           FWS                   (1) Coordinate Kenai River Watershed Activities for FWS.               (a) Draft Ecosystem Action Plan for Fiscal             (a) FWS will use existing
           Ecological                   FWS uses Team (which includes Ecological Services,                  Years 1995-97Prepared 11195: to be                     public and interagency
           Services                     Kenai NWR, and Kenai Fisheries Resources Office) to                 modified/augmented as partner contacts                 forums and solicit
                                        unify FWS positions and to cooperate/solicit                        are made and formalized.                               partnerships to
                                        partnerships with other agencies and interest groups     on                                                                address ecosystem
                                        Kenai River issues.                                                                                                        issues. Action Plan
                                                                                                                                                                   available upon request.
                                     Funding Source -- FWS base funds
                                     Cooperators -- Federal, state, and local governments,
                                     Native groups, interest groups
                                     Contacts -- Ann Rappoport (FWS) @ 271-2787

                                 (2) Regulatory Activities - CWA and Corps Permits.                     Ongoing                                                (a) Public and agency
                                     ï¿½ Provides review comments on Clean Water Act                                                                                 involvement through
                                        Section 404 and Corps Section 10 permits.                                                                                  Corps public notices
                                     ï¿½ Serve as technical advisors on Kenai River bank                                                                             and state ACMP
                                        restoration projects.                                                                                                      review process

                                     Funding Source -- Program funds
                                     Cooperators -- EPA, NMFS
                                   -Contact -- Ann Rappoport (FWS) @ 271-2787
                                                                                                       E














































        July 27, 1995                                                                                                                                                                  Page 20

 11*******Ooooooooooooooooooooooooooo,oooooooooooooooooooo








                                                                                                                                             ...... .... .
                                ............ -1-1 ......-                                                                               . . ....                   .. . .. .
                                 ........ ...
                               ......... . .                                                                                                                      PUB
                                               ACTIVITY DESCRIPTI                                                  .... .-MILESTONES/                                 LICIAGENCY:
                                                                      ONNUNDINT,
         ..@@@:@ORGA, ZATION::@@ @@:@::@@@@i@@@@@@@@@@@@@@;@@@@@@@@i:@@i@@@@@@SOURCE/COOPERATORSICONTACT :PERSON      PRODUCTS/                                     ARTICIPATION
                                                                                                                                   DATES
                                                                                                                                              ...........      ......


                                 (3) Update and Revise Text of Book entitled "Pacific Salmon           (a) Provide Camera Ready Copy: By 8/15/95.            (a) Publication available
                                     from Alaska to California".                                       (b) Final Publication: By 11/95.                          for purchase by 12/95.

                                        The FWS will propose revisions to text and new photos
                                        which will give the reader a more accurate impression of
                                        the Kenai River and the salmon living there.

                                     Funding Source -- FWS; challenge cost share program,
                                     ADF&G match funds
                                     Cooperators -- FWS, ADF&G
                                     Contact -- Ann Rappoport (FWS) @ 271-2787
                                                                                                          --- - - - - - --- - - - - - --- - - - - --- - - - -- - - - -
                                 (4) State and Federal Agency Policy Makers to Meet.                   (a) Develop Agenda: By early September                (a) FWS to coordination
                                                                                                                                                                 with participating
                                        The FWS is sponsoring a meeting, "Kenai River                                                                            agencies to develop
                                        Summit," of the heads of ADF&G and agencies with                                                                         agenda
                                        management and regulatory authority of Kenai River             (b) Kenai River Summit Meeting: 11 /1 /95 in          (b) Meeting results
                                        lands to discuss management of public lands.                       Anchorage                                             available on request

                                     Funding Source: no special funding
                                     Cooperators: ADF&G, DNR, FS
                                     Contact: Ann Rappoport IFWS) @ 271-2787

           FWS                   (1) Quantification of Natural Water Supplies and Identification       ja) Annual Reports: reports containing                (a) Reports available upon
           Water Resources           of Instream Flow Needs for Fish and Wildlife.                         information on daily and maximum/                     request.
           Branch                       FWS, in cooperation with DNR, operated steam                       minimum discharge will be available by
                                        discharge gaging stations on the Russian River,    Funny           June with information from the previous
                                        River, and Moose River from 1986 through 1988. In                  calendar year.
                                        10/94, new stream discharge gaging stations were               (b) Final Report: final report with all data will     Jb) Reports available upon
                                        initiated on the Russian River and Kelley River. The               be available in the summer of 2000.                   request.
                                        purpose is to quantify the annual water supplies within
                                        these watersheds. Information will be used to prepare
                                        an analysis of instrearn flow needs for fish and wildlife,
                                        and their habitats. Water rights will be filed through
                                        DNR.


                                     Funding Source -- General funds
                                     Cooperators -- DNR, ADF&G
                                     Contact -- Keith Bayha (FWS) @ 786-3537







       July 27, 1996                                                                                                                                                                 Page 21





            AGENCY.                                                                                                         MILESTONES
         @'::DRGAIS114A*                                                                                                              D
                                                ACTIVITY DESCRIPTION/FUNDING                                                                                           PLIBLICZAGENCY
                                          SOURCE/COOPERATORS/CONTACT PERSON
                                                                                                                         PRODUCT

           FWS                   0 1 Regulatory Authority      Special Use Permits.                       (a) Permits Issued and Renewed. annually,              (a) N/A
           Kenai NWR                                                                                          generally by May 1
                                     ï¿½  FWS issues Special Use Permits for commercial and                 (b) Permitting Coordination: Kenai NWR                 (b) Ongoing: MOU calls
                                        other activities as required under Part 50 Code of                    regulations and KRSMA regulations are                  for annual coordination
                                        Federal Regulations.                                                  coordinated in upper river locations where             meeting
                                     ï¿½  FWS has a memorandum of understanding with DPOR                       jurisdictions overlap
                                        and FS to cooperatively manage the Kenai River in areas
                                        where jurisdictions overlap.

                                     Funding Source -- Kenai NWR budget
                                     Cooperators -- DPOR, FS, ADF&G, KPB
                                     Contact- Mark Chase, Acting Refuge Manager (Kenai
                                     NWR) @ 262-7021

                                 (2) Manaaement Authorities -- Public Uses on Kenai River                 (a) PUMP is in Progress: Public meetings and           (a) The PUMP will be
                                     within the Refuge.                                                       review opportunities will be scheduled.                available for review by
                                        Kenai NWR has lead responsibility for formulating the                                                                        all interested parties
                                        PUMP. Public uses are primarily related to sport fishing,                                                                    once it is drafted.
                                        river travel and access to shoreline activities. Facilities       lb) Jim's Landing Rehabilitation: Construction         (b) Public and agency
                                        include boat launches, trails, educational information,               in progress. Completion by 10/95.                      involvement through
                                        river access and parking, a ferry crossing, and four                                                                         public notice and state
                                        campgrounds.                                                                                                                 ACMP review process.
                                                                                                          (c) Lower Skilak Campground Rehabilitation:            (c) Same as b
                                     Funding Source -- Kenai NWR budget                                       Access road and parking improvements
                                     Cooperators -- State, federal, and local governments,                    scheduled for 1996.
                                     interest groups
                                     Contact -- Mark Chase, Acting Refuge Manager (Kenai
                                     NWR) @ 262-7021.

                                 (3) Kenai River Bank Restoration Between River Mile 71 and               (a) Completion: Fence installed 5/95. Fisher           la) Public and agency
                                     73.                                                                      access trail determined by 7/95.                       involvement through
                                        Restoration project will develop trails and fences to                                                                        public notice and state
                                        funnel anglers to low impact fishing areas.                                                                                  ACMP review process

                                     Funding Source -- To be determined
                                     Cooperators -- ADF&G, KPB, DPOR
                                     Contact -- Mark Chase, Acting Refuge Manager (Kenai
                                     i TVV -R) %'-- 'a '5 2 - 7 ^0 22 '1
                                                                                                                                                                -----------









       Julv 27, 1995                                                                                                                                                                     Page 22

  10000000000000000000000000000000000000*0000saosessessas








                                                                                                                            MILESTONES/::.: ... PUBLICIAGENCY
                                                 ACTIVITY. DESCRIPTION/FUN DING:,.
                                                                                                                                                                           TIC
                                                                                                                            obOdt8fDAt
                                                                                   'PERSON
            ORGANIZATION:...,   @@@;::@@@@@@@@:@@@:@@.::@@:@@@::@@@:SOURCE/COOPERATORSICONT,ACT.,                      . .. .... .

                                  (4) Resolution of Native Land Issues within Kenai NWR                   1a) CIRI Applications Pending                          (a) BLM Branch of
                                      Adiacent to Kenai River.                                                                                                       Adjudications
                                      The following are land ownership/entitlement                                                                                   establishes 14NO)
                                      responsibilities of the Kenai NWR:                                                                                             sites.
                                      ï¿½  CIRI application for ANCSA section 14NO) historical              (b) Land Purchases and Negotiations: in                (b) Congressional
                                         sites at Kenai-Russian River confluence and other Kenai              progress. Congressional legislation                    deliberations allow for
                                         River locations.                                                     required.                                              public comments.
                                      ï¿½  Kenai Native Association lands conveyed via ANCSA                (cl Transfer of Public Use Easement: a 25-             (c) NA
                                         Section 22(g) below Skilak Lake.                                     foot public use easement, Kenai River and
                                      ï¿½  Salamatof Native Association lands and associated                    river bed retained within refuge at time of
                                         public use and nondevelopment easements, river                       conveyance. Variable non-development
                                         miles 25-28.                                                         easement adjacent to Kenai River recorded
                                                                                                              in deeds and plats, transfer to U.S.
                                      Funding Source -- FWS base funds                                        Government pending.
                                      Cooperators -- BLM, FWS, CIRI, Kenai Native Association,
                                      Salamatof Native Corporation
                                      Contact -- Mark Chase, Acting Refuge Manager (Kenai
                                      NWRI @ 262-7021

            FWS                   (1) Adont-A-Stream Proaram.                                             Ongoing                                                Schools and others groups
            Kenai Fishery                Monitor water quality and fish populations in Slikok                                                                    actively involved
            Resources Office             Creek, a tributary to the Kenai River. This project is
                                         sponsored in cooperation with the K-Beach Elementary
                                         School under the Adopt-A-Stream program.

                                      Funding Source -- FWS base funds
                                      Cooperators -- Federal, state, and local governments, KPB
                                      schools
                                      Contact -- Gary Sonnevil (FINS) @ 2     62-9863

                                  (2) Develoo Fishery Management Plan for the Kenai NWR.                  (a) Completion of Fishery Management Plan:             (a) Plan available upon
                                         The FMP is a document summarizing FWS fishery                        Plan will be final by 7195.                            request.
                                         investigations on the Kenai NWR. Investigations deal
                                         with fish populations and their status (e.g., size, weight,
                                         and age).

                                      Funding Source -- FWS base funds
                                      Cooperative -- ADF&G
                                      Contact -- Ga  ry Sonnevil (FINS) @ 262-9863







        July 27, 1995                                                                                                                                                                    Page 23


     AGENCY OR                                 ACTIVITY DESCRIPTION/FUNDING                                          MILESTONES/                                 PUBLIC/AGENCY
    ORGANIZATION                              SOURCE/COOPERATORS/CONTACT PERSON                                    PRODUCT/DATES                                 PARTICIPATION                                   
           
                
                                                                                                                       
                                 (3)  Bank Restoration Projects on the Kenai River and Soldotna          (a) Project Completion: both projects are              (a) Established working  
                                      Creek.                                                                 scheduled for completion in 1995                       group provide a 
                                        Soldotna Creek is an experimental bioengineering                                                                            forum for agencies 
                                        project.                                                                                                                    participation      
                                      Funding Sources -- Coastal America, Challenge Grant,
                                      Cooperators -- FWS/Ecological Services, City of Soldotna,
                                      Cook Inlet Aquaculture Association, Alaska Science and
                                      Technology Foundation, ADF&G, USGS, EPA, NMFS,
                                      NRCS, Corps, Coastal America
                                      Contact -- Gary Sonnevil (FWS) @ 262-9863; Lance
                                      Trasky (ADF&G) @) 267-2342

           NATIONAL              (1)  Analysis of Juvenile Chinook and Coho Rearing                      (a) Draft Manuscript -- Completed and will be          (a) Journal article will be   
           BIOLOGICAL                 Requirements.                                                          distributed for peer review soon.                    available for public and
           SERVICE                    Date collected in the early 1980's was analyzed for a                                                                      peer review in 1995.
           Alaska Science             fishery journal publication on salmonid rearing habitat.                                                                                         
           Center
                                      Funding Source -- NBS
                                      Cooperators -- ADF&G, FWS
                                      Contact -- Carl Burger (NBS) @ 786-3314

                                 (2) Summary of In-river Access-related Impacts to Salmonid              (a) Report Completed: Publication of report in        (a) Available upon request              
                                      Habitats.                                                              progress.
                                      ï¿½ Preparation of a summary of in-river access structures
                                        and other access-related impacts to salmonids in the
                                        Kenai and other Pacific Northwest rivers.
                                      ï¿½ Includes extensive literature search and production of
                                        matrices to illustrate the effects of different structures
                                        on salmonids.


                                      Funding Sources -- FWS, NBS
                                      Cooperators -- ADF&G, FWS
                                      Contact -- Carl Burger (NBS) @ 786-3314
           FS                    (1)  Russian River Angler Trail Project.                                (a) EA: with preferred alternative completed           (a) EA available for public             
                                      ï¿½ The FS along with the Russian River Working Group,                   by 7/95.                                               and agency review in 
                                        has developed six alternatives to protect or rehabilitate                                                                   2/95.                                                                                                                                                                  
                                        eroded stream banks along the lower Russian River.               
                                      ï¿½ The FS has implemented three stream bank restoration             (b) Decision on Selected Alternative: by 8/95          (b) N/A
                                        projects at the Russian River.                                   (c) Implement Preferred Afternative: initiate          (c) and(d)Public and 
                                                                                                             by 7/95                                                agency involvement
                                      Funding Source -- FS funds                                         (d) Construct Demonstration Project: by 5/96               through public notice
                                      Cooperators -- Citizen, multi-agency working groups                                                                           and state ACMP
                                                                                                                                                                    review process.
                                      Contact -- Mark Wenger (FS) @ 224-3374                                                                                        
                                                                                                                                                                              
       July 27, 1995                                                                                                                                                                 Page 24

 







                                                                                                                                                                       PUBLIC/AGENCY
                                                ACTIVITY DeSCRIPTIONfIFUNPING                                               M ESTONESt
                         ION::,:                                                                                                        A
                                           SOURCE/COOPERATORSICONTACT PERSON                                             PRODUCTS/D TES:.....-.-!:

                                  (2) Moose  Pass Cooperative Spruce Bark Beetle Proiect.                 (a) E4 Issued.-  by 6/95 (See DNR/DOF      #1  for     (a) EA available for public
                                        The FS and DNR/DOF have signed a cooperative                          more details)                                          and agency review
                                        agreement to manage 27,000 acres of state and federal             (b) Decision: by 7/95                                      6/95. (See DNR/DOF
                                        lands in the upper Kenai River watershed. The five                                                                           #1 for more details)
                                        alternatives developed calls for logging of 226 acres to
                                        8,704 acres of bark beetle-infested spruce trees. (See
                                        DNR/DOF #1 for more details).


                                     Funding Source -- FS funds
                                     Cooperators -- Other agencies
                                     Contact --  Mark Wenger (FS) @ 224-3374
                                  (31 Chugach National Forest Land Management Plan Revision               (a) Preliminary Revision Topics. completed by          (a) Public and agency
                                        The FS is currently revising the FMP written in 1984.                 3/95                                                   meetings
                                        Will re-examine management direction for National                 (b) Final Revision Topics: completed by 9/95           (b) Public forum held to
                                        Forest System lands within the Kenai River drainage, as           (c) Analysis of Management Situation:                      verify revision topics
                                        well as other areas on the Chugach National Forest.                   summary completed by 5/96                          (c) Public comments to be
                                        Will also consider cumulative effects of all management           (d) Develop Alternatives: by 6/96                          summarized by FS
                                        activities on the resources of the Kenai River.                   (e) Analyze Effects: by 10/96                          (d) N/A
                                                                                                          (f) Draft EISITroposed FMA completed by                (e) N/A
                                     Funding Source -- FS funds                                               12/96                                              (f) Formal public review
                                     Cooperators -- State, federal, and local governments,                (g) Public Comments Due on Draft                           initiated
                                     interest groups, local citizens                                          EISIProposed FMP. 9/97                             (g) Public review over
                                     Contact -- Gary Lenhausen (FS) @ 271-2560                            N   Final EIS, Record of Decision, and Revised
                                                                                                              FMA    6198                                        (h) N/A

                                  (4) Russian River Falls Viewina Platform.                               (a) Complete Construction: Summer, 1995                (a) Public and agency
                                        The FS is constructing a wider platform overlooking the                                                                      involvement through
                                        falls to provide better opportunities for viewing fish                                                                       public and state ACMP
                                        lumping the falls.                                                                                                           review process.

                                     Funding Source -- FS funds
                                     Cooperators -- FWS, DPOR, ADF&G
                                     Contact -- Karen O'Leary (FS) @ 224-3374

                                  (5) Lower Russian Lakes Trail.                                          (a) Complete Construction: Summer, 1995                (a) N/A
                                        Widen and improve trail to allow for use by people with
                                        mobility impairments.

                                     Funding Source -- FS funds
                                     Cooperators -- FWS, DPOR, ADF&G
                                     Contact -- Pat O'Leary (FS) @ 224-3374




       July 27, 1996                                                                                                                                                                     Page 25




             AGENCY OR':'@'                    ACTIVITY DESCRIPTION/FUNDING                                             MILESTONES/                                 BLIC/AGENCY
                                                                                                                                                                  PU
         ..::qR,GA..N,,IZATION:..@@:;@@@:@:@;@:@@:.,,::......;:.SOURCE/COOPEMTORS/CONTACT PERSON                     PRODUCTS/DATES
                                                                                                                                                                 PARTICIPATION
                                 (6) Footorints Heritage Site.                                         (a) ComPlete Construction: Summer, 1995              (a) N/A
                                       Construct parking for cultural heritage   site access
                                       across from entrance to Russian River    campground.
                                       Public will be able to view archeological features, talk
                                       with members of the Kenaitze Indian Tribe and view
                                       living history.

                                     Funding Source -- FS funds
                                     Cooperators -- Kenaitze Indian Tribe
                                     Contact -- Dredra St. Louis (FS) @ 224-3374

                                 (7) Streamwatch Volunteers.                                           (a) Training Session: April, 1995                    (a) N/A
                                       Volunteers from Anchorage and the Kenai Peninsula will          (b) Initiate Program: Summer, 1995                   (b) NIA
                                       be contacting visitors on the Kenai and Russian Rivers
                                       to educate them concerning damage caused to sensitive
                                       riparian areas, and what people can do to minimize their
                                       impacts.

                                     Funding Sources -- FS, FWS, DPOR, Kenai River
                                     Sportfishing Inc., Facility Management Inc., and Student
                                     Conservation Assoc.
                                     Cooperators -- FS, FWS, DPOR, sport fishing groups, local
                                     businesses
                                     Contacts -- Karen O'Leary (FS) @ 224-3374, Candance
                                     Ward (FWS) @ 262-7201
           EPA                   (1) Review Authority -- Comments on Federal Permits.                  Ongoing                                              Public and agency review
                                     ï¿½ Review and comment on Section 404 CWA and                                                                            comments through Corps
                                       Section 10 R&H Act permits for activities requiring the                                                              public notice and state
                                       discharge of dredged or fill material in waters of the                                                               ACMP review process.
                                       United States, including wetlands.
                                     ï¿½ Review and comment on ElSs and EAs for compliance
                                       with NEPA.
                                     ï¿½ Review and comment on DEC's proposed operating
                                       permits and conduct oversight inspections.

                                     Funding Source -- Program funds
                                     Cooperators -- FWS, NMIS
                                     Contacts -- Phil North (EPA) @ 271-3401; John Pavitt
                                     (EPA) @ 271-3688
                                                                                                      ----- - - - ------ - - - - - ----------              ------------- - - -
        Fl';o




















       July 27, 1996                                                                                                                                                               Page 26







                                               ACTIVITY DESCRIPTIONIFLIN DING                                             M ILESTONES/.,.:..:.@,:::.:':::
                                                                                                                                                                     PUBLIC/AGENCY
                                             URCE/COOPERATORSICONT CT PERSON                                            PROD LlCTSiDATES.:::::::::                   PARTICIPATION
          OAGANIZATIOW@@::                                                  A                                                                      ... . ...

                                 (2) Regulatory Authority     Federal Regulations.                       Ongoing                                                Public and agency
                                    ï¿½  Issues NPDES permits pursuant to section 402 of CWA                                                                      comments on NPDES
                                       for large industrial facilities (e.g., seafood processors).                                                              permits provided through
                                       Conduct inspections for permit compliance.                                                                               EPA Public Notice and
                                       Contact: Valerie Haney (EPA) @ 271-3651                                                                                  ACMP review process

                                    ï¿½  Inspect facilities with underground storage tanks for
                                       compliance with upgrade requirements per 40 CFR,
                                       Part 280.
                                       Contact: Jackie Poston (EPA) @ 271-3401

                                    ï¿½  Inspect facilities with above ground storage tanks for
                                       compliance with the Oil Pollution Prevention Regulations
                                       (40 CFR Part 112).
                                       Contact: Jackie Poston (EPA) @ 271-3541


                                    ï¿½  Review and approve oil spill prevention, control, and
                                       countermeasures for facilities with above ground
                                       storage tanks.
                                       Contact: Matt Carr (EPA) @ 271-3616


                                    Funding Source -- Program funds
                                    Cooperators -- DEC, EPA
                                    Contacts -- See above

                                 (3) Kenai River Watershed Conservation Proiect.                         (a) Organize and Sponsor. A conference                 (a) Public are invited to
                                       EPA will fund a TNC staff position to work with the                   entitled "A Gathering of the People",                 attend and participate.
                                       local residents of the Kenai River Watershed, and local,              scheduled to occur at the Sports Center in
                                       state, and federal agencies to foster conservation/non-               Soldotna in March or April 96.
                                       regulatory methods of protecting fish habitat. The                                                                       (b) Public are invited to
                                       outcome of this project includes the creation of a                (b) Develop Kenai River Land Trust Group:                 attend and participate.
                                       Watershed Information Office, Watershed Land Trust,                   First meeting by 6/15/95, trust created by
                                       and sponsoring a conference entitled "A Gathering of                  9/95.
                                       the People". The goal is to encourage coordination and
                                       cooperation among landowners, agency land managers,
                                       borough planners, and Kenai River users.

                                    Funding Source -- 104(b)(3) Grant
                                    Cooperators -- Watershed residents, agencies
                                    Contact -- Phil North (EPA) @ 271-3401; Michelle Brown
                                  _jLNQ @ 262-6377




      JuIV 27, 1995                                                                                                                                                                     Page 27






             AGENCY OR                        ACTIVITY DESCRIPTION/FUNDING                                                 MILESTONES/                                                  PUBLIC/AGENCY                                
          ORGANIZATION                    SOURCE/COOPERATORS/CONTACT  PERSON                                              PRODUCTS/DATES                                                PARTICIPATION
                                                                                                                           

                                  14) Assist in Coordinating Agency Kenai River Activities.                 (a) Establish  Working Group:     Kenai River                           Agencies participate as
                                         Organize and hold meetings to assist in coordinating                   Watershed Interagency Coordination Group                            members of the KRWICG
                                         state, federal, and local agency activities on the Kenai               (KRWICG) established 10/94
                                         River.                                                             (b) Hold Meetings: as needed (about every
                                                                                                                one to two months)
                                      Funding Source -- Program funds
                                      Cooperators -- State and federal agencies, KPB
                                      Contact -- Phil North (EPA) @ 271-3401

                                  (5) Synthesis of Kenai River Watershed Literature                         (a) Complete Literature Search: Will be                               Agencies and other 
                                         EPA has funded the Alaska Natural Heritabe Program at                  completed and intered in an Alaska Natural                        groups will be contracted 
                                         the University of Alaska, Anchorage, to summarize and                  Heritage Program's Biological Conservation                        for information. Report
                                         integrate the available scientific and cultural information            Database by 11/95                                                 will be avaiable upon
                                         for the Kenai River Watershed. The final product will              (b) Final Report: 2/96                                                request. Agencies and
                                         make the volumes of information on the Kenai River                                                                                       public can also make  
                                         Watershed more accessible to interested people.                                                                                          queries of the database.

                                      Funding Sources -- EPA Funds
                                      Cooperators -- other agencies
                                      Contact -- Phil North (EPA) @ 271-3401

           NMFS                    (1) Review Authority-Comments on Federal Permits.                         Ongoing                                                           Public and agency
                                 ï¿½ Advises the Corps on Section 404 and Section 10                                                                                         comments provided
                                         permits for activities in and near the Kenai River.           												   through Corps Public	
                                       ï¿½ NMFS reviews NPDES permits, EISs and Eas for															   Notice and ACMP review	
                                         activities in and near the Kenai River.																   process.			


                                      Funding Source -- Program funding
                                      Cooperators -- FWS, EPA, ADF&G
                                      Contact -- Ron Morris (NMFS) @ 271-5006

                                  (2) Kenai River Habitat Restoration Funds.                                See ADF&G #8, page 4								  See ADF&G/H&R #8,
                                         NMFS has received a one million dollar appropriation for                      										  page 4.
                                         Kenai River habitat restoration. These funds will be
                                         transferred to the state in 1995 (see ADF&G/H&R #8,
                                         page 4).
                                      Funding Source -- Program funding
                                      Cooperators -- State of Alaska
                                      
                                      Contact -- Ron Morris (NMFS) @ 271-5006








        July 27, 1995																				Page 28








                                                                                                                       MILESTONES/                              PUBLIClAGENCY
            AGENCY                             ACTIVITY DESCRIPTION/FUNDING
                                                                                                                         DUd
                                         SOURCE/COOPERATORSICONTACT PERSON                                           PRO      TSIDA                              PARTICIPATION


          USGS                  (1)  Long-Term Stream Flow Study.                                     (a) Produce a Report Summarizing DaHY                (a) Report available upon
          Water Resources            * Collect and report stream flow data at Cooper     Landing          Discharge: By 10/95                                  request after 10/95.
          Division                     for period of 1949 to 1995.
                                     * Collect and report stream flow data at Soldotna for
                                       period of 1965 to 1995.

                                     Funding Source -- Program funds
                                     Cooperators -- ADF&G, FWS, DPOR, FS
                                     Contact -- Ken Thompson (USGS) @ 786-7 100

                                (2) Assess the Effects of Strearnside Structures on Juvenile          (a) Collect Field Data: By 6/95.                     (a) N/A
                                     Chinook Salmon Habitat,                                          (b) Final Draft Report: By 8/95.                     (b) Report available upon
                                       The ADF&G 309 study showed some of the prime                                                                            request by 10/95.
                                       salmon rearing habitat in the Kenai river has been
                                       damaged by human activities. This study will assess
                                       the effects of man-made structures on prime salmon
                                       rearing habitat.

                                     Funding Source -- ADF&G 309 study funds
                                     Cooperators -- ADF&G, USGS, FWS, DPOR, FS, KPB,
                                     landowners, sportfishing interest groups
                              I      Contact -- Joe Dorava (USGS) @ 786-7100

          LOCAL GOVERNMENT

          KPB                   (1)  Reaulatory Authority -- Title 29.                                (a) Subdivision Ordinance: ongoing, platting         (a) Bi-monthly planning
                                     ï¿½ Subdivision Ordinance, KP13 Title 20 -- To promote                 approvals/vacations issued by borough and            commissions
                                       adequate and efficient street and road system, to                  planning commissions as needed                       meetings, public
                                       provide minimum standards of survey accuracy and                                                                        notices, agency and
                                       proper preparation of plats, and to protect and improve                                                                 public reviews
                                       the health, safety, and general welfare of people.             (b) Floodolain Management: ongoing, permits          (b) N/A
                                       Contact -- Robbie Harris, Platting Officer (KPB) @ 262-            issued as required
                                       4441 ext. 264


                                     ï¿½ Floodplain Management, KPI3 Title 21.6 -- To promote
                                       the public health, safety, and general welfare and to
                                       minimize public and private losses due to flood
                                       conditions in specific areas (permit required for any
                                       contruction or development in the floodplaini.

                                       Contact -- Jane Gabler, Program Administrator (KPB)
                                       @ 262-4441 ext.





       July 27, 1996                                                                                                                                                              Page 29





            AGEN&".6'11                       ACTIVITY DESCRIPTION /FUNDING                                           MILESTONES/                             PUBLIC/AGENCY
                                                                                                                        DUCTS/DATES_..                         PARTICIPATION
                              @,,:@,,@,@,,@@@@,@@@@@@@@,@,,,:@@:@:@:,:,@9URCE/COOPERAT.O.R.S/CONTAC..T PERSON    ... FRO,

                                12) Review Activities/ACMP.                                           Ongoing                                             Public involvement
                                       The KPB does coastal consistency reviews for permitted                                                             through bi-monthly
                                       activities including activities on and near the Kenai                                                              planning commission
                                       River. Intended to provide local information and                                                                   meetings, public notices,
                                       perspectives to implement the policies and objectives of                                                           and public and agency
                                       the ACMP and KPB Coastal Management Program.                                                                       involvement through the
                                                                                                                                                          ACMP consistency review
                                    Funding Sources -- State ACMP and borough                                                                             process
                                    appropriations
                                    Cooperators -- State and federal agencies
                                    Contact -- Margaret Spahn, Coastal Program Coordinator
                                    1KPB) @ 267-4441 ext. 298

                                (3) Land Use Plannina.
                                    ï¿½  Funny River Community -- Public survey of community            (a) Public Survey                                   Public notices, public and
                                       completed, now moving to next phase of developing a                                                                agency involvement
                                       land use plan to establishing goals and objectives (plan                                                           through KPB Planning
                                       will include portions of Kenai River between Skilak Lake                                                           Commission and
                                       and Salarnantoff property boundary). Planning process                                                              Assembly
                                       was initiated by FHA.
                                       Contact -- Deborah Gilcrest, Planner (KPB) @ 262-4441
                                       ext. 266


                                    ï¿½  Ordinance 94-52, Kenai River Overlay District --               (b) Ordinance 94-52: Ordinance voted down
                                       Ordinance would have established a Kenai River Overlay            in May.
                                       District with conditional use permit requirements and
                                       setting forth conditional use permit approval criteria.
                                       Contact -- Lisa Parker, Director (KPB) @ 262-4441 ext.
                                       305

                                       The Assembly initiated a separate effort to attempt to            The first meeting was held on June 9,
                                       reach consensus on the substantive issues related to              1995, to establish rules, goals, objectives,
                                       the Kenai River Overlay Distict. A Kenai River Working            etc. A field trip was made on June 12. A
                                       Group (KRWG) with public representatives was                      three-day work session was held on July
                                       established (agencies particpate as advisors). The                18 to 20. Followup draft report to be
                                       Assembly hired a facilitator (Kathy Scott & Associates)           completed by 10/95
                                       to assist in the effort.


                                    ï¿½  Ordinance 94-56, Utility Use of ROW -- Establishes a           (c) Ordinance 94-56: Enacted spring 1995.
                                       permit system for regulation or construction activities by        Permit is now required to contruct utilitities
                                       public utilities within KPB ROW and establishes                   in public right-of-ways.
                                       regulations for use and control of ROW.
                                       Contact -- Lisa Parker, Director (KPB) @ 262-4441
                                       ext. 305


       July 27, 1995                                                                                                                                                             Page 30


 0000040000006 0 0                                                                                                                                                                *0









                                                                                                                                         ........ ..
                                                    ACTIVITYDESCRIPTION/FUNDING                                                      MILESTONES/                                  PUBLIC/AGENCY.
                                                                                                                                                                                   PARTICIPATION
                                                                                                                                  PRODUCTS/DATESi
                                           ....:SOURCE/COOPERATORS/CONTACT                PERSON


                                    (3) Land   Use Planning    1cont-)                                            (cont.)                                                    (cont.)
                                           Ordinance 94-57, Protection of Public         Roads and Road           (d) Ordinance 94-57: Enacted        spring 1995.           same as above
                                           ROW -- Establishes regulations governing and limiting
                                           activities within dedicated ROW in the KPB
                                           Contact      Lisa Parker, Director (KPB) @ 262-4441
                                           ext. 305

                                    (4) Kenai River Center                                                        (a) Schedule and milestones to be set.                     The KPB will work with
                                           The KPB Assembly has approved funds (1 24.8K) to                                                                                  the appropriate state and
                                           establish a "Kenai River Center."         The objective as                                                                        federal agencies who will
                                           stated in the Borough budget documents is: "To                                                                                    participate in the
                                           provide staff and support facilities to implement a Kenai                                                                         establishment of the Kenai
                                           River Corridor Management Plan in concert with other                                                                              River Center.
                                           state and federal agencies under ther terms of
                                           agreements to be developed." Funds included for the
                                           establishment of new KPB code compliance officer and
                                           permit technician. Limited funds also included for
                                           building rent, supplies, and other associated expenses.

                                        Funding Source: KPB general funds
                                        Cooperators: other state and federal agencies
                                        Contact: Lisa Parker, Director (KPB) @         262-4441

                                    (5) Kenai River Tax Credit Program                                            (a) Letter to Landowners: Governor Knowles                 There will be public
                                           The KPB may establish a tax credit incentive for (1)                       sent letter notify all Kenai River                     notices, public and agency
                                           protecting the Kenai River or a tributary from                             landowners of the legislation.                         involvement through the
                                           degradation of fish habitat due to public or private uses              (b) Borough Drafting Ordinace: KPB legal                   Assembly approval
                                           or (2) restore riparian fish habitat along the Kenai River                 department is currently developing a draft             process.
                                           and tributaries that has been damaged by land use                          ordinance. A draft will be released to the
                                           practices.                                                                 cities of Kenai and Soldota and ADF&G for
                                                                                                                      preliminary review by August or
                                        Funding Sources: KPB general funds                                            September. The goal is to have an
                                        Cooperators: ADF&G and other interested ageciies                              approved ordinance approved by the
                                        Contact: Bill Evans, Legal Dept. (KPB) @ 262-8609                             beginning of the 1996 tax year (January 1,
                                                                                                                      1996)












        July 27, 1995                                                                                                                                                                                  Page 31



                                                        BI@L









                                                  APPENDIX B



                                          Distribution List for Summar3L of

                                          Agency Authorities and Activities







                   KENAI RIVER ACTIVITIES DISTRIEBUTION LIST
 0
 0
 0       Ms. Dinah Abood                       Kenai National Wildlife Refuge
 0       KR Property Owners Assoc.             Attention: Mr. Mark Chase
 0       3102 Northwood Drive                  Post Office Box 2139
 0       Anchorage, Alaska 99517               Soldotna, Alaska 99669-2139
 0       (907) 248-3102                        (907) 262-7021
 0       Mr. Walter Arthur, Jr.                (FAX) 262-3599
 0       KR Property Owners Assoc.             Mr. Lenny Corin, Deputy Asst.
 0       9521 Emerald Street                     Regional Director
 0       Anchorage, Alaska 99515               Ecological Services
 0       (907) 243-8088                        U.S. Fish and wildlife Services
 0                                             loll East Tudor Road
         Mr. David Athons                      Anchorage, Alaska 99503-6199
 0       AK Dept. of Fish  & Game              (907) 786-3544
 0       Sport Fish Division                   (FAX) 786-3640
         34828 Kalif ornsky Bch Rd, Ste B
         Soldotna, Alaska 99669                Mr. Paul Dale
         (907) 262-9368                        Snug Harbor Seafoods
                                               King Salmon Trust Fund
         U.S. Army Corp  of Engineers          Post Office Box 2725
 0       Attention: Mr. Hank Baij              Kenai, Alaska 99611
 0       Post Office Box 898                   (907) 776-5342
 0       Anchorage, Alaska 99506-0898
 0       (907) 753-2724 or 2712                Mr. Tony DeGange
         (FAX) 753-5567                        U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service
 0                                             1011 East Tudor Road
 0       Kenaitze Indian Tribe,  I.R.A.        Anchorage, Alaska 99503-6199
         Attn: Mr. Albert Baktuit              (907) 786-3492
         Post Office Box 762                   (FAX) 786-3350
         Kenai, AK 99611
         (907) 283-3633                        Mr. Joseph Dorava
                                               U.S. Geological Survey
         Ms. Candace Beery                     Water Resources Division
         Cook Inlet Region, Inc.               4230 University Dr, Ste 201
         2525 C Street                         Anchorage, Alaska 99508-4664
         Anchorage, AK 99509-3330              (907) 786-7104
         (907) 274-8638                        (FAX) 786-7150

         Dale Bondurant                        Mr. Daniel Doshier, Refuge Mgr.
         HC 1, Box 1197                        Kenai National Wildlife Refuge
         Soldotna, AK 99669                    Post Office Box 2139
         (907) 262-1691                        Soldotna, Alaska 99669-2139
                                               (907) 262-7021
         Ms. Patricia O'ower                   (FAX) 262-3599
         Post Office Box 3662
         Soldotna, Alaska 99508                Mr. Lawrence Dugan
 40                                            U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service
 0       Mr. Richard Bower, Jr.                Western AK Ecological Services
 0       Public-At-Large Member                605 West 4th Ave., Rm G-62
 0       Post office Box 2241                  Anchorage, Alaska 99501
         Soldotna, Alaska 99669                (907) 271-2797
         (907) 262-8332                        (FAX) 271-2786








        Mr. Ben Ellis, Exec. Dir.            Mr. Warren Hoflich
        Post Office Box 1228                 HC1, Box 1478
        Soldotna, Alaska 99669               Soldotna, Alaska 996,59
        (907) 262-6602 (H)                   (907) 262-1871
        (907) 262-8588 (W)
        (FAX) 262-8582                       Ms. Debra H. Horne
        Toll: 800-478-0724 (W)               Public-At-Large Member
                                             Post Office Box 592
        Mr. Al Ewing, Asst. Regl. Adm.       Kasilof, Alaska 99610
        Environmental Protection Agency      (907) 262-4551
        AK Operations office, Region 10
        222 West 7th Avenue, No. 19          Mr. Kent Hueser
        Anchorage, Alaska 99513-7588         HC 3, Box 4871
        (907) 271-3422                       Soldotna, AK 99669
        (FAX) 271-3424                       (907) 262-5561
      .-Ms. Suzanne Fisler                   Environmental Protection Agency
        AK Dept. of Natural Resources        Attention: ,:;@@@aen lor
        Div. of Parks & outdoor Rec.         Region 10, AK Operations Office
        Post Office Box 1247                 222 West 7th Avenue, No. 19
        Soldotna, Alaska 99669               Anchorage, Alaska 99513-7588
        (907) 262-5581                       (907) 271-3413
        (FAX) 262-3717                       (FAX) 271-3424

        Kenai Pen. Fisherman's Assoc.        Mr. Will Josey
        -Attention: Loren Flagg              IM Property Owners Assoc.
        34824 K. Beach Road; Suite E         Post office Box 881
        Soldotna, Alaska 99669               Sterling, Alaska 99672
        (907) 262-2492                       (907) 262-2305

        Mayor Don Gilman                     Office of Management ZLnd Budget
        Kenai Peninsula Borough              Division of Governmental Coord.
        144 N. Binkley Street                Attention: Ms. Gretchen Keiser
        Soldotna, Alaska 99669               Coastal Program Coordinator
        (907) 242-4441                       Post Office Box 110020
        (FAX) 262-8618                       Juneau, AK 99811-0020

        Mr. Jeffrey Graham                   Ms. Claudette Knickerbocker
        AK Dept. of Natural Resources        Hwy Contract 1, Box 3.272
        Division of Forestry                 Soldotna, Alaska 99669
        HC 1, Box 107                        (907) 262-3265 (H)
        Soldotna, Alaska 99669               (907) 262-1089 (W)
        (907) 262-4124
        (FAX) 262-6390                       Mr. Thomas Knock
                                           @KPB Planning Commissioner
        Mr. Duane Harp                       Post Office Box 519
        U.S. Forest Service                  Cooper Landing, AK 99572
        Post Office Box 390                  (907).595-1431
        Seward, Alaska  99664
        (907) 224-3374                       Mr. Eric Knudsen
                                             National Biological Survey
        Mr. Gary Hinkle                      Alaska Science Cente3r
        Public-At-Large Member               1011 East Tudor Road
        Post Office Box 322                  Anchorage, Alaska 99503-6199
        Soldotna, Alaska 99669               (907) 786-3842
        (907) 283-9231                       (FAX) 786-3636








         Hr. Kenneth Lancaster, Mayor           AK Dept. of Natural Resources
         City of Soldotna                       Attention: Ms. Nancy Moore
         177 N. Birch Street                    Division of Agriculture
         Soldotna, Alaska 99669                 AK Plant Material Ctr.
         (907) 262-9107                         HC 02, Box 7440
         (FAX) 262-1245                         Palmer, AX 99645
                                                (907) 745-4469
         Ms. Lori Landstrom                     (FAX) 746-1568
         Alaska State Parks
         Post Office Box 1247                   Mr. Ronald Morris
         Soldotna, Alaska 99669                 Field Office Supervisor
         (907) 262-5581                         Natl Marine Fisheries Service
                                                222 West 7th Avenue, No. 43
         Mr. Jack La Shot, City   Engr.         Anchorage, Alaska 99513-7577
         City of Kenai                          (907) 271-5006
         210 Fidalgo, Ave., Ste   200           (FAX) 349-3030
         Kenai, Alaska 99611
         (907) 283-7535                         Ms. Peggy Mullen
         (FAX) 283-3014                         355 Lingonberry Lane
                                                Soldotna, Alaska 99669
         Mr. Rhon Lyons                         (907) 262-9225
         'Trout Unlimited
         Post Office Box 731                    AK Dept. of Natural Resources
         Sterling, Alaska 99672                 Attention: Mr. Jim Peterson
         (907) 262-3732                         Division of Forestry
                                                HC 1, Box 107
         Mr. Theo Matthews                      Soldotna, Alaska 99669
         United C/I Drift Assn.                 (907) 262-4124
         Post Office Box 69                     (FAX) 262-6390
         Kasilof, Alaska 99610
         (907) 283-3600                         Mr. Charles Quarre
                                                KR Property Owners Assoc.
         Mr. William McDermid                   HC 01, Box 3336
         Kenai-Kasilof Soil &   Water           Sterling, Alaska 99672
          Conservation District                 (907) 262-2115
         HC 11, Box 1416
         Soldotna, Alaska 99669                 Mr. Ronald Rainey
         (907) 262-9670 (H)                     KR Sport Fishing Assn.
         (907) 262-6135 (W)                     Post Office Box 2004
                                                Kenai, Alaska 99611
         Mr. Samuel McLane                      (907) 283-4333
         Post Office Box 468
         Soldotna, Alaska 99669                 Mr. Dennis H. Randa
         (907) 262-4441                         Post Office Box 3055
         (907) 283-4218                         Soldotna, Alaska 99669
         Cook Inlet Aquaculture   Assn          (FAX) 262-9494
        -Attention: Mr. Thomas    Mears         Ms - Ann Rappoport, Field Spvsr.
         Highway Contract 2-, Box 849           U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service
         Soldotna, Alaska 99669                 Western AK Ecological Services
         (907) 283-5761                         605 West 4th Avenue, Room 62
                                                Anchorage, Alaska 99501
                                                (907) 271-2787
                                                (FAX) 271-2786








          Mr. Jim Richardson                    Mr. Richard Underkofler
          AK Flyfishers Assn.                   City of Soldotna
          Post Office Box 757                   177 North Birch Street
          Cooper Landing, AK 99572              Soldotna, Alaska 99,669
                                                (907) 262-9107
          Mr. Jim Richardson
          1.543 East 26th Ave.                  Mr. Mark Wenger
          Anchorage, AK 99508                   U.S. Forest Service
          (907) 274-6385 (H)                    Chugach National Forest
          (907) 279-2883 (W)                    Seward District
          (FAX) 276-0830                        Post Office Box 390
                                                Seward, Alaska   99664
          Mr. Glenn Seaman                      (907) 224-3374
          AK Dept. of Fish  and Game            (907) 224-3268
          Habitat & Restoration Div.
          333 Raspberry Road                    Mr. Al White
          Anchorage, Alaska 99518-1599          KR Property Owners Assn.
          (907) 267-2331                        Post Office Box 762
          (FAX) 349-1723                        Sterling, Alaska 99672
                                                (907) 262-9176
          Kenaitze Indian Tribe, I.R.A.
          Attn: Mr. James Showalter             Mr. Steven Zemke
          Post Office Box 352                   Chugach National Forest
          Soldotna, Alaska 99669                3301 C Street! Suite 300
          (907) 283-3633                        Anchorage, Alaska 99508
                                                (907) 271-2521
          Mr. Gary Sonnevil, Proj. Ldr.         (FAX) 271-3992
          Kenai Fishery Resource Office
          Post Office Box 1670
          Kenai, Alaska 99611
          (907) 262-9863
          (FAX) 262-7145

          Mr. William Stockwell
          Alaska Flyfishers Assn.
          Post Office Box 240925
          Anchorage, Alaska 99524
          (907) 274-1288
          (907) 595-1540

          Mr. Michael A. Swan
          Kenai Soil and Water
          Conservation District
          Post Office Box 987
          Soldotna, Alaska 99669
          (907) 262-9295

          Natural Resources Consv. Srvc.
          Attn: Ms. Deborah Swanson
          Post Office Box 944
          Soldotna, Alaska 99669
          (907) 262-9295 (also FAX No.)

          T. A. Thompson
          City of Kenai
          111 Paula Street
          Kenai, AX 99611
          (907) 283-4358













               KENAI RIVER WATERSHED INTERAGENCY COORDnMTION GROUP



                                 DISTRIBUTION LIST



                                      May 1995



        Kenai Peninsula Borough              Kenai Sail and Water
        (KPB)                                Conservation District
        Richard Troeger                      (KSWCD)
        144 N. Binkley                       Mike Swan, Chair
        Soldotna, AK   99669-7599            P.O. Box 987
        (907) 262-4441                       Soldotna, AK 99669
        (907) 262-8614 Fax                   (907) 262-1014
        Debra Gilcrest                       (907) 262-1014 Fax
        144 N. Binkley
        Soldotna, AK   99669-7599            AX DeRt- of Community and
        (907) 262-4441                       Regional Affairs
        (907) 262-8614 Fax
                                             Christy L. Miller
        Harriet Wagner                       333 W. 4th Avenue, Ste. 220
        144 N. Binkley                       Anchorage, AK 99501-2341
        Soldotna, AK   99669-7599            269-4567
        (907) 262-4441                       269-4520 Fax
        (907) 262-8614 Fax
                                             AK DeRt- of Fish and Game
        City of Soldotna                     (ADFG)
                                             Division of Habitat and
        Honorable Ken Lancaster              Restoration
        Mayor of Soldotna
        177 N. Birch Street                  Lance Trasky, Regional Super..
        Soldotna, AK   99669                 333 Raspberry Road
        (907) 262-9107                       Anchorage, AK   99518
        (907) 262-1245 Fax                   267-2342
                                             349-1723 Fax

        City of Kenai                        Gay Muhlberg
                                             333 Raspberry Road
        Jim Lachot                           Anchorage, AK   99518
        Planning Dept.                       267-2284
        210 Fidalgo Avenue, Suite 200        349-1723 Fax
        Kenai, AK   99611-7794
        (907) 283-7535
        (907) 283-3014 Fax









        AX Dept. of Fish and Game               AK DORt. of Natural Resources
        (ADFG)                                  Division of &Uicultur

        Division of Habitat and                 Nancy Moore
        Restoration                             AK Plant Material Center
                                                HC 02 Box 7440
        Glenn Seaman                            Palmer, AK    99645
        333 Raspberry Road                      (907) 745-4469
        Anchorage, AK     99518                 (907) 746-1568 Fax
        267-2331
        349-1723 Fax
                                                AX DeRt- of TrangRortation
        Kathrin Sundet                          and Public Facilities
        333 Raspberry Road
        Anchorage, AK     99518                 Pat Beckly
        267-2295                                P. 0. Box 196900
        349-7302 Fax                            4111 Aviation Avenue
                                                Anchorage, AK 99519-6900
                                                266-1675
        AX Dept. of Natural Resources           243-6927 Fax
        (ADNR)

        Division of Parks A Outdoor             AX District
        Recreation                              Army corps of Enaineers                      0
                                                (ACOE)                                       0
        Suzanne Fisler
        P.O. Box 1247                           Robert K. Oja, Chief
        Soldotna, AK    99669                   Regulatory Branch (1145b)
        (907) 262-5581                          P.O. Box 898
        (907) 262-3717  Fax                     Anchorage, AK    99506-0898
                                                753-2712
                                                753-5567  Fax
        Division of Forestry                    Georgie Akers
        Jim Peterson                            Regulatory Branch (1145b)
        Soldotna Office                         P.O. Box 898
        HC 1 Box 107                            Anchorage, AK    99506-0,898
        Soldotna, AK    99669                   753-2712
        (907) 262-4124                          753-5567 Fax
        (907) 262-6390  Fax                     Hank Baij
        Jeff Graham                             Regulatory Branch (1145b)
        Soldotna Office                         P.O. Box 898
        HC 1 Box 107                            Anchorage, AK    99506-0,898
        Soldotna,, AK   99669                   753-2712
        (907) 262-4124                          753-5567 Fax
        (907) 262-6390 Fax






                                            2






                                                                                            A









         National Biological service               Natural Resources Conservation
         (NBS)                                     Service
         Eric Knudsen                              (NRCS)
         National Biological service               Terry Nelson
         AK Science Center                         Anchorage State Office
         1011 East Tudor Road                      949 E. 36th, Suite 400
         Anchorage, AK      99503-6199             Anchorage, AK     99508-4362
         786-3842                                  271-2424
         786-3636 Fax                              271-3951 Fax


         Carl Burger                               Deborah Swanson
         National Biological Service               Soldotna office
         AK Science Center                         P.O. Box 944
         1011 East Tudor Road                      Soldotna, AK      99669
         Anchorage, AK      99503-6199             (907.) 262-9295
         786-3316                                  (907) 262-9295 Fax
         786-3636 Fax
                                                   The Nature Consevanc

         National Marine Fisberies                 Michelle Brown
         Service                                   P.O. Box 1868
         (NMFS)                                    Soldotna, AK 99669
                                                   262-9295
         Ron Morris                                262-9295 Fax
         Field Office Supervisor
         Natl Marine Fisheries Service             U.S. Environmental Protection
         222 W. 7th Avenue, #43                    Agency
         Anchorage, AX 99513-7577                  (EPA)
         271-5006
         271-3'030 Fax                             Al Ewing
                                                   Asst. Regional Administrator
         Barbara Mahoney                           U.S. Environmental Protection
         National Marine    Fisheries              Agency - Region 10
         Service                                   AK Operations Office
         222 W. 7th Avenue, 143                    222 West 7th Avenue, 119
         Anchorage, AK 99513-7577                  Anchorage, AK     99513-7588
         271-5006                                  271-3422
         271-3030 Fax                              271-3424 Fax


                                                   Mark Jen
         Natural  Resources Conservation           AK Operations Office
         Service                                   222 West 7th Avenue, #19
         (NRCS)                                    Anchorage, AK     99513-7588
                                                   271-3413
         Tom Ward                                  271-3424 Fax
         Anchorage State Office
         949 E. 36th, Suite 400
         Anchorage, AK      99508-4362
         271-2424
         271-3951 Fax



                                              3










        U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service         Kenai Fishery Resource Office
        (USFWS)
                                               Gary Sonnevil, Project Leader
        Lenny Corin                            P.O. Box 1670
        Deputy Asst. Regional Dir.             Kenai, AK    99611
        Ecological Services                    (907) 262-9863
        1011 E. Tudor Road                     (907) 262-7145 Fax
        Anchorage, AK     99503-6199
        786-3544
        786-3640 Fax                           U.S. Forest Service
                                               (USFS)
        U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service
        (USFWS)                                Chuck Frey, Act. Forest Supr.
        Tony DeGange                           Chugach National Forest
                                               3301 C Street, Suite 300
        1011 E. Tudor Road                     Anchorage, AK    99508
        Anchorage, AK    99503-6199            271-2500
        786-3492                               271-3992 Fax
        786-3350 Fax
                                               Steve Zemke
        Ann Rappoport                          Chugach National Forest
        Field Supervisor                       3301 C Street, Suite 300
        Western AK Ecological Services         Anchorage, AK    995.08
        605 West 4th Avenue, Room 62           271-2521
        Anchorage, AK 99501                    271-3992 Fax
        271-2787
        271-2786 Fax                           Mark Wenger
                                               Chugach National Forest
        Larry Dugan                            Seward District
        Western AK Ecological Services         P.O. Box 390
        605 West 4th Avenue, Room 62           Seward, AK   99664
        Anchorage, AK 99501.                   (907) 224-3374
        271-2797                               (907) 224-3268
        271-2786 Fax


                                               U.S. Geological survey
        Kenai National Wildlife Refuge         (USGS)

        Dan Doshier                            Joseph Dorava
        Refuge Manager                         Water Resources Division
        P.O. Box 2139                          4230 University Dr., Suite 201
        Soldotna, AK    99669-2139             Anchorage, AK    99508-4664
        (907) 262-7021                         786-7104
        (907) 262-3599  Fax                    786-7150 Fax

        Mark Chase
        P.O. Box 2139
        Soldotna, AK    996690-2139
        (907) 262-7021  (FAX) 262-3599




                                           4



                                                            C @L









                                                  APPENDIX C



                                     Information on Planning! and Public Proces


                                     for Florida Keys National Marine Sanctuary


            A. NOAA.         1995.   Florida Keys National Marine Sanctuary:          Draft Management
                 Plan/Environmental Impact Statement. Vol. III, Appendicies, March 1995

                 Key sections related to planning and public process:

                 1. "Overview of the Planning Process" - General Introduction, pages 3 and 4

                 2.   "National Marine Sanctuaries Act" -- Sec. 304(d), Interagency Cooperation, page A-5

                 3.   "Florida Keys National Marine Sanctuary and Protection Act" -- Sec. 7(a), Preparation
                      of Plan, pages A-13 and -14; Advisory Council, Sec. 9, page A-16

                 4.   Group Membership, pages B-1 to B-7

            B.   "Charter of the Florida Keys National Marine Sanctuary Advisory Council"

            C.   Eichbaum, W., W. Hoeft, R. Schecter, and J. Schubel. 1994. A Report to W. Stanley
                 Wilson, Asst. Admin. for NOS on The Process Used in Developing the Florida Keys
                 National Marine Sanctuary Management Plan. 25pp.






                                                         General Introduction                                                                  0
                                                                                                                                               0
                    This is the third of three volumes describing the Draft     the United States exercises jurisdiction, consistent           40
                    Management Plan/Environ mental Impact Statement             with international law. They are built around distinc-         0
                    (EIS) for the Florida Keys National Marine Sanctuary.       tive natural and historical resources whose protection         0
                    Volume I contains the Draft Management Plan,                and beneficial use require comprehensive planning              0
                    including detailed action plans, Volume 11 describes        and management.
                    the Draft Management Plan/EIS development
                    process, and Volume III contains the appendices             The National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administra-
                    referenced in Volumes I and H.                              ton (NOAA) administers the National Marine Sanctu-             0
                                                                                ary Program through the Sanctuaries and Reserves               0
                                                                                Division (SRD) of the Office of Ocean and Coastal              0
                        thorltyfdr Designation                                  Resource Management (OCRM).                                    0
                    Nabonal marine sanctuaries are routinely designated         In accordance with the NMSA, the mission of the
                    by the Secretary of Commerce through an adminis-            National Marine Sanctuary Program is to identify,              I*
                    trative process established by the National Marine          designate, and comprehensively manage marine
                    Sanctuaries Act.(NMSA) of 1972,1-6 U.S.C. 1431 et           areas of national significance. National marine
                    seq., as amended, including activation of candidate         sanctuaries are established for the public's long term
                    sites selected from the National Marine Sanctuary           benefit, use, and enjoyment. To meet these objec-
                    Program Site Evaluation List. Sanctuaries also have         fives, the following National Marine Sanctuary
                    been designated by an Act of Congress. The Florida          Program goals have been established (15 CFR, Part
                    Keys National Marine Sanctuary was designated               922.1 (b)):
                    when the President signed the Florida Keys National
                    Marine Sanctuary and Protection Act. Appendix A in              - Enhance resource protection through compre-
                    this volume contains a copy of this Act.                          hensive and coordinated conservation and
                                                                                      ecosystem management that complements
                                                                                      existing regulatory authorities.
                    @Terms of Statutory Designation
                    '3                                                             -  Support, promote, and coordinate scientific
                    Section 304(a)(4) of the NMSA requires that the                   research on, and monitoring of, the site-
                    terms of designation set forth the geographic area                specific marine resources to improve man-
                    included within the Sanctuary; the characteristics of             agement decisionmaking in national marine
                    the area that give it conservation, recreational,                 sanctuaries.
                    ecological, historical, research, educational, or                 Enhance public awareness, understanding,
                    aesthetic value; and the types of activities that will be         and the wise use of the marine environment
                    subject to regulation by the Secretary of Commerce                through public interpretive, educational, and
                    to protect those characteristics. This section also               recreational programs.
                    specifies that the terms of designation may be                                                                          0
                    modified only through the same procedures by which                Facilitate, to the extent compatible with the         0
                    the original designation was made. Thus, the terms                primary objective of resource protection,             0
                    of designation serve as a charter for the Sanctuary.              multiple uses of national marine sanctuaries.         *
                                                                                                                                            0
                    Mon-                                                        The Florida Keys National MELrine Sanctuary is one
                    Imission and Goals of the National                          of a system of national marine sanctuaries that has         0
                    *Marine Sanctuary Program                                   been established since the Program's inception in           0
                                                                                1972. Sanctuaries are not ne'N to the Florida Keys-         0
                    The purpose of a sanctuary is to protect resources          the Key Largo National Marine Sanctuary was                 0
                    and their conservabon. recreational, ecological,            designated in 1975 and the Looe Key National                0
                    historical, research, educational, or aesthetc values       Marine Sanctuary was designated in 1981.                    0
                    through comprehensive long-term management.                                                                             0
                    Nabonal marine sanctuaries may be designated in             Florida Keys Environmental Seffing. The Florida
                    coastal and ocean waters, the Great Lakes and their         Keys National Marine Sanctuary extends approxi-             0
                    connecting waters, and submerged lands over which           mately 220 miles southwest from the southern tip of         0
                                                                                                                                            0
                                                                                                                                            0
                                                                                                                                            0
                                                                                                                                            ldk






         General Introduction

         the Florida peninsula. Located adjacent to the Keys'                -identify needs for research, and establish a
         land mass are spectacular, unique, and nationally                    long-term ecological monitoring program;
         significant marine environments, including seagrass                 0identify alternative sources of funding needed
         meadows, mangrove islands, and extensive living                      to fully implement the Plan's provisions and
         coral reefs. These support rich biological communi-                  supplement appropriations authorized under
         ties possessing extensive conservation, recreational,                Section 10 (16 U.S.C., ï¿½1444) of the
         commercial, ecological, historical, research, educa-                 FKNMSPA and Section 313 of the NMSA;
         tional, and aesthetic values that give this area
         special national significance. They are the marine                  -ensure coordination and cooperation between
         equivalent of tropical rain forests in that they support             Sanctuary managers and other Federal, State,
         high levels of biological diversity, are fragile and                 and local authorities with jurisdiction within or
         easily susceptible to damage from human activities,                  adjacent to the Sanctuary;
         and possess high value to humans if properly                        -promote education among users of the Sanct-
         conserved.                                                           uary about coral reef conservabon and
                                                                              navigational safety; and
         The marine environment of the Florida Keys supports
         over 6,000 species of plants, fishes, and inverte-                  -incorporate the existing Looe Key and Key
         brates, including the Nation's only coral reef that lies             Largo national marine sanctuaries into the
         adjacent to the continent and one of the largest                     Florida Keys National Marine Sanctuary.
         seagrass communities in this hemisphere. Attracted
         by this natural diversity and tropical climate, nearly        All of these requirements have been addressed in
         four million tourists visit the Keys annually, where          the Management Plan.
         they participate primarily in water-related sports such
         as fishing, diving, boating, and other tourist activities.    In addition to the above statutory objectives, the
                                                                       Sanctuary Advisory Council, early on in the planning
                                                                       process in 1992, developed a set of goals and
          Management Plan Requirements                                 objectives for the Sanctuary that NOAA later
                                                                       adopted. The goal is:
         After three devastating ship groundings on the Keys'                 *To preserve and protect the physical and
         reef tract in 1989, outbreaks of serious coral disease,
                                                                              biological components of the South Florida
         and the general recognition of a pattern of environ-                 estuarine and marine ecosystem to ensure
         mental decline, Florida Representative Dante Fascell                 its viability for the use and enjoyment of
         and Senator Bob Graham introduced legislation to                     present and future generations."
         provide comprehensive protection to the Keys'
         marine environment. In November 1990, the Presi-              The objectives include:
 0       dent signed the Florida Keys National Marine Sanc-
 0       tuary and Protection Act (FKNMSPA) (Appendix A in                    Encouraging all agencies and institutions to
 0       this volume).                                                        adopt an ecosystem and cooperative approach
 0                                                                            to accomplish the following objectives, includ-
 0       The FKNMSPA directs the Secretary of Commerce                        ing the provision of mechanisms to address
         to develop a comprehensive management plan and                       impacts affecting Sanctuary resources but
 0       implement regulations to protect Sanctuary re-                       originating outside the boundaries of the
 0       sources. The Act requires that the plan:                             Sanctuary;
 0-           - facilitate all public and private uses of the                 Providing a management system which is in
 0             Sanctuary consistent with the primary objective                harmony with an environment whose long-term
               of resource protection;                                        ecological, economic, and sociological prin-
 0                                                                            ciples are understood, and which will allow
              -consider temporal and geographic zoning to                     appropriate sustainable uses;
               ensure protection of Sanctuary resources;
                                                                              Managing the Florida Keys National Marine
 40           -incorporate the regulations necessary to                       Sanctuary for the natural diversity of healthy
 0             enforce the comprehensive water quality                        species, populations, and communities;
               protection program developed under
 0             Section 8 of the FKNMSPA;


         2


 dh







                                                                                                                       General Introduction

                       ï¿½ Reaching every single user and visitor to the           ensure that input was provided by major Federal,
                         FKNIVIS with information appropriate to                 State, and local interests in the Sanctuary and to see
                         their activities; and                                   that a plan was produced that met the goals and
                                                                                 objectives set forth by the FKNNISPA and NOAA.
                       ï¿½ Recognizing the importance of cultural and              There was considerable interaction, and some
                         historic resources, and managing these                  overlap in membership and function, among these                      49
                         resources for reasonable, appropriate use and           teams.                                                               49
                         enjoyment.                                                      In July 1991,,the Interagency Core Group,                    49
                                                                                         composed of Federal, State, and local agen-
                   Overview of the Planning Process                                      cies with direct jurisdictional responsibility in
                                             @ .;7..,- @ , .. 1. ._. _ .. -              the Sanctuary, was formed to develop policies
                  The size of the Sanctuary and the diversity of its                     and direct and oversee the management plan
                  users required that NOAA adopt a holistic, ecosys-                     development process (Appendix B in this
                  tem-based management approach to address the                           volume lists the members of this Core Group).
                  problems facing the Sanctuary. This meant using a                      A Strategy Idenfification Work Group, com-
                  problem-driven focus, relying on partnerships, and                     posed of 49 local scientists and management
                  building consensus around the identfication of issues                  experts, generated the initial set of strategies
                  and their short- and long-term solutions.                              and details an implementation requirements.
                  A Comprehensive Approach. The FKNMSPA
                  requires NOAA to develop a comprehensive man-                          The Sanctuary Advisory C ouncil (SAC) was
                  agement plan. To meet this mandate, NOAA has                           established by the FKINIMSPA to ensure public
                  addressed many problems and issues, such as water                      input into the Plan and to advise and assist
                  quality and land use, that are outside the *traditional*               NOAA in its development and implementation.
                  scope of Sanctuary management. The process                             The SAC first met in February 1992, and has
                  involved unprecedented participation by the general                    conducted over 15 meefings that have each
                  public, user groups, and Federal, State, and local                     been open to the public (Appendix B in this
                  governments.                                                           volume contains a list of SAC members). The
                                                                                         SAC became an integral part of the Sanctuary                 0
                  Because of the size of the Sanctuary and the variety                   planning process by serving as a direct link to              0
                  of resources it contains, many problems never before                   the Keys' user communifies such as the dive                  0
                  encountered by Sanctuary management had to be                          industry, environmental groups, and commer-
                  addressed. For example, significant declines in Water                  cial and recreational fishermen. In addition, the
                  quality and habitat conditions in Florida Bay are                      SAC has been instrumental in helping NOAA to
                  threatening the health of Sanctuary resources. These                   formulate policy, particularly with regard to:
                  conditions are thought to be the result of water                       1) the marine zoning plan; 2) activities needing
                  quality and quantity management in the South Fioricla                  regulation; and 3) recommending a preferred
                  region. Such problems must be addressed by                             alternative for the Management Plan.
                  management to ensure adequate protection of                                                                                         0
                  Sanctuary resources. There is a need, therefore, to                    A NOAA team composed of the Sanctuaries
                  explicitly include the agencies with responsibilities in               and Reserves Division, the Strategic Envircin-
                  these areas in the continuous management process.                      mental Assessments Division, and the Office of
                                                                                         the Assistant General Counsel for Ocean                      0
                  Knowledge-based Consensus Building. A series                           Services was responsible for developing and                  0
                  of workshops followed a set of public scoping meet-                    implementing the pmeess to produce the Plan.
                  ings, and laid the foundation for building this Plan. At               The Sanctuaries and Reserves Division is                     0
                  these work sessions, NOAA used a systematic                            responsible for producing the printed document               0
                  process for obtaining relevant information from                        in final form.                                               0
                  experts with knowledge of Sanctuary problems.
                                                                                Focus on Management and Action. From the                              0
                  NOAA recognized that a useful management plan                 beginning of the Plan development process, it has                     0
                  Could not be developed and implemented without                been recognized that management is a continuous                       0
                  forging working teams to help provide the vision and          activity that must involve those responsible for                      0
                  knowledge necessary to accomplish the goals set               implementing actions. The process has made
                  forth in the FKNMSPA. Four teams were formed to               maximum use of existing knowledge and experience


                                                                                                                                                      0
                                                                                                                                                      lift







         General Introduction

         to identify, characterize, and assess alternative             their effects. The Preferred Alternative for Sanctuary
         management actions. Much of the planning process              management is presented based on NOAA's analysis
         was devoted to identifying short- and long-term               of its impacts.
         management actions or strategies, including their
         operational requirements. These management
         actions can be found in the detaiied action plans in          Contents of Volume III
         Volume 1. These plans address management issues
         ranging from channel marking to volunteer programs            This volume contains the 10 appendices referred to
         to regulations. They provide details on institutional         in Volumes I and 11. They are organized alphabeti-
         needs, personnel, time requirements, and implemen-            cally (A through J), and the pages within each
         tation costs. These details are necessary for the             appendix are listed numerically.
         decisions that will have to be made upon Plan
         implementation by the managers in the region.                 0Appendix A includes the full texts of both the
                                                                       National Marine Sanctuary Act and the Florida
         Toward Integrated, Continuous Management A                    Keys National Marine Sanctuary and Protection
         central purpose of the Management Plan is to take             Act.
         the disparate threads of protection and regulation            -Appendix B lists the members of the Interagency
         that currently apply to the Florida Keys ecosystem            Core Group, Sanctuary Advisory Council, and
         and weave them into a fabric of integrated coastal'
         management (ICM). ICM is not a new idea or con-               Strategy Working Group.
         cept; what is new is the notion of applying it in a
         comprehensive and continuous manner. ICM is a                 -Appendix C lists the existing legislative authorities
         process that begins with direct participation of              within the Keys.
         managers, planners, analysts, scientists, and a
         concerned public. Developing an integrated manage-            *Appendix D provides additional information about
         ment approach does not take place quickly; it evolves         Federal fishery management.
         over time, based on incremental gains that build
         upon one another.                                             -Appendix E gives a sample strategy description
                                                                       sheet.
         A major component of the Management Plan'is the               -Appendix F gives a sample strategy characteriza-
         consideration of water quality issues and problems.           tion sheet.
         The FKNMSPA called upon the U.S. Environm        iental
         Protection Agency and the State of Florida to develop         -Appendix G lists the strategies in each of the mid-
         a comprehensive water quality protection program for          range management alternatives.
         the Sanctuary. NOAA has incorporated this proposed
         program plan into the Management Plan as the                  - Appendix H lists the strategies in the Preferred
         Water Quality Action Plan found in Volume -1.                 Alternative.

                                                                       -Appendix I is a tracking table that details the
                                                                       evolution of strategy development.
         The Environmental Impact
         Statement Process
                                                                       -Appendix J is a complete list of all terrestrial and
                                                                       marine animals and algae within the Keys.
         The National Environmental Policy Act of 1969
         'NEPA) requires any Federal agency proposing a                *Appendix K is the Sanctuary Designation Docu-
         major action that significantly affects the quality of the    ment, which details the effect of designation,
         -iuman environment to develop an environmental                describes the Sanctuary area, outlines the scope of
         mpact statement that describes both the positive and          applicable Sanctuary regulations, and specifically
         -iegative impacts that may result from implementa-
         -ion. Accordingly, an EIS has been drafted to accom-          defines the Sanctuary's boundaries.
         oany the Management Plan, and both will go through
         a public review and comment process prior to                  'NOTE: The terms 'Management Plan*'@and'l"7
                                                                                                                       E @A h.
 0       adoption of the Final Plan. The EIS evaluates a               'ronmental Impact Statement (Eisr used
         -ange of reasonable alternative approaches to
                                                                       out,thisidocumentreterto the Draft M
         Sanctuary management. The alternatives are pre-               Plan and Draft EIS.
         3ented in comparative form to facilitate analysis of

         4






                                                                                                         Appendix A. Sanctuary Legislation
                                                                                                                                                 41
                        The National Marine Sanctuaries Act                                     (5) to facilitate to the extent compatible
                                                                                           with the primary objective of resource protec-
                                                                                           tion, all public and private uses of the re-
                       The National Marine Sanctuaries Act, as amended                     sources of these marine areas not prohibited
                                                                                           pursuant to other auihorities;
                      Sec. 301. FINDINGS, PURPOSES, AND POLICIES.                               (6) to develop and implement coordinated
                             (a) Findings.-The Congress finds that-                        plans for the protection and management of
                                  (1) this nation historically has recognized              these areas with appropriate Federal agencies,
                             the importance of protecting special areas of its             State and local governments, Native American
                             public domain, but these efforts have been                    tribes and organizations, international orgard-       40
                             directed almost exclusively to land areas above               zations, and other public and private interests
                             the high-water mark,                                          concerned with the continuing health and
                                  (2) certain areas of the marine environment              resilience of these marine areas;
                             possess conservation, recreational, ecological,                    (7) to create models of, and incentives for,
                             historical, research, educational, or esthetic                ways to conserve and. manage these areas;
                             qualities which give them special national and,                    (8) to cooperate vrith global programs
                             in some instances, international significance,                encouraging conservation of marine resources;
                                  (3) while the need to control the effects of             and
                             particular activities has led to enactment of                      (9) to maintain, n-store, and enhance living
                             resource-specific legislation, these laws cannot              resources by providing places for species that
                             in all cases provide a coordinated and compre-                depend upon these marine areas to survive
                             hensive approach to the conservation and                      and propagate.
                             management of special areas of the marine
                             environment;                                           Sec. 302. Definitions.
                                  (4) a Federal program which identifies                  As used in this title, the term-
                             special areas of the marine environment will                          (1) "draft management plan" means
                             contribute positively to marine resources                       the plan clescribedin section 304(a)(1) (C)(i6r);
                             conservation, research, and management,                               (2) "Magnuson Act" means the
                                  (5) such a Federal program will also serve                 Magnuson Fishery Conservation and Man-
                             to enhance public awareness, understanding,                     agement Act (16 U.S.C. 1801 et seq.);
                             appreciation, and wise use of the marine                              (3) "marine environment" means those
                             environment; and                                                areas of coastal and ocean waters, the Great
                                  (6) protection of these special areas can                  Lakes and their connecting waters, and             411
                             contribute to maintaining a natural assemblage                  submerged lands over which the United
                             of living resources for future generations.                     States exercises jurisdiction, including the       40
                             (b) Purposes and Policies.-The purposes and                     exclusive economic: zone, consistent with          0
                               policies of this title are-                                   international law.-
                                  (1) to identify and designate as national                        (4)7' acretary" means the Secretary of
                             marine sanctuaries areas of the marine envi-                    Commerce;
                             ronment which are of special national signifi-                        (5) "State" means each of the several
                             cance;                                                          States, the District of Columbia, the Com-
                                  (2) to provide authority for comprehensive                 monwealth of Puerto Rico, the Common-
                             and coordinated conservation and manage-                        wealth of the Northern Mariana Islands,
                             ment of these marine areas, and activities                      American Samoa, the Vir-gin Islands, Guam,
                             affecting them, in a manner which comple-                       and any other commonwealth, territory, or
                             ments existing regulatory authorities;                          possession of the United States;
                                  (3) to support, promote, and coordinate                          (6) "damage,;" includes-
                             scientific research on, and monitoring of, the                                 (A) compensation for-
                             resources of these marine areas, especially                                             (i)(1) the cost of
                             long-term monitoring and research of these                                       replacing, restoring, or
                             areas;                                                                           acl4uiring the equivalent of a
                                  (4) to enhance public awareness, under-                                     Sanctuary resource; and
                             standing, appreciation, and wise use of the                                             (II) the value of the
                             marine envirom-nent;                                                             losit use of a sanctuary
                                                                                                              resource pending its restora-


                                                                                                                                              A-1






         Appendix A. Sanctuary Legislation
                                     tion or replacement or the                 (1) Factors.-For purposes of determining if an
                                     acquisition of an equivalent        area of the marine environment meets the standards
                                     sanctuary resource; or              set forth in subsection (a), the Secretary shall con-
                                            (ii) the value of a          sider-
                                     sanctuary resource if the                       (A) the area's natural resource and ecologi-
                                     sanctuary resource cannot be             cal qualities, including its contribution to biologi-
                                     restored or replaced or if the           cal productivity, maintenance of ecosystem
                                     equivalent of such resource              structure, maintenance of ecologically or com-
                                     cannot be acquired;                      mercially important or threatened species or
                                   (B) the cost of damage assess-             species assemblages, maintenance of critical
                            ments under section 312(b)(2); and                habitat of endangered species, and the biogeo-
                                   (C) the reasonable cost of                 graphic representation of the site;
                            monitoring appropriate to the                            (B) the area's historical, cultural, archaeo-
                            injured, restored, or replaced re-                logical, or paleontological significance;
                            sources;                                                 (C) the present and potential uses of the
                          (7) "response costs" means the costs of             area that depend on maintenance of the area's
                   actions taken or authorized by the Secretary               resources, including commercial and recreational
                   to minimize destruction or loss of, or injury              fishing, subsistence uses, other commercial and
                   to, sanctuary resources, or to minimize the                recreational activities, and research and educa-
                   imminent risks of such destruction, loss, or               tion;
                   injury,                                                           (D) the present and potential activities that
                          (8) "sanctuary resource" means any                  may adversely affect the factors identified in
                   living or nonliving resource of a national                 subparagraphs (A), (B), (C);
                   marine sanctuary that contributes to the                          (E) the existing State and Federal regula-
                   conservation, recreational, ecological,                    tory and management authorities applicable to
                   historical, research, educational, or aesthetic            the area and the adequacy of those authorities to
                   value of the sanctuary; and                                fulfill the purposes and policies of this title;
                          (9) "exclusive economic zone" means                        (F) the manageability of the area, including
                   the exclusive econon-dc zone as defined in                 such factors as its size, its ability to be identified
                   the Magnuson Fishery and Conservation Act.                 as a discrete ecological unit with definable
                                                                              boundaries, its accessibility, and its suitability for
         Sec. 303. Sanctuary Designation Standards                            monitoring and enforcement activities;
               (a) Standards.-The Secretary may designate                            (G) the public benefits to be derived from
         any discrete area of the marine environment as a                     sanctuary status, with emphasis on the benefits
         national marine sanctuary and promulgate regula-                     of long-term protection of nationally significant
         tions implementing the designation if the Secretary-                 resources, vital habitats, and resources which
               (1) determines that the designation will fulfill               generate tourism;
         the purposes and policies of this title; and                                (H) the negative impacts produced by
               (2) finds that-                                                management restrictions on income-generating
                    (A) the area is of special national signifi-              activities such as living and nonliving resources
             cance due to its resource or human-use values;                   development; and
                    (B) existing State and Federal authorities                       (I) the socioeconomic effects of sanctuary
             are inadequate or should be supplemented to                      designation.
             ensure coordinated and comprehensive conser-                      (2) Consultation.-In making determinations
             vation and management of the area, including                and findings, the Secretary shall consult with-
             resource protection, scientific research, and                           (A) the Committee on Merchant Marine
             public education;                                                and Fisheries of the House of Representatives
                    (C) designation of the area as a national                 and the Committee on Commerce, Science, and
             marine sanctuary will facilitate the objectives in               Transportation of the Senate;
             subparagraph (B); and                                                   (B) the Secretaries of State, Defense,
                    (D) the area is of a size and nature that will            Transportation, and the Interior, the Administra-
             permit comprehensive and coordinated conser-                     tor, and the heads of other interested Federal
             vation and management.                                           agencies;
              (b) Factors and Consultations Required in                              (C) the responsible officials or relevant
         Aaking Determinations and Findings.-                                 agency heads of the appropriate State and local


         A-2




                                                                                                                                                    0
                                                                                                       Appendlx,lk. Sanctuary Legislation           0

                         government entities, including coastal zone                              (i) the terms of the proposed
                         management agencies, that will, or are likely to                         designation;
                         be, affected by the establishment of the area as a                       (ii) the basis of the findings made
                         national marine sanctuary;                                        under section 303(a) with respect to the area;
                               (D) the appropriate officials of any Re-                           (iii) an assessment of the consider-
                         gional Fishery Management Council established                     ations under section 303(b)(1),
                         by section 302 of the Magnuson Act (16 U.S.C.                            (iv) proposed mechanisms to coordi-
                         1852) that may be affected by the proposed                        nate existing regulatory and management
                         designation, and                                                  authorities within the! area;
                               (E) other interested persons.                                      (v) the draft management plan detail-
                    (3) Resource Assessment Report.-In making deter-                       ing the proposed goals and objectives,
                    minations and findings, the Secretary shall draft, as                  management responsibilities, resource
                    part of the environmental impact statement referred                    studies, interpretive and educational pro-               0
                    to in section 304(a)(2), a resource assessment report                  grams, and enforcement, including surveil-
                    documenting present and potential uses of the area,                    lance activities for the area;                           0
                    including commercial and recreational fishing,                                (vi) an estimate, of the annual cost of           0
                    research and education, minerals and energy devel-                     the proposed designation, including costs of             0
                    opment, subsistence uses, and other commercial,                        personnel, equipment and facilities, enforce-            0
                    governmental, or recreational uses. The Secretary, in                  ment, research, and public education;
                    consultation with the Secretary of the Interior, shall                        (vii) the draft ejavirorunental impact
                    draft a resource assessment section for the report                     statement,
                    regarding any commercial, governmental or recre-                              (viii) an evaluaidon of the advantages            0
                    ational resource uses in the area under consideration                  of cooperative State and Federal manage-                 0
                    that are subject to the primary jurisdiction of the                    ment if all or part of at proposed marine                0
                    Department of the Interior. The Secretary, in consul-                  sanctuary is within the territorial limits of            0
                    tation with the Secretary of Defense, the Secretary of                 any state or is superjacent to the subsoil and           0
                    Energy, and the Administrator, shall draft a resource                  seabed within the seaward boundary of a                  0
                    assessment section for the report including informa-                   State, as that boundary is established under
                    tion on any past present, or proposed future disposal                  the Submerged Lamb-, Act (43 U.S.C. 1301 et              0
                    or discharge of materials. in the vicinity of the pro-                 seq.); and                                               0
                    posed sanctuary. Public disclosure by the Secretary of                        (ix) the proposed regulations referred            0
                    such information shall be consistent with national                     to in subparagraph (AL).                                 0
                    security regulations.                                              (2) Environmental Impact Statement.-The                      0
                                                                                 Secretary shall-                                                   0
                    Sec. 304. Procedures for Designation and Imple-                          (A) prepare a draft environmental impact
                    mentation.                                                        statement, as provided by- the National Environ-
                         (a) Sanctuary Proposal.-                                     mental Policy A' ct of 1969 (42 U.S.C. 4321 et seq.),         0
                              (1) Notice.@-In proposing to designate a                on the proposal that includes the resource                    0
                       national marine sanctuary, the Secretary shall-                assessment report required under section
                              (A) issue, in the Federal Register, a notice            303(b)(3), maps depicting the boundaries of the
                       of the proposal, proposed regulations that may                 proposed designated area, and the existing and
                       be necessary and reasonable to implement the                   potential uses and resoun.,es of the area; and
                       proposal, and a summary of the draft manage-                         (B) make copies of the draft environmental
                       ment plan;                                                     impact statement available to the public.
                              (B) provide notice of the proposal in                    (3) Public Hearing.--No sooner than thirty days              0
                       newspapers of general circulation or electronic           after issuing a notice under this subsection, the
                       media in the communities that may be affected             Secretary shall hold at least one public hearing in the
                       by the proposal; and                                      coastal area or areas that will be most affected by the
                              (C) on the same day the notice required by         proposed designation of the area as a national marine
                       subparagraph (A) is issued, the Secretary shall           sanctuary for the purpose of receiving the views of
                       submit to the Committee on Merchant Manne                 interested parties.                                                0
                       and Fisheries of the House of Representatives                   (4) Terms of Designation.-The terms of desig-
                       and the Committee on Commerce, Science, and               nation of a sanctuary shall include the geographic
                       Transportation of the Senate documents includ-            area proposed to be included within the sanctuary,
                       ing an executive summary consisting of-                   the characteristics of the areathat give it conserva-

                                                                                                                                             A-3







          Appendix A. Sanctuary Legislatfon
          tion, recreational, ecological, historical, research,              final regulations to implement the designation and
          educational, or esthetic value, and the types of                   any other matters required by law, and submit such
          activities that will be subject to regulation by the               notice to the Congress. The Secretary shall advise
          Secretary to protect those characteristics. The terms              the public of the availability of the final manage-
          of designation may be modified only by the same                    ment plan and the final environmental impact
          procedures by which the original designation is                    statement with respect to such sanctuary. The Sec-
          made.                                                              retary shall issue a notice of designation with re-
               (5) Fishing Regulations.-The Secretary shall                  spect to a proposed national marine sanctuary site
          provide the appropriate Regional Fishery Manage-                   not later than 30 months after the date a notice de-
          ment Council with the opportunity to prepare draft                 claring the site to be an active candidate for sanc-
          regulations for fishing within the exclusive economic              tuary designation is published in the Federal Reg-
          zone as the Council may deem necessary to imple-                   ister under regulations issued under this Act, or
          ment the proposed designation. Draft regulations                   shall publish not later than such date in the Fed-
          prepared by the Council, or a Council determination                eral Register findings regarding why such notice
          that regulations are not necessary pursuant to this                has not been published. No notice of designation
          Paragraph, shall be accepted and issued as proposed                may occur until the expiration of the period for
          regulations by the Secretary unless the Secretary                  Committee action under subsection (a)(6). The des-
          finds that the Council's action fails to fulfill the               ignation (and any of its terms not disapproved
          purposes and policies of this title and the goals and              under this subsection) and regulations shall take
          objectives of the proposed designation. In preparing               effect and become final after the close of a review
          the draft regulations, a Regional Fishery Manage-                  period of forty-five days of continuous session of
          ment Council shall use as guidance the national                    Congress beginning on the day on which such no-
          standards of section 301(a) of the Magnuson Act (16                tice is published, unless in the case of a natural
          U.S.C. 1851) to the extent that the standards are                  marine sanctuary that is located partially or entirely
          consistent and compatible with the goals and objec-                within the seaward boundary of any State, the
          tives of the proposed designation. The Secretary shall             Governor affected certifies to the Secretary that the
          prepare the fishing regulations, if the Council de-                designation or any of its terms is unacceptable, in
          clines to make a determination with respect to the                 which case the designation or the unacceptable
          need for regulations, makes a determination which is               term shall not take effect in the area of the sanctu-
          rejected by the Secretary, or fails to prepare the draft           ary lying within the seaward boundary of the State.
          regulations in a timely manner. Any amendments to                   (2) Withdrawal of Designation.- If the Secre-
          the fishing regulations shall be drafted, approved,           tary considers that actions taken under paragraph (1)
          and issued in the same manner as the original                 will affect the designation of a national marine
          regulations. The Secretary shall also cooperate with          sanctuary in a manner that the goals and objectives
          other appropriate fishery management authorities              of the sanctuary cannot be fulfilled, the Secretary
          with rights or responsibilities within a proposed             may withdraw the entire designation. If the Secretary
          sanctuary at the earliest practicable stage in drafting       does not withdraw the designation, only those terms
          any sanctuary fishing regulations.                            of the designation or not certified under paragraph
               (6) Committee Action.-After receiving the                (1) shall take effect.
          documents undersubsection (a)(1)(C), the Committee                  (3) Procedures.-
          on Merchant Marine and Fisheries of the House of                         (A) In computing the forty-five-day
          Representatives and the Committee on Commerce,                     periods of continuous session of Congress
          Science, and Transportation of the Senate may each                 pursuant to subsection (a)(6) and paragraph (1)
          hold hearings on the proposed designation and on                   of this subsection-
          the matters set forth in the documents. If within the                         (i) continuity of session is broken only
          forty-five day period of continuous session of                         by an adjournment of Congress sine die; and
          Congress beginning on the date of submission of the                           (ii) the days on which either House of
          documents either Committee issues a report concern-                    Congress is not in session because of an
          ing matters addressed in the documents, the Secre-                     adjournment of more than three days to a
          tary shall consider this report before publishing a                    day certain are excluded.
          notice to designate the national marine sanctuary@                       (B) When the committee to which a joint
               (b) Taking Effect of Designations.-                           resolution has been referred has reported such a
                    (1) Notice@-ln designating a national marine             resolution, it shall at any time thereafter be in
             sanctuary, the Secretary shall publish in the Fed-              order to move to proceed to the consideration of
             eral Register notice of the designation together with           the resolution. The motion shall be privileged


          4-4






                                                                                                         Appendix A. Sanctuafy Legislafion

                         and shall not be debatable. An amendment to the                  complete information on the proposed agency
                         motion shall not be in order, and it shall not be in             action) recommend reasonable and prudent
                         order to move to reconsider the vote by which                    alternatives, which may include conduct of the
                         the motion was agreed to or disagreed to.                        action elsewhere, which can be taken by the
                                (C) This subsection is enacted by Congress                Federal agency in implementing the agency
                         as an exercise of the rulemaking power of each                   action that will protect sarictuary resources.
                         House of Congress, respectively, and as such is                        (3) RESPONSE TO RECOMMENDA-
                         deemed a part of the rules of each House,                        TIONS.-The agency head who receives the
                         respectively, but applicable only with respect to                Secretary's recommended alternatives under
                         the procedure to be followed in the case of                      paragraph (2) shall promptly consult with the
                         resolutions described in this subsection. This                   Secretary on the alternatives. If the agency head
                         subsection supersedes other rules only to the                    decides not to follow the alternatives, the agency
                         extent that they are inconsistent therewith, and is              head shall provide the Se:retary with a wTitten
                         enacted with fuH recognition of the constitutional               statement explaining the reasons for that deci-
                         right of either House to change the rules (so far                sion.
                         as those relate to the procedure of that House) at               (e) REVIEW OF MANAGEMENT PLANS.-
                         any time, in the same manner, and to the same              Not more than five years after the date of designation           0
                         extent as in the case of any other rule of such            of any national marine sanctuary, and thereafter at              0
                         House.                                                     intervals not exceeding five years, the Secretary shall          0
                          (c) Access and Valid Rights.-                             evaluate the substantive progress toward implement-              0
                                (1) Nothing in this title shall be construed        ing the management plan and. goals for the sanctu-               0
                         as terminating or granting to the Secretary the            ary, especially the effectivenLnss of site-specific
                         right to terminate any valid lease, permit, license,       management techniques, and shall revise the man-
                         or right of subsistence use or of access that is in        agement plan and regulations as necessary to fulfill
                         existence on the date of designation of any                the purposes and policies of d@ title.
                         national marine sanctuary.
                               (2) The exercise of a lease, permit, license,        Sec. 305. Application of RegLaations and Intema-
                         or right is subject to regulation by the Secretary         tional Negotiations.
                         consistent with the purposes for which the                       (a) Regulations.-This title and the regulations
                         sanctuary is designated.                                   issued under section 304 shall be applied in accor-
                    (d) INTERAGENCY COOPERATION.-                                   dance with generally recognized principles of
                               (1) REVIEW OF AGENCY ACTIONS.-                       international law, and in accordance with the treaties,
                                    (A) IN GENERAL.-Federal agency                  conventions, and other agreements to which the
                             actions internal or external to a national             United States is a party. No regulation shall apply to
                             marine sanctuary, including private activities         or be enforced against a person who is not a citizen,
                             authorized by licenses, leases, or permits,            national, or resident alien of die United States, unless
                             that are likely to destroy, cause the loss of, or      in accordance with-
                             injure any sanctuary resource am subject to                           (1) generally recognized principles; of
                             consultation with the Seaetary.                                 international law;
                                    (B) AGENCY STATEMENTS RE-                                      (2) an agreement between the United              0
                             QUIRED.- Subject to any regulations the                         States and the foreign state of which the
                             Secretary may establish, each Federal agency                    person is a citizen; or
                             proposing an action described in subpara-                             (3) an agreement between the United
                             graph (A) shall provide the Secretary with a                    States and the flag state of a foreign vessel, if
                             wTitten statement describing the action and                     the person is a crewinember of the vessel.
                             its potential effects on sanctuary resources at              (b) Negotiations.-The                of State, in
                             the earliest practicable time, but in no case          consultation with the Secretaiy, shall take appropri-
                             later than 45 days before the final approval of        ate action to enter into negotiations with other
                             the action unless such Federal agency and              goverrunents to make necessary arrangements for the
                             the Secretary agree to a different schedule.           protection of any national marine sanctuary and to
                               (2) SECRETARY'S RECOMMENDED                          promote the purposes for which the sanctuary is
                       ALTERNATIVES.-If the Secretary finds that a                  established.
                       Federal agency action is. likely to destroy, cause           (c) INTERNATIONAL COOPERATION@-The
                       the loss of, or injure a sanctuary resource, the             Secretary, in consultation with the Secretary of State
                       Secretary shall (within 45 days of receipt of                and other appropriate Federal agencies, shall cooper-

                                                                                                                                                 A-5







           Appendix A. Sanctuary Legislation

           ate with other governments and international                             in violating this title or any regulation or
           organizations in the furtherance of the purposes and                     permit issued under this title shall be liable
           policies of this title and consistent with applicable                    in rem for any civil penalty assessed for such
           regional and multilateral arrangements for the                           violation. Such penalty shall constitute a
           protection and management of special marine areas.                       maritime hen on the vessel and may be
                                                                                    recovered in an action in rem in the district
           Sec. 306. Prohibited Activities.                                         court of the United States having jurisdiction
           It is unlawful to-                                                       over the vessel.
           (1) destroy, cause the loss of, or injure any sanctuary                      (4) Review of Civil Penalty.-Any person
           resource managed under law or regulations for that                       against whom a civil penalty is assessed
           sanctuary;                                                               under this subsection may obtain review in
           (2) possess, sell, deliver, carry, transport, or ship by                 the United States district court for the
           any means any sanctuary resource taken in violation                      appropriate district by filing a complaint in
           of this section;                                                         such court not later than 30 days after the
           (3) interfere with the enforcement of this title; or                     date of such order.
           (4) violate any provision of this title or any regulation                    (5) Collection of Penalties.-If any
           or permit issued pursuant to this title.                                 person fails to pay an assessment of a civil
                                                                                    penalty under this section after it has become
           Sec. 307. Enforcement.                                                   a final and unappealable order, or after the
                  (a) In General.-The Secretary shall conduct                       appropriate court has entered final judgment
           such enforcement activities as are necessary and                         in favor of the Secretary, the Secretary shall
           reasonable to carry out this title.                                      refer the matter to the Attorney General, who
                  M Powers of Authorized Officers.-Any                              shall recover the amount assessed in any
           person who is authorized to enforce this title may-                      appropriate district court of the United
                      (1) board, search, inspect, and seize any                     States. In such action, the validity and
                  vessel suspected of being used to violate this                    appropriateness of the final order imposing
                  title or any regulation or permit issued under                    the civil penalty shall not be subject to
                  this title and any equipment, stores, and cargo                   review.
                  of such vessel;                                                     . (6) Compromise or Other Action by
                      (2) seize, wherever found, any sanctuary                      Secretary.-The Secretary may compromise,
                  resource taken or retained in violation of this                   modify, or remit, with or without conditions,
                  title or any regulation or permit issued under                    any civil penalty which is, or may be, im-
                  this title;                                                       posed under this section.
                      (3) seize any evidence of a violation of this             (d) Forfeiture.-
                  title or of any regulation or permit issued                           (1) In General.-Any vessel (including
                  under this title;                                                 the vessel's equipment, stores, and cargo)
                      (4) execute any warrant or other process                      and other item used, and any sanctuary
                  issued by any court of competent jurisdiction;                    resource taken or retained, in any manner, in
                  and                                                               connection with, or as a result of, any viola-
                      (5) exercise any other lawful authority.                      tion of this title or of any regulation or
                  (c) Civil Penalties.-                                             permit issued under this title shall be subject
                        (1) Civil penalty.-Any person subject to                    to forfeiture to the United States pursuant to
                    the jurisdiction of the United States who                       a civil proceeding under this subsection. The
                    violates this title or any regulation or permit                 proceeds from forfeiture actions under this
                    issued under this title shall be liable to the                  subsection shall constitute a separate recov-
                    United States for a civil penalty of not more                   erv in addition to any amounts recovered as
                    than $100,000 for each such violation, to be                    ci@il penalties under this section or as civil
                    assessed by the Secretary. Each day of a                        damages under section 312. None of those
                    continuing violation shall constitute a                         proceeds shall be subject to set-off.
                    separate violation.                                                 (2) Application of the Customs Laws.-
                        (2) Notice.-No penalty shall be assessed                    The Secretary may exercise the authority of
                    under this subsection until after the person                    any United States official granted by any
                    charged has been given notice and an                            relevant customs law relating to the seizure,
                    opportunity for a hearing.                                      forfeiture, condemnation, disposition,
                        (3) In Rem Jurisdiction.-A vessel used                      ren-dssion, and mitigation of property in
                                                                                    enforcing this title.

          A-6







                                                                                                       Appendix A. Sanctuary Legislation

                                  (3) Disposal of Sanctuary Resources.-                            (iii) manage and improve any other
                              Any sanctuary resource seized pursuant to                     national marine sanctuary.
                              this title may be disposed of pursuant to an                    (2) Liability for Costs.-Any person
                              order of the appropriate court or, if perish-             assessed a civil penalty fc)r a violation of this title
                              able, in a manner prescribed by regulations               or of any regulation or permit issued under this
                              promulgated by the Secretary. Any proceeds                title, and any claimant in, a forfeiture action
                              from the sale of such sanctuary resource shall            brought for such a violation, shall be liable for
                              for all purposes represent the sanctuary                  the reasonable costs incurred by the Secretary in
                              resource so disposed of in any subsequent                 storage, care, and maintenance of any sanctuary
                              legal proceedings.                                        resource or other property seized in connection
                                  (4) Presumption.-For the purposes of                  with the violation.
                              this section there is a rebuttable presumption            (f) Subpoenas.-In the case of any hearing
                              that all sanctuary resources found onboard a        under this section which is determined on the record
                              vessel that is used or seized in connection         in accordance with the procedures provided for
                              with a violation of this title or of any regula-    under section 554 of title 5, United States Code, the
                              tion or permit issued under this title were         Secretary may issue subpoenas for the attendance
                              taken or retained in violation of this title or     and testimony of witnesses and the production of
                              of a regulation or permit issued under this         relevant papers, books, and clocuments, and may
                              title.                                              administer oaths.
                          (e) Payment of Storage, Care, and Other                       (g) Use of Resources of5tate and Other Federal
                     Costs-                                                       Agencies.-The Secretary shall, whenever appropn-
                                (1) EXPENDITURES.-                                ate, use by agreement the personnel, services, and
                                    (A) Notwithstanding any other law,            facilities of State and other Federal departments,
                              amounts received by the United States as            agencies, and instrumentalities, on a reimbursable or
                              civil penalties, forfeitures of property, and       nonreimbursable basis, to carry out the Secretary's
                              costs imposed under paragraph (2) shall be          responsibilities under this section.
                              retained by the Secretary in the manner                   (h) Coast Guard Authority Not Limited.-
                              provided for in section 107(f)(1) of the            Nothing in this section shall he considered to limit
                              Comprehensive Environmental Response,               the authority of the Coast Guard to enforce this or
                              Compensation, and Liability Act.                    any other Federal law undersection 89 of title 14,
                                    (B) Amounts received under this               United States Code.
                              section for forfeitures and costs imposed                 (i) Injunctive RelieL-lf the Secretary deter-
                              under paragraph (2) shall be used to pay the        mines that there is an imminent risk of destruction or
                              reasonable and necessary costs incurred by          loss of or injury to a sanctuar( resource, or that there
                              the Secretary to provide temporary storage,         has been actual destruction or loss of, or injury to, a
                              care, maintenance, and disposal of any              sanctuary resource which may give rise to liability
                              sanctuary resource or other property seized         under section 312, the Attorney General, upon
                              in connection with a violation of this title or     request of the Secretary, shall seek to obtain such
                              any regulation or permit issued under this          relief as may be necessary to abate such risk or actual
                              title.                                              destruction, loss, or injury, or to restore or replace the
                                    (C) Amounts received under this               sanctuary resource, or both. The district courts of the
                              section as civil penalties and any amounts          United States shall have jurisdiction in such a case to
                              remaining after the operation of subpara,           order such relief as the public interest and the
                              graph (B) shall be used, in order of priority,      equities of the case may require.
                              to-                                                       (J) Area of Application and Enforceability.-The
                                    W manage and improve the national             area of application and enforceability of this title
                              manne sanctuary with respect to which the           includes the territorial sea of the United States, as
                              violation occurred that resulted in the             described in Presidential Proclamation 5928 of
                              penalty or forfeiture;                              December 27, 1988, which is subject to the sover-
                                    (ii) pay a reward to any person who           eignty of the United States, and the United States'
                              furnishes information leading to an assess-         exclusive economic zone, consistent with interna-
                              ment of a civil penalty, or to a forfeiture of      tional law.
                              property, for a violation of this title or any
                              regulation or permit issued under this title;       Sec. 308. SeverabiHty.
                              and                                                       If any provision of this y@ct or the application
                                                                                  thereof to any person or circumstances is held

                                                                                                                                          A-7







         AppendIx A. Sanctuary Legislation

         invalid, the validity of the zen ainder of this Act and                       (A) costs incurred, or expected to be
         of the application of such provision to other persons                  incurred, by the Secretary in issuing the
         and circumstances shall not be affected thereby.                       permit;
                                                                                       (B) costs incurred, or expected to be
         SEC 309. Research, Monitoring, and Education.                          incurred, by the Secretary as a direct result of
               (a) IN GENERAL.-The Secretary shall conduct                      the conduct of the activity for which the
         research, monitoring, evaluation, and education                        permit is issued, including costs of monitor-
         programs as are necessary and reasonable to carry                      ing the conduct.of the activity; and
         out the purposes and policies of this title.                                  (C) an amount which represents the
               (b) PROMOTION AND COORDINATION OF                                fair market value of the use of the sanctuary
         SANCTUARY USE.-The Secretary shall take such                           resource and a reasonable return to the
         action as is necessary and reasonable to promote and                   United States government.
         coordinate the use of national marine sanctuaries for                    (3) Use of Fees.-Amounts collected by the
         research, monitoring, and education purposes. Such                Secretary in the form of fees under this section
         action may include consulting with Federal agencies,              may be used by the Secretary-
         States, local governments, regional agencies, inter-                          (A) for issuing and administering
         state agencies, or other persons to promote use of one                 permits under this section; and
         or more sanctuaries for research, monitoring, and                             (B) for expenses of designating and
         education, including coordination with the National                    managing national marine sanctuaries,
         Estuarine Research Reserve System.                                  (d) Violations.-Upon violation of a term or
                                                                       condition of a permit issued under this section, the
         Sec. 310. Special Use Permits.                                Secretary m  ay-
               (a) Issuance of Permits.-The Secretary may                         (1) suspend or revoke the permit without
         issue special use permits which authorize the con-                compensation to the permittee and without
         duct of specific activities in a national marine sanctu-          liability to the United States;
         ary if the Secretary determines such authorization is,                   (2) assess a civil penalty in accordance with
         necessary-                                                        section 307; or
                    (1) to establish conditions of access to and                  (3) both.
              use of any sanctuary resource; or                              (e) Reports.-Each person issued a permit
                    (2) to promote public use and understand-          under this section shall submit an annual report to
              ing of a sanctuary resource.                             the Secretary not later than December 31 of each year
               (b) Permit Terms.-A permit issued under this            which describes activities conducted under that
         section-                                                      permit and revenues derived from such activities
                    (1) shall authorize the conduct of an              during the year.
              activity only if that activity is compatible with              (f) Fishin*g.-Nothing in this section shall be
              the purposes for which the sanctuary is desig-           considered to require a person to obtain a permit
              nated and with protection of sanctuary resources;        under this section for the conduct of any fishing
                    (2) shall not authorize the conduct of any         activities in a national marine's'anctuary.
              activity for a period of more than five years
              unless renewed by the Secretary;                               SEC 311. Cooperative Agreements, Donations,
                    (3) shall require that activities carried out      And Acquisitions.
              under the permit be condticted in a manner that                (a) COOPERAITVE AGREEMETSM, GRANTS,
              does not destroy, cause the loss of, or injure           AND OTIiER AGREEMENTS.-The Secretary may
              sanctuary resources; and                                 enter into cooperative agreements, financial agree-
                    (4) shall require the permittee to purchase        ments, grants, contracts, or other agreements with
              and maintain comprehensive general liability             States, local governments, regional agencies, inter-
              insurance against claims arising out of activities       state agencies, or other persons to carry out the
              conducted under the permit, and to agree to hold         purposes and policies of this title.
              the United States harmless against such claims.                (b) AUTHORIZATION TO SOLICIT DONA-
               (c) Fees.-                                              TIONS.-The Secretary may enter into such agree-
                    (1) Assessment and Collection.-The                 ments with any nonprofit organization authorizing
              Secretary may assess and collect fees for the            the organization to solicit private donations to carry
              conduct of any activity under a permit issued            out the purposes and policies of this title.
              under this section.                                            (c) DONA71ONS.-The Secretary may accept
                    (2) Amount.-The amount of a fee under              donations of funds, property, and services for use in
              this subsection shall be equal to the sum of-            designating and administering national marine

        A-8






                                                                                                                Appendix A. Sanctuary Legislatio
                      sanctuaries under this title. Donations accepted                                (2) Damage Assessment.-The Secretary
                      under this section shall be considered as a gift or                      shall assess damages to sanctuary resources in
                      bequest to or for the use of the United States.                          accordance with section 302(6).
                             (d) ACQUISMONS.-The Secretary may                                   (c) Civil Actions For Response Costs And
                      acquire by purchase, lease, or exchange, any land,                  Damages.-The Attorney General, upon request of
                      facilities, or other property necessary and appropri-               the Secretary, may cornmence a civil action in the
                      ate to carry out the purposes and policies of this title            United States district court for the appropriate
                                                                                          district against any person or vessel who may be
                      SEC 31Z Destruction Or Loss Of, Or Injury To,                       liable under subsection (a) for response costs and                   0
                      Sanctuary Resources.                                                damages. The Secretary, acting as trustee for sanctu-                0
                             (a) Liability for Interest@-                                 ary resources for the United States, shall submit a                  0
                                  (1) Liability to the United States.-                    request for such an action to the Attorney General                   0
                                       (A) IN GENERAL- Any person who                     whenever a person may be liable for such costs or                    0
                                destroys, causes the loss of, or injures any              damages.                                                             0
                                sanctuary resource is liable to the United                      (d) Use Of Recovered Amounts.-Response                         0
                                States for an amount equal to the sum of-                 costs and damages recovered by the Secretary under
                                W the amount of response costs and dam-                   this section shall be retained by the Secretary in the               0
                                ages resulting from the destruction, loss, or             manner provided for in section 107(f)(1) of the                      0
                                injury; and                                               Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compen-                        0
                                (ii) interests on that amount calculated in the           sation, and Liabili  ty Act (42 U.S.C. 9607(f)(1)), and              0
                                manner described under section 1005 of the                used as follows:                                                     0
                                Oil Pollution Act of 1990.                                            (1) Response Costs And Damage Assess-                    0
                                  (2) Liability In Rem.-Any vessel used to                     ments.- Twenty percent of amounts recovered                     0
                           destroy, cause the loss of, or injure any sanctuary                 under this section, up to it maximum balance of
                           resource shall be liable in rem to the United                       $750,000, shall be used to finance response                     0
                           States for response costs and damages resulting                     actions and damage assessments by the Secre-                    0
                           from such destruction, loss, or injury. The                         tary.                                                           0
                           amount of that liability shall constitute a mari-                          (2) Restoration, Replacement, Manage-                    0
                           time hen on the vessel, and may be recovered in                     ment, And Improvement.-Amounts remaining                        0
                           an action in rem in the district court of the                       after the operation of paragraph (1) shall be used,
                           United States having jurisdiction over the vessel.                  in order of priority-                                           0
                                  (3) Defenses.-A person is not liable under                                        (A) to restore, replace, or                0
                           this subsection if that person establishes that-                                  acquire the equivalent of the sanctu-             0
                                       (A) the destruction or loss of, or injury                             ary resources which were the subject              0
                                to, the sanctuary resource was caused solely                                 of the action;                                    0
                                by an act of God, an act of war, or an act or                                       (B) to manage and improve the              9
                                omission of a third party, and the person                                    national marine sanctuary within                  0
                                acted with due care;                                                         which are located the sanctuary
                                       (B) the destruction, loss, or injury was                              resources which were the subject of
                                caused by an activity authorized by Federal                                  the action; and
                                or State law; or                                                                    (C) to manage and improve                  0
                                       (C) the destruction, loss, or injury was                              any other national marine sanctuary.              0
                                negligible.                                                           (3) Federal-State Ccordination.-Amounts                  0
                                  (4) Limits to Liability.- Nothing in sec-                    recovered under this section with respect to                    0
                           tions 4281-4289 of the Revised Statutes of the                      sanctuary resources lying within the jurisdiction
                           United States or section 3 of the Act of February                   of a State shall be used under paragraphs (2)(A)                0
                           13,1893 shall limit the liability of any person                     and (B) in accordance with the court decree or                  0
                           under this title.                                                   settlement agreement and, an agreement entered                  0
                            (b) Response Actions And Damage Assess-                            into by the Secretary and the Governor of that                  0
                      ment.-     (1) Response Actions.-The Secretary may                       State.                                                          0
                           undertake or authorize all necessary actions to                Sec. 313. Authorization Of Appropriations.                           S
                           prevent or minin-Lize the destruction or loss of, or                 There are authorized to be appropriated to the                 0
                           injury to, sanctuary resources, or to minimize the             Secretary to carry out d-tis title the following:                    0
                           imminent risk of such destruction, loss, or injury.                        (A) $8,000,000 for fiscal year 1993;                     0
                                                                                                                                                               0
                                                                                                                                                      A-9      0
                                                                                                                                                               0
                                                                                                                                                               0






          Appendix A. Sanctuary Legislation

                     (B) $12,500,000 for fiscal year 1994;              Sec. 315. Advisory Councils.
                     (C) $15,000,000 for fiscal year 1995; and                (a) ESTABLISHMENT.-The Secretary may
                     (D) $20,000,000 for fiscal year 1996.              establish one or more advisory councils (in this
                                                                        section referred to as an "Advisory Council") to
          Sec. 314. U.S.S. Monitor Artifacts and Materials.             provide assistance to the Secretary regarding the
                (a) Congressional Policy. - In recognition of           designation and management of national marine
          the historical significance of the wreck of the United        sanctuaries. The Advisory Councils shall be exempt.
          States ship Monitor to coastal North Carolina and to          from the Federal Advisory Committee Act.
          the area off the coast of North Carolina known as the               (b) MEMBERSHIP.-Members of the Advisory
          Graveyard of the Atlantic, the Congress directs that a        Councils may be appointed from among-
          suitable display of artifacts and materials from the                     (1) persons employed by Federal or State
          United States ship Monitor be maintained perma-                   agencies with expertise in management of
          nently at an appropriate site in coastal North Caro-              natural resources;
          lina. [P.L. 102-587 designated Hatteras Village, NC,                     (2) members of relevant Regional Fishery
          as this site.]                                                    Management Councils established under section
                (b) Interpretation And Display Of Artifacts@-               302 of the Magnuson Fishery Conservation and
                     (1) Subn-dssion Of Plan. - The Secretary               Management Act; and
              shall, within six months after the date of the                       (3) representatives of local user groups,
              enactment of this section, submit to the Commit-              conservation and other public interest organi -
              tee on Merchant Marine and Fisheries of the                   tions, scientific organizations, educational
              House of Representatives a plan for a suitable                organizations, or others interested in the protec-
              display in coastal North Carolina of artifacts and            tion and multiple use management of sanctuary
              materials of the United States ship Monitor.                  resources.
                     (2) Contents Of Plan.-The plan submitted                 (c) LIMITS ON MEMBERSHIR-For sanctuar-
              under subsection (a) shall, at a minimum"                 ies designated after the date of enactment of the
              contain-                                                  National Marine Sanctuaries Program Amendments
                         (A) an identification of appropriate           Act of 199Z the membership of Advisory Councils
                  sites in coastal North Carolina, either existing      shall be limited to no more than 15 members.
                  or proposed, for display of artifacts and                   (d) STAFFING AND ASSISTANCE.-The
                  materials of the United States ship Monitor;          Secretary may make available to an Advisory Coun-
                         (B) an identification of suitable artifacts    cil any staff, information, administrative services, or
                  and materials, including artifacts recovered          assistance the Secretary determines are reasonably
                  or proposed for recovery, for display in              required to enable the Advisory Council to carry out
                  coastal North Carolina;                               its functions.
                         (C) an interpretive plan for the artifacts           (e) PUBLIC PARTICIPAnON AND PROCE-
                  and materials which focuses on the sinking,           DURAL MATTERS.-The following guidelines apply
                  discovery, and subsequent management of .          .  with respect to the conduct of business meetings of
                  the wreck of the United States ship Monitor;          an Advisory Council:
                  and                                                              (1) Each meeting shall be open to the
                         (D) a draft cooperative agreement with             public, and interested persons shall be permitted
                  the State of North Carolina to implement the              to present oral or written statements.on items on
                  plan.                                                     the agenda.
               (c) Disclaimer. -This section shall not affect the                  (2) Emergency meetings may be held at the
         following:                                                         call of the chairman or presiding officer.
                         (1) Responsibilities Of Secretary.-The                    (3) Timely notice of each meetin@ includ-
                  responsibilities of the Secretary to provide              ing the time, place, and agenda of the meetin&
                  for the protection, conservation, and display             shall be published locally and in the Federal
                  of artifacts and materials from the United                Register.
                  States ship Monitor.                                             (4) Minutes of each meeting shall be kept
                         (2) Authority Of Secretary.-The                    and contain a summary of the attendees and
                  authority of the Secretary to designate the               matters discussed.
                  Mariner's Museum, located at Newport
                  News, Virginia, as the principal museum for
                  coordination of activities referred to in
                  paragraph (1).


        A-10






                                                                                                        Appendix A. Sanctuary Legislation

                      The Florida Keys National Marine                                    (8) The agencies of the'United States must
                                                                                   cooperate fully to achieve the necessary protection of
                      Sanctuary and Protection Act                                 Sanctuary resources.

                                    Public Law 101-605 (H.R. 5909)                        (9) The Federal Government and the State of
                                                                                   Florida should jointly develop and implement a
                           SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE. This Act may be                 comprehensive program to reduce pollution in the
                    cited as the "Florida Keys National Marine Sanctuary           waters offshore the Florida Keys to protect and
                    and Protection Act."                                           restore the water quality, coral reefs, and other living
                                                                                   marine resources of the Floricia Keys environment.
                           SEC. 2. FINDINGS. The Congress finds and
                    declares the following-                                                           POLICY AND PURPOSE
                           (1) The Florida Keys extend approximately 220                  SEC. 3.(a) POLICY.-Itis the policy of the
                    miles southwest from the southern tip of the Florida           United States to protect and preserve living and
                    peninsula.                                                     other resources of the Florida Keys marine environ-
                                                                                   ment.
                           (2) Adjacent to the Florida Keys land mass are
                    located spectacular, unique, and nationally signifi-                 (b) PURPOSE.-The purpose of this Act is to
                    cant marine environments, including seagrass                   protect the resources of the area described in section
                    meadows, mangrove islands, and extensive living                5(b), to educate and interpretfor the public regarding
                    coral reefs.                                                   the Florida Keys marmie environment, and to manage
                                                                                   such human uses of the Sanctuary consistent with
                           (3) These marine environments support rich              this Act. Nothing in this Act is; intended to restrict
                    biological communities possessing extensive conser-            activities that do not cause an adverse effect to the
                    vation, recreational, commercial, ecological, histori-         resources or property of the Simctuary or that do not
                    cal, research, educational, and esthetic values which          pose harm to users of the Sanctuary.
                    give this area special national significance.                                           DEFINITION
                           (4) These environments are the marine equiva-
                    lent of tropical rain forests in that they support high              SEC. 4. As used in thisAct, the term "adverse
                    levels of biological diversity, are fragile and easily         effect" means any factor, force, or action that would
                    susceptible to damage from human activities, and               independently or cumulativelY damage, diminish,
                    possess high value to human beings if properly                 degrade, impair, destroy, or otherwise harm-
                    conserved.                                                                    (1) any sanctuar@ resource, as defined
                           (5) These marine environments are subject to                    in section 302(8) of the! Marine Protection,            0
                    damage and loss of their ecological integrity from a                   Research, and Sanctuaries Act of 1972 (16
                    variety of sources of disturbance.                                     U.S.C. 1432(8)); or
                           (6) Vessel groundings along the reefs of the                            (2) any of those qualities, values, or
                    Florida Keys represent one of many serious threats to                  purposes for which the Sanctuary is desig-
                    the continued vitality of the marine environments of                   nated.
                    the Florida Keys which must be addressed in order to
                    protect their values.                                                         SANCTUARY DESIGNATION
                           (7) Action is necessary to provide comprehen-                 SEC. 5.(a) DESIGNATION.-The area de-
                    sive protection for these marine environments by               scribed in subsection (b) is designated as the Florida
                    establishing a Florida Keys National Marine Sanctu-            Keys National Marine -Sanctuary (in this Act referred
                    ary, by restricting vessel traffic within such Sanctu-         to as the "Sanctuary") under title III of the Marine
                    ary, and by requiring promulgation of a management             Protection, Research, and Sanctuaries Act of 1972 (16
                    Plan and regulations to protect sanctuary resources.           U.S.C. 1431 et seq.). The Sanctuary shall be managed
                                                                                   and regulations enforced undfT all applicable provi-
                                                                                   sions of such title M as if the Sanctuary had been
                                                                                   designated under such title.

                                                                                                                                        A-11






          Appendix A. Sanctuary Legislation

                 (b) AREA INCLUDED.--(l) Subject to subsec-                              north latitude, 80 degrees 52 minutes
          tions (c) and (d), the area referred to in subsection (a)                      west longitude,
          consists of all submerged lands and waters, including                                (iv) 24 degrees 30 minutes
          living marine and other resources within and on                                north latitude, 81 degrees 23 minutes
          those lands and waters, from the mean high water                               west longitude,
          mark to the boundary described under paragraph (2),                                  (v) 24 degrees 25 minutes
          with the exception of areas within the Fort Jefferson                          north latitude, 81 degrees 50 minutes
          National Monument. The Sanctuary shall be gener-                               west longitude,
          ally identified and depicted on National Oceanic and                                 (V*I) 24 degrees 22 minutes
          Atmospheric Administration charts FKNMS 1 and Z                                north latitude, 82 degrees 48 minutes
          which shall be maintained on file and kept available                           west longitude,
          for public examination during regular business hours                                 (vii) 24 degrees 37 minutes
          at the Office of Ocean and Coastal Resource Manage-                            north latitude, 83 degrees 6 minutes
          ment of the National Oceanic and Atmospheric                                   west longitude,
          Administration and which shall be updated to reflect                                 (viii) 24 degrees 40 minutes
          boundary modifications under this section.                                     north latitude, 83 degrees 6 minutes
                                                                                         west longitude,
                 (2) The boundary referred to in paragraph                                     (ix) 24 degrees 46 minutes
          (1                                                                             north latitude, 82 degrees 54 minutes
                          (A) begins at the northeasternmost                             west longitude,
                   point of Biscayne National Park located at                                  (x) 24 degrees 44 minutes
                   approximately 25 degrees 39 minutes north                             north latitude, 81 degrees 55 minutes
                   latitude, 80 degrees 5 minutes west longi-                            west longitude,
                   tude, then runs eastward to the 300-foot                                    (xi) 24 degrees 51 minutes
                   isobath located at approximately 25 degrees                           north latitude, 81 degrees 26 minutes
                   .39 minutes north latitude, 80 degrees 4                              west longitude, and
                   minutes west longitude;                                                     (xii) 24 degrees 55 minutes
                         (B) then runs southward and connects                            north latitude, 80 degrees 56 minutes
                   in succession the points at the following                             west longitude;
                   coordinates:                                                       (E) then follows the boundary of
                                  W 25 degrees 34 minutes north                Everglades National Park in a southerly then
                           latitude, 80 degrees 4 minutes west                 northeasterly direction through Florida Bay,
                           longitude,                                          Buttonwood Sound, Tarpon Basin, and
                                  (ii) 25 degrees 28 minutes.                  Blackwater Sound;
                           north latitude, 80 degrees 5 minutes                       (F) after Division Point, then departs
                           west longitude, and                                 from the boundary of Everglades National-
                                  (iii) 25 degrees 21 minutes                  Park and follows the western shoreline of
                           north latitude, 80 degrees 7 minutes                Manatee Bay, Barnes Sound, and Card
                           westlongitude;                                      Sound;
                         (C) then runs southward to the north-                        (G) then follows the southern bound-
                   eastern comer of the existing Key Largo                     ary of Biscayne National Park and the
                   National Marine Sanctuary located at 25                     northern boundary of Key Largo National
                   degrees 16 minutes north latitude, 80 degrees               Marine Sanctuary to the southeasternmost
                   8 minutes west longitude;                                   point of Biscayne National Park, and
                         (D) then runs southwesterly approxi-                         (H) then follows the eastern boundary
                   mating the 300-foot isobath and connects in                 of the Biscayne National Park to the begin-
                   succession the points at the following                      ning point specified in subparagraph (A).
                   coordinates:
                                  (i) 25 degrees 7 minutes north             (c) AREAS WITHN STATE OF FLORIDA.-
                           latitude, 80 degrees 13 minutes west       The designation under subsection (a) shall not take
                           longitude,                                 effect for any area located within the waters of the
                                  (ii) 24 degrees 57 minutes          State of Florida if, not later than 45 days after the
                           north latitude, 80 degrees 21 minutes      date of enactment of this Act, the Governor of the
                           west longitude,                            State of Florida objects in writing to the Secretary of
                                  (iii) 24 degrees 39 minutes         Commerce.


        A-12







                                                                                                     Appendix A. Sanctuary Legislation

                          (d) BOUNDARY MODIFICATTONS.-No later                           (b) MINERAL AND HYDROCARBON LEAS-
                   than the issuance of the draft environmental impact           ING, EXPLORATION, DEVELOPMENT, AND
                   statement for the Sanctuary under section 304(a) (1)          PRODUCTION.-No leasing, exploration, develop-
                   (C) (vii) of the Marine Protection, Research, and             ment, or production or minerals or hydrocarbons
                   Sanctuaries Act of 1972 (16 U.S.C. 1434(a) (1) (C)            shall be permitted within the Sanctuary.
                   (vii)), in consultation with the Governor of the State
                   of Florida, if appropriate, the Secretary of Commerce                 COMPREHENSIVE lyLkNAGEMENT PLAN
                   may make minor modifications to the boundaries of
                   the Sanctuary as necessary to properly protect                        SEC. 7.(a) PREPARATION OF PLAN.-The
                   sanctuary resources. The Secretary of Commerce                Secretary of Commerce, in consultation with appro-
                   shall submit to the Committee on Commerce, Sci-               priate Federal, State, and local government authori-
                   ence, and Transportation of the Senate and the                ties and with the Advisory Council established under
                   Committee on Merchant Marine and Fisheries of the             section 208, shall develop a comprehensive manage-
                   House of Representatives a written notification of            ment plan and implementing regulations to achieve
                   such modifications. Any boundary modification                 the policy and purpose of thisAct. The Secretary of
                   made under this subsection shall be reflected on the          Commerce shall complete sudi comprehensive
                   charts referred to in subsection (b) (1).                     management plan and final regulations for the
                                                                                 Sanctuary not later than 30 months after the date of
                                PROHIBITION OF CERTAIN USES                      enactment of this Act. In developing the plan and
                                                                                 regulations, the Secretary of Commerce shall follow
                          SEC. 6.(a) VESSEL TRAFFIC.--M Consistent               the procedures specified in sections 303 and 304 of
                   with generally recognized principles of international         the Marine Protection, Researda, and Sanctuaries Act
                   law, a person may not operate a tank vessel (as that          of 1972 (16 U.S.C. 1433 and 1434), except those
                   term is defined in section 2101 of title 46, United           procedures requiring the delineation of Sanctuary
                   States Code) or a vessel greater than 50 meters in            boundaries and development of a resource assess-
                   length in the Area to Be Avoided described in the             ment report. Such comprehensive management plan
                   Federal Register notice of May 9, 1990 (55 Fed. Reg.          shall-
                   19418-19419).
                                                                                                (1) facilitate all public and private uses
                         (2) The prohibition in paragraph (1) shall not                  of the Sanctuary consistent with the primary
                   apply to necessary operations of public vessels. For                  objective of Sanctuary :resource protection;
                   the purposes of this paragraph, necessary operations
                   of public vessels shall include operations essential'for                     (2) consider temporal and geographical
                   national defense, law enforcement, and responses to                   zoning, to ensure protection of sanctuary
                   emergencies that threaten life, property, or the                      resources;
                   environment.
                                                                                                (3) incorporate regulations necessary
                         (3) The provisions of paragraphs (1) and (2),                   to enforce the elements of the comprehensive
                   including the area in which vessel operations are                     water quality protection program developed
                   prohibited under paragraph (1), may be modified by                    under section 8 unless the Secretary of
                   regulations issued jointly by the Secretary of the                    Commerce determines that such program
                   department in which the Coast guard is operating                      does not meet the purpose for which the
                   and the Secretary of Commerce.                                        Sanctuary is designated or is otherwise
                                                                                         inconsistent or incompatible with the com-
                        (4) This subsection shall be effective on the                    prehensive management plan developed
                   earliest of the following-                                            under this section;

                                 (A) the date that is six months after the                      (4) identify priority needs for research
                          date of enactment of this Act,                                 and amounts needed to.L

                                 (B) the date of publication of a notice                              (A) improve management of the
                          to mariners consistent with this section, or                   Sanctuary, and in particular, the coral reef
                                  (C) the date of publication of new                     ecosystem within the Sanctuary; and
                          nautical charts consistent with this section.



                                                                                                                                    A- 13






           Appendix A. Sanctuary Legislation

                                 (B) identify clearly the cause and     hensive water quality protection program for the
                    effect relationships between factors threaten-      Sanctuary. If the Secretary of Commerce determines
                    ing the health of the coral reef ecosystem in       that such comprehensive water quality protection
                    the Sanctuary;                                      program does not meet the purpose for which the
                                                                        Sanctuary is designated or is otherwise inconsistent
                           (5) establish a long-term ecological         or incompatible with the comprehensive manage-
                    monitoring program and database, including          ment plan prepared under section 7, such water
                    methods to disseminate information on the           quality program shall not be included in the compre-
                    management of the coral reef ecosystem.             hensive management plan. The purposes of such
                           (6) identify alternative sources of          water quality program shall be to-
                    funding needed to fully implement the                               (A) recommend priority corrective
                    plan's provisions and supplement appropria-                  actions and compliance schedules addressing
                    tions under section 9 of this Act and section                point and nonpoint sources of pollution to
                    313 of the Marine Protection, Research, and                  restore and maintain the chemical, physical,
                    Sanctuaries Act of 1972 (16 U.S.C. 1444).                    and biological integrity of the Sanctuary,
                                                                                 including restoration and maintenance of a
                           (7) ensure coordination and coopera-                  balanced, indigenous population of corals,
                    tion between Sanctuary managers and other                    shellfish, fish and wildlife, and recreational
                    Federal, State, and local authorities with                   activities in and on the water; and
                    jurisdiction within or adjacent to the Sanctu-
                    ary;                                                                (B) assign responsibilities for the
                                                                                 implementation of the program among the
                           (8) promote education, among users of                 Governor, the Secretary of Commerce, and
                    the Sanctuary, about coral reef conservation                 the Administrator in accordance with
                    and navigational safety; and                                 applicable Federal and State laws.

                           (9) incorporate the existing Looe Key              (2) The program required by paragraph (1)
                    and Key Largo National Marine Sanctuaries           shall, under applicable Federal and State laws,
                    into the Florida Keys National Marine               provide for measures to achieve the purposes de-
                    Sanctuary except that Looe Key and Key              scribed under paragraph (1), including-
                    Largo Sanctuaries shall continue to be
                    operated until completion of the comprehen-                         (A) adoption or revision, under
                    sive management plan for the Florida Keys                    applicable Federal and State laws, by the
                    Sanctuary.                                                   State and the Administrator of applicable
                                                                                 water quality standards for the Sanctuary,
                 N PUBLIC PARTICIPATION.-The Secretary                           based on water quality criteria which may
           of Commerce shall provide for participation by the                    utilize biological monitoring or assessment
           general public in development of the comprehensive                    methods, to assure protection and restoration
           management plan.                                                      of the water quality, coral reefs, and other
                                                                                 living marine resources of the Sanctuary;
                 (c) TERMINATION OF STUDIES.--On the
           date of enactment of this Act, all congressionally                           (B) adoption under applicable Federal
           mandated studies of existing areas in the Florida                     and State laws of enforceable pollution
           Keys for designation as National Marine Sanctuaries                   control measures (including water quality-
           shall be terminated.                                                  based effluent limitations and best manage-
                                                                                 ment practices) and methods to eliminate or
                       FLORIDA KEYS WATER QUALIT`Y                               reduce pollution from point and nonpoint
                                                                                 sources;
                 SEC. 8.(a) WATER QUALITY PROTECTION
           PROGRAM.-(1) Not later than 18 months after the                              (C) establishment of a comprehensive
           date of enactment of this Act, the Administrator of                   water quality monitoring program to (i)
           the Envirortmental Protection Agency and the                          determine the sources of pollution causing or
           Governor of the State of Florida, in consultation with                contributing to existing or anticipated
           the Secretary of Commerce, shall develop a compre-                    pollution problems in the Sanctuary, (ii)


           A-14






                                                                                                     Appendix A. Sanctuary Legislatio

                            evaluate the effectiveness of efforts to reduce               program and its recommended actions and
                            or eliminate those sources of pollution, and                  plans; and
                            (iii) evaluate progress toward achieving and                  (iii) incorporates specific recommendations
                            maintaining water quality standards and                       concerning the implementation of the
                            toward protecting and restoring the coral                     program.
                            reefs and other living marine resources of the                (C). The Administrator of the Environmental
                            Sanctuary;                                           Protection Agency and the Administrator of the
                                                                                 National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administratio           'n
                                   (D) provision of adequate opportunity         shall cooperate with the Florida Department of
                            for public participation in all aspects of           Environmental Regulation to establish a Technical
                            developing and implementing the program;             Advisory Committee to advise the Steering Commit-
                            and                                                  tee and to assist in the design, and prioritization of
                                                                                 programs for scientific research and monitoring. The
                                   (E) identification of funding for             Technical Advisory Committee shall be composed of
                            implementation of the program, including             scientists from federal agencies, State agencies,
                            appropriate Federal and State cost sharing           academic institutions, private non-profit organiza-
                            arrangements.                                        tions, and knowledgeable citizens.
                                                                                          (3)(A) The Regional Administrator of the
                          (b) COMPLIANCE AND ENFORCEMENT@-                       Environmental Protection Agency shall appoint a
                   The Administrator of the Environmental Protection             Florida Keys Liaison Officer.The Liaison Officer,
                   Agency, the Secretary of Commerce, and the Gover-             who shall be located within the State of Florida, shall
                   nor of the State of Florida shall ensure compliance           have the authority and staff to--
                   with the program required by this section, consistent                   (i) assist and support the implementation
                   with applicable Federal and State laws.                           of the program required by this section, includ-
                                                                                     ing administrative and teiiu-dcal support for the
                          (c) CONSULTATION.-In the development                       Steering. Committee and Technical Advisory
                   and implementation of the program required by                     Committee;
                   paragraph (1), appropriate State and local govern-                      (ii) assist and support local, State, and
                   ment officials shall be consulted.                                Federal agencies in developing and implement-
                                                                                     ing specific action plans designed to carry out
                     (d) DvEPLEMENTATION.-                                           such program;
                            (1) The Administrator of the Environmental                     (iii) coordinate the actions of the Environ-
                   Protection Agency and the Governor of the State of                mental Protection Agency with other Federal
                   Florida shall implement the program required by this              agencies, including the National Oceanic and
                   section, in cooperation with the Secretary of Com-                Atmospheric Administration and the National
                   merce.                                                            Park Service, and State and local authorities, in
                            (2)(A) The Regional Administrator of the                 developing strategies to maintain, protect, and
                   Environmental Protection Agency shall with the                    improve water quality in the Florida Keys-,
                   Governor of the State of Florida establish a Steering                   (iv) collect and malo! available to the
                   Committee to set guidance and policy for the devel-               public publications, and other forms of informa-
                   opment and implementation of such program.                        tion that the Steering Committee determines -to
                   Membership shall include representatives of the                   be appropriate, related to the water quality in the
                   Environmental Protection Agency, the National Park                vicinity of the Florida Keys; and
                   Service, the United States Fish and Wildlife Service,                   (v) provide forpublic review and comment
                   the Army Corps of Engineers, the National Oceanic                 on the program and implementing actions.
                   and Atmospheric Administration, the Florida                             (4)(A) There are authorized to be appropri-
                   Department of Community Affairs, the Florida                  ated to the Administrator of the Environmental
                   Department of Environmental Regulation, the South             Protection Agency $2,000,000 for fiscal year 1993,
                   Florida Water Management District, and the Florida            $3,000,000 for fiscal year 1994, and $4,000,000 for
                   Keys Aqueduct Authority; three individuals in local           fiscal year 1995, for the purpose of carrying out this
                   government in the Florida Keys; and three citizens            section.
                   knowledgeable about such program.                                     (B) There are authorized to be appropriated
                            (B) The Steering Committee shall, on a               to the Secretary of Commerce 000,000 for fiscal year
                   biennial basis,. issue a report to Congress that-             1993, $400,000 for fiscal year 1994, and $500,000 for
                            (i) summarizes the progress of the program;          fiscal year 1995, for the purpose of enabling the
                            (ii) summarizes any modifications to the

                                                                                                                                          A- 15






           Appendix A. Sanctuary Legislafion

           National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration              1972 (16 U.S.C. 1444(2) (Q) is amended by strilcing
           to carry out this section.                                   -$3,000,000" and inserting in lieu thereof
                    (C) Amounts appropriated under this                 -$4,000,000."
           paragraph shall remain available until expended.
                    (D) No more than 15 percent of the amount                  (b) AUTHORIZAnON FOR EPA ADMEZ-c-
           authorized to be appropriated under subparagraph             TRATOR.-There are authorized to be appropriated
           (A) for any fiscal year may be expended in that fiscal       to the Administrator of the Environmental Protection
           year on administrative expense.                              Agency $750,000 for each of the fiscal years 1991 and
                               ADVISORY COUNCIL                         1992.
                                                                               (c) REPORT.-The Secretary of Commerce
                  SEC. 9.(a) ESTABLISHls-ENT.-The Secretary             shall, not later than March 1, 1991, submit to the
           of Commerce, in consultation with the Governor of            Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transporta-
           the State of Florida and the Board of County Coin-           tion of the Senate and the Committee on Merchant
           missioners of Monroe County, Florida, shall establish        Marine and Fisheries of the House of Representatives
           an Advisory Council to assist the Secretary in the           a report on the future requirements for funding the
           development and implementation of the comprehen-             Sanctuary through fiscal year 1999 under title III of
           sive management plan for the Sanctuary.                      the Marine Protection, Research, and Sanctuaries Act
                                                                        of 1972 (16 U.S.C. 14321 et seq.).
                  (b) MEMBERSHIP.-Members of the Advisory
           Council may be appointed from among (1) Sanctuary            Approved November 16,1990.
           managers, (2) members of other government agencies
           with overlapping management responsibilities for
           the Florida Keys marine environment, and (3)
           representatives of local industries, commercial users,
           conservation groups, the marine scientific and
           educational community, recreational user groups, or
           the general public.

                 (c) EXPENSES.-Members of the Advisory
           Council shall not be paid compensation for their
           service as members and shall not be reimbursed for
           actual and necessary traveling and subsistence
           expenses incurred by them in the performance of
           their duties as such members.

                 (d) ADMINISTRAnON.-The Advisory
           Council shall elect a chairperson and may establish
           subcommittees, and adopt bylaws, rules, and such
           other administrative requirements and procedures as
           are necessary for the administration of its functions.

                 (e) STAFFING AND OTHER ASSISTANCE@-
           The Secretary of Commerce shall make available to
           the Advisory Council such staff, information, and
           administrative services and assistance as the Secre-
           tarv of Commerce determines are reasonably re-
           quired to enable the Advisory Council to carry out its
           functions.


                   AUTHORIZAnON OF APPROPRIAnONS


                SEC. 10.(a) AUTHORIZAnON FOR SECRE-
           TARY OF COMMERCE.-Section 313(2) (C) of the
           Marine Protection, Research, and Sanctuaries Act of


           A-16




                                                                                                                                 0

                                     Appendix B. Core Group ISanctuary Advisory CouncillStrategy Working Group Members
                                                                         U.S. Environmental Protection Agency                    0
                   Core Group                                                                                                    0
                                                                         Fred McManus                                            0
                   Federal                                               Water Management Division                               0
                                                                         Wetlands, Oceans and Wateisheds Branch                  0
                 U.S. Department of Commerce                             Coastal Programs Section                                0
                 National Oceanic and Atmospheric                        Atlanta, GA                                             0
                    Administration                                                                                               0
                                                                         U.S. Department of Interior                             0
                 Daniel J. Basta                                                                                                 0
                 National Ocean Service                                  National Park Service                                   0
                 Office of Ocean Resources Conservation and                                                                      0
                   Assessment                                            Skip Snow                                               0
                 Strategic Environmental Assessments Division            Everglades National Park                                0
                 Silver Spring, MD                                       South Florida Research Center                           0
                 James A. Bohnsack                                       Homestead, FL                                           0
                 National Marine Fisheries Service                                                                               0
                 Southeast Fisheries Center                              U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service
                 Miami, FL
                                                                         Jon Andrew
                 Billy D. Causey                                         U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service
                 National Ocean Service                                  National Key Deer Refuge
                 Office of Ocean and Coastal Resource Management         Big Pine Key, FL
                 Florida Keys National Marine Sanctuary
                 Marathon, FL
                                                                                                         7 77
                                                                         State of Florida
                 Brett Joseph
                 Office of the General Counsel for Ocean Services        Executive Office of the Governor
                 Silver Spring, MD                                       Paula Allen
                 C. John Klein                                           Office of Environmental Affairs
                 National Ocean Service                                  Tallahassee, FL
                 Office of Ocean Resources Conservation and
                  Assessment                                             Debbie Tucker
                 Strategic Environmental Assessments Division            Office of Environmental Affairs
                 Silver Spring, MD                                       Tallahassee, FL

                 Edward H. Undelof
                 National Ocean Service                                  Department of Community Affairs
                 Office of Ocean and Coastal Resource Management
                 Sanctuaries and Reserves Division                       Ralph Cantral
                 Silver Spring, MD                                       Coastal Zone Management Program
                 Maureen A. Warren                                       Tallahassee, FL
                 National Ocean Service                                  Toy Uvingston
                 Office of Ocean Resources Conservation and              Bureau of State Planning
                  Assessment                                             Tallahassee, FL
                 Strategic Environmental Assessments Division
                 Silver Spring, MD





                                                                                                                         B-1






         Appendix B. Core Group ISanctuary Advisoty CouncibStrategy Working Group Members

         Department of Environmental Protection

         Dana Bryan
         Division of Recreation and Parks
         Tallahassee, FL


         Ken Haddad
         Florida Marine Research Institute
         St. Petersburg, FL

         Peggy Mathews
         Coastal Management Program
         Tallahassee, FL

         Danny Riley
         Bureau of Sanctuaries & Research Reserves
         Tallahassee, FL

         SoLith Florida Water Management District

         Jim Smith
         South Florida Water Management District
         Marathon, FL


          MonrMe'County

         Growth Management Division

         George Garrett
         Marine Resources Department.
         Key West, FL


























        B-2






                                      Appendix B. Core Gfoup ISanctuary Advisory CounciYStrafegy Working GrOUP Members

                                                                          John Ogden
                   Sanctuary Advisory Council                             St. Petersburg, FL
                  Jon Andrew                                              William Parks
                  Big Pine Key, FL                                        Boynton Beach, FL
                  George M. Barley, Jr. (Chairman)                        Mark L. Robertson
                  Orlando, FL                                             Key West, FL
                  Bonnie Beall                                            Spencer C. Slate
                  Islamorada, FL                                          Key Largo, FL
                  Mike Collins                                            Alexander Sprunt IV
                  Islamorada, FL                                          Tavernier, FL

                  J. Allison DeFoor                                       John F. Stewart
                  Tavernier, FL                                           West Palm Beach, FL
                  Harold Drake                                            Debbie Tucker
                  West Palm Beach, FL                                     Taflahassee, FL
                  Bruce A. Etshman                                        William Wickers, Jr.
                  Key West, FL                                            Key West, FL
                  Alison Fahrer                                           Harry Wooley
                  Islamorada, FL                                          Key West, FL

                  Robert W. HQIston
                  Key West, FL

                  Irene U. Hooper
                  Big Pine Key, FL

                  PaulJohnson
                  St. Petersburg, FL

                  Michael Laudicina
                  Big Pine Key, FL

                  Karl Lessard
                  Marathon, FL

                  Jack London
                  Surnmerfand Key, FL

                  James W. Miller (Vice Chairman)
                  Big Pine Key, FL









                                                                                                                          B-3






          Appendix B. Core Group ISanctuary Advisoty CouncillStrategy Workng GrOUP Members
            Strategy Working Group                                   Pamela James
                                                                     Florida Keys National Marine Sanctuary
                                                            X;:n.    9499 Overseas Highway
                                                                     Marathon, FL 33050
          -Tederal-                    all m!5m
          U.S. Department of Commerce                                Brett Joseph
                                                                     Office of the General Counsel for Ocean Services
          National Oceanic and Atmospheric                           1305 East-West Highway
             Administration                                          Silver Spring, MD 20910

          Daniel J. Basta                                            C. John Klein
          National Ocean Service                                     National Ocean Service
          Off ice of Ocean Resources Conservation and                Office of Ocean Resources Conservation and
             Assessment                                                 Assessment
          Strategic Environmental Assessments Division               Strategic Environmental Assessments Division
          Silver Spring, MD 20910                                    Silver Spring, MD 20910

          Jim Bohnsak                                                Steven Miller
          National Marine Fisheries Service                          Florida Program Manager
          Southeast Fisheries Center                                 NOAA/NURC
          75 Virginia Beach Drive                                    514 Caribbean Drive
          Miami, FL 33149                                            Key Largo, FL 33037

          Billy Causey, Manager                                      George P. Schmahl
          Florida Keys National Marine Sanctuary                     Manager
          9499 Overseas Highway                                      Looe Key National Marine Sanctuary
          Marathon, FL 33050                                         Route 1, Box 782
          Robert Finegold                                            Big Pine Key, FL 33043
          Florida Keys National Marine Sanctuary                     Maureen A. Warren
          9499 Overseas Highway                                      National Ocean Service
          Marathon, FL 33050                                         Office of Ocean Resources Conservation and
                                                                        Assessment
          Timothy Goodspeed                                          Strategic Environmental Assessments Division
          National Ocean Service                                     Silver Spring, MD 20910
          Office of Ocean Resources Conservation     and
             Assessment                                              LTJG Richard Wingrove
          Strategic Environmental Assessments Division               Looe Key National Marine Sanctuary
          Silver Spring, MD 20910                                    Route 1, Box 782
                                                                     Big Pine Key, FL 33043
          John Halas
          Key Largo National Marine Sanctuary
          P.O. Box 1083                                              U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
          Key Largo, FL 33037                                        Tom Cavinder
          Douglas Harper                                             U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
          National Marine Fisheries Service                          960 College Station Road
          Southeast Fisheries Center                                 Athens, GA 30613
          75 Virginia Beach Drive
          Miami, FL 33149                                            Fred McManus
                                                                     U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
          Harold Hudson                                              345 Courtland Street, NE
          Key Largo National Marine Sanctuary                        Atlanta, GA 30365
          P.O. Box 1083
          Key Largo, FL 33037


          B-4





                                       Appendix B. Core Group lSanctuaiy Advisory CouncillStrategy Working Group Members
                   U.S. Department of Interior                               -State of Florida

                   National Park Service
                                                                            Executive Office of the Governor
                   Richard Curry                                            PaulJohnson
                   Biscayne National Park                                   Executive Office of the Governor
                   P.O. Box 1369                                            421 Carlton Bldg.
                   Homestead, FL 33030                                      The Capitol
                   Michael Eng                                              Tallahassee, FL 32399
                   South Florida Research Center                            Department of Commerce
                   Everglades National Park
                   P.O. Box 279                                             Rod Peterson
                   Homestead, FL 33030                                      Bureau of Economic Analysis
                   Mike Roblee                                              Department of Commerce
                   South Florida Research Center                            Rm. 323C - Collins Bldg.
                   Everglades National Park                                 .107 W. Gaines Street
                   P.O. Box 279                                             Tallahassee, FIL 32303
                   Homestead, FL 33030                                      Department of Community,4fibirs
                   U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service
                                                                            Toy Uvingston
                   Jon Andrew                                               Department of Community Affairs
                   National Key Deer Refuge                                 2740 Centerview Drive
                   U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service                             Tallahassee, FL 32399
                   P.O. Box 510                                             Ken Metcalf
                   Big Pine Key, FL 33043                                   Department of Community Affairs
                                                                            P.O. Box 990
                   U.S. Department of Transportation                        Key West, FL 33041
                   U.S. Coast Guard                                         Department of Environmentirl Protection
                   LCDR Howard Van Houten                                   Ed (Edwin) Conklin
                   U.S. Coast Guard, Seventh District                       3900 Commonwealth Blvd.
                   909 SE First Avenue                                      Tallahassee, FL 32399
                   Miami, FL 33131
                                                                            Bruce DeGrove
                                                                            Twin Towers Building
                   U.S. Department of Defense                               2600 Blair Stone Road
                   U.S. Army Corps of Engineers                             Tallahassee, FL 32399
                                                                            Ken Haddad
                   Mr. Chuck Schnepal                                       Marine Research Institute
                   U.S. Army Corps of Engineers                             100 Eighth Avenue, SE
                   8410 NW 83rd Terrace, Suite 225                          St. Petersburg, Florida 33701
                   Miami, FL 33166                                          R.J. Hebling
                                                                            11400 Overseas Highway, Sujite 123
                                                                            Marathon, FL 33050

                                                                            John Hunt
                                                                            Marine Research Institute
                                                                            13365 Overseas Highway
                                                                            Marathon, FL 33050


                                                                                                                              B-5





           Appendix B. Core Group ISanctuaty Advisory CouncillStrategy Woikng Group Members

           Walter Jaap                                              Game and Freshwater Fish Commission
           Marine Resources Institute
           100 Eighth Avenue, SE                                    Pete Kalla
           St. Petersburg, FL 33701                                 Florida Game & Fish Commission
                                                                    11400 Overseas Highway
           George Jones                                             Marathon, FL 33050
           John Pennekamp Coral Reef State Park
           P.O. Box 2660
           Key Largo, FL 33037                                       Monroe County
           Ann Lazar                                                Growth Management Division
           11400 Overseas Highway, Suite 123
           Marathon, FL 33050                                       George Garrett
                                                                    Marine Resources Department
           Peggy Mathews                                            5100 Junior College Road
           Twin Towers Building                                     Wing III, Stock Island
           2600 Blair Stone Road                                    Key West, FL 33040-4399
           Tallahassee, FL 32399
                                                                    Pat McNeese
           R.H. McCullars;                                          Environmental Resources Department
           Florida Marine Patrol                                    5100 Junior College Road
           2835 Overseas Highway                                    Wing III, Stock Island
           Marathon, FL 33050                                       Key West, FL 33040-4399

           Russ Nelson
           Florida Marine Fisheries Commission                      Other Organizations
           2540 Executive Center Circle West, Suite 106
           Tallahassee, FL 32301
                                                                    Douglas Gregory
           Danny Riley                                              Monroe County/Sea Grant
           Woodcrest Office Park                                    Cooperative Extension Service, P.O. Box 2545
           Bldg. 500, Suite 501 EC                                  Key West, FL 33045-2545
           325 John Knox Road                                       Terrance Leary
           Tallahassee, FL 32303                                    Gulf of Mexico Fishery Management Council
           Department of Health and Rehabilitative                  Lincoln Center, Suite 331
           Services                                                 5401 West Kennedy
                                                                    Tampa, FL 33609
           Homer J. Rhode                                           Richard Ogbum
           Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services         South Florida Regional Planning Council
           Monroe County Public Health Unit                         3"0 Hollywood Blvd, Suite 140
           Public Service Building                                  Hollywood, FL 33021
           5100 Junior College Road
           Key West, FL 33040                                       Roger Pugliese
                                                                    South Atlantic Fishery Management Cduncil
           Department of State                                      1 Southpark Circle, Suite 306
           James Miller                                             Charleston, SC 29407
           Chief, Bureau of Archaeological Research
           Division of Historical Resources
           Department of State
           500 South Bronough St.
           Tallahassee, FL 32399-0250





           B-6






                                  Appendix B. Core Group/Sanctuary Advisory Council Strategy Working Group Members

                Jim Smith
                South Florida Water Management District
                5800 Overseas Highway, Suite 4-103
                Marathon, FL 33050




























































                                                                                                               B-7















                  NATIONAL OCEANIC AND ATMOSPHERIC ADMINISTRATION
                           U. S. DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE


                                  CHARTER OF THE

             FLORIDA KEYS NATIONAL MARINE SANCTUARY ADVISORY COUNCIL


           ESTABLISHMENT

           The Director of the Office of Ocean and Coastal Resource
           Management, National Ocean Service, NOAA (the "Director"),
           hereby establishes the Florida Keys National Marine
           Sanctuary Advisory Council ("Council") pursuant to Section
           315 of the National Marine Sanctuaries ACt ("Act"),
           16 U.S.C. 1446.

           OBJECTIVES AND DUTIES

           1. The Council, in accordance With the provisions of the
           Act, shall provide assistance to NOAA regarding the
           designation and management of the Florida Keys National
           Marine Sanctuary.

           2. The Council shall function solely as an advisoxy body,
           and in the performance of its functions, the Council and its
           individual members shall comply fully with the provisions of
           the National Marine Sanctuaries Act, the terms of this
           Charter, and all applicable policies and procedures of NOAA
           governing the establishment and functioning of Sanctuary
           advisory councils.

           3. The Council shall draw on the expertise of its members
           and other sources in order to provide advice,
           recommendat ions and other forms of assistance to the NOAA.

           4. The Council shall serve as a forum for consultation and
           deliberation between its members and as a source of
           consensus advice to the Director- Such consensus advice
           shall fairly represent the collective and individual views
           of the Council members.

           MEMBERS AND CHAIRPERSONS

           I. The Council shall consist of no more than t;wenty-five
           (25) members to be appointed by the Director from among:

           a. Persons employed by Federal or State agencies with
           expertise in management of natural resources;











            b. Members of the relevant Regional Fishery Management
            Councils established under section 302 of the Magnuson
            Fishery Conservation and Management Act; and

            C. Representatives of local user   groups, conservation and
            other public interest organizations, scientific
            organizations, educational organizations, or others
            interested in the protection and multiple use management of
            the sanctuary resource.

            2. The membership of the Council shall be balanced in terms
            of points of view represented and in terms of the functions
            the Council will perform.

            3. Members shall be appointed for a two-year term and such
            service shall be at the discretion of the Director. Vacancy
            appointments shall be for the remainder of the unexpired
            term of the vacancy.

            4. The Council shall elect, by a two-thirds majority vote,
            one member to serve as Chairperson and one member to serve
            as Vice-Chairperson. Each shall serve a period no longer
            than one year, and no member may be elected to serve                    
            consecutive terms as Chairperson or Vice -Chairperson. The
            Vice -Chairperson shall act as- Chairperson in the: absence of          
            the Chairperson.                                                        
                                                                                    
            SCOPE OF COUNCIL FUNCTIONS                                              
                                                                                    
            Pursuant to the above-stated objectives and duties, the                 
            Council may serve any or all of the following functions:               
                                                                                    
            1  Management plan implementation:  The Council may.         
            evaluate management plan implementation and advise NOAA  on             
            the implementation process and ways to more effectively
            accomplish the goals and objectives of the Sanctary.                    
                                                                                    
            2. Resource protection: The Council may advise NOAA on                 
            the effectiveness of interagency agreements for surveillance           
            and enforcement, and on the effectiveness of the Sanctuary              

            regulations in providing adequate resource protection.                  
            3. Research: The Council may advise NOAA on priority       
            research and monitoring needs, proposals and reports.                   
            4. Education and Outreach: The Council may advise and                  
                                                                                    
            assist NOAA on programs and activities to enhance public
            awareness, understanding and wise use of the Sanctuary,
            including efforts to enhance general public understanding              
            and appreciation of the Sanctuary resources and qualities,             
            and to enhance awareness of the goals and objectives of the             
            Sanctuary designation.                                                  
                                                                                    
                                                                                    

                                                                                    
                                                                                    
 









             S.    Public Input: The Council may receive and report
             opinions from uaer groups and the public relevant to the
             development and implementation of the Sanctuary management
             Plan and regulations.
0
             6.   Coordinated Management: The   Council mav serve as a
0            forum to enhance communication and cooperatio'n among Federal
0            and state agencies, as well as non-governmental entities, in
0            furtherance of coordinated, effective and efficient
0            management of the Sanctuary.
0
0            ADMINISTRATIVE PROVISIONS
0
0            1. The Council shall advise and assist NOAA Lhr ough the
0            Sanctuary Superintendent. All advice, information or other
0            communications by, or on behalf of, the Council as a body
             shall be addressed to NOAA through the Sanctuary
0            Superintendent.
0
0            2. The Director, acting through the Sanctuary
0            Superintendent, shall convene meetings of the Council a
0            minimum of four (4).times a year. Additional meetings may
             be convened at the discretion of the Director, acting
0            through the Sanctuary Superintendent, and upon
0            recommendation of the Chairperson. A minimum of two (2)
0            Council meetings per year shall be convened in combination
0            with a public meeting of the Sanctuary Core Group and staff.
0            In addition, emergency meetings may be held at the call of
             the Chairperson, with the approval of the Director or
0            designee.
0
0            a. Notice of each meeting shall be published in the Federal
0            Register no later than fifteen (15) days prior to the date
0            of the meeting unless exceptional circumstances exist, which
             said circumstances shall be stated in the meeting notice.
0            Notice shall also be provided in at least one local
0            publication of general circulation among the interested
0            public. The notice shall include the time, place and a.
0            summary of the agenda for the meeting, @ogether with a
0            statement that the meeting is open to the public and that
             interested persons shall be permitted to present oral or
0            written statements on items on the agenda:
0
0            b. The location of each council meeting shall beat a place
0            reasonably accessible to the Council members and to the
0            interested public.
0            c. The agenda for each meeting shall be determined in
0            advance by the Director, acting through the Sanctuary
0            Superintendent, in consultation with the Chairperson.
0            d. Each meeting shall be -open to the public, and interested
0            per-sons shall be permitted.to present oral or written
0
0
0
0


             statements on items on the agenda.
             e.  Detailed minutes shall be kept for each meeting and
             contain a summary of the attendees   and matters discussed.
             The record of each meeting shall be made available to the
             public.

             4. The   Council may establish, subject to approval by the
             Director or designee, such subcommittees or working groups
             of its membership as may be necessary to fulfill its duties.
             All information, reports, recommendations or other
             communications by, or on behalf of, any such subcommittee or
             working group shall be addressed to the full Council for its
             consideration in the performance of its functions. All such
             communications shall be submitted on the record at the next
             meeting of the full Council following adoption by the                     
             subcommittee or working group.                                            
                                                                                       
                 The Director, acting through the Sanctuary                            
             Superintendent, shall make available to the Council such                  
             staff, information, administrative services or assistance     as          
             the Director determines are reasonably required to enable
             the Council to carry out its functions.                                   
                                                                                       
             6. Members of the Council shall not be   compensated for                 
             their services and shall not be reimbursed for actual and                 
             necessary traveling and subsistence expenses incurred by
             them in the performance of their duties as such members.                
                                                                                       
             DURATION                                                                  
             The Council shall  terminate two years from the date of the               
             Charter unless terminated earlier or renewed by proper                    
             authority.                                                                
                                                                                       
                                                                                       
                                                                                       
                                                                                       
                                                                                       
                                        Date          June 7,1995                         
                                                                                     
                                                                                       
                                                                                       
                                                                                       
                                                             
                                          Director, Office of Ocean and
                                          Coastal Resource Management                
                                                                                       
                                                                                       








                                                 A REPORT


                                                      to

                          W. Stanley Wilson. Assistant Administrator for NOS

 0                                                    on


                                 THE PROCESS USED IN DEVELOPING
                        THE FLORIDA KEYS NATIONAL BIARINE SANCTUARY
                                           MANAGEMIENT PLAN

                                              15 January 1994


                   The first version of this report was submitted to you on
                   September 1993. It was anticipated that it was to be the
                  first in a series of reports we would prepare as we observed
                   the evolving FKNMS planning process. In' view of the time
                   that has elapsed and the developments that have taken place
                   in the FKNNS planning process which we have not had an
                   opportunity to,observe, we think the best strategyfor us is to
                   wrap-up this report and move on. to other ways of working
                   with you and your colleagues on integrated coastal
                   management.



 0
                                              INTRODUCTION


                         The team of W. Eichbaum. W. Hoeft, R. Schecter and J.

                   Schubel attended a meeting of the FKNMS Advisory Council at
                   Hawk's Cay Resort and Marina on 29-30 July 1993.          We sat   in on
                   most of the 2 days of deliberation and over the course of the 2 days
                   interviewed -nearly 20 people. The individuals intel-viewed are
                   listed in          A. M o*st of the individuals were selected     by Ed

                   Lindelof.



                         On 5 July 1993, Schubel met with four members of the Core
                   Group at NOS headquarters in Silver Spr          ing. Maryland. The
0
0
0






                                                                                                 0
                   individuals interviewed are listed in Exhibit B.



                        In preparing for the interviews we developed a. list of
                   questions (Exhibit Q. Most, but not all, of thCse were used in one
                   form, or another. in each interview with members of the Advisory

                   Council. An abbrevia   ted version was used in interviews with

                   members of the Core Group. At the beginning of each interview we
                   explained our assignment, the major points we made are listed in

                   Exhibit D.



                        This report summarizes these interviews. We believe they

                   contain a number of valuable lessons for NOAA to consider in

                   applying the planning "process" used in the FKNMS in other

                   settings. All observations came from one, or more, interviewees

                   and were confirmed by others. Each represents a consensus

                   perception of those we interviewed.



                        It should be remembered that these are perceptions of

                   the status of process as of July 1993 as seen by those we

                   interviewed.




                        We have not translated these interview commelftS         into

                   recommendations. We think that is best done by you wad your

                   staff. The comments need to be calibrated: to what extent are

                   they only perceptions; to what extent do they reflect reality?

                   However, whether perception or reaUty they were widely held

                   by the people we interviewed and should not be ignored by
                                                                                                 0



                                                   2
                                                                                                 0








                   NOAA.



                         If you think it would be helpful, three of us (Eichbaum,

                   Schecter and Schubel) would be willing to prei3are a white paper
                   which explores some of the different approaches and

                   interpretations of ICM. and offer some sugo,-stions as to how NOS
                   might exploit ICM in its activities. We believe this would be a good
                   topic for a workshop with key NOS administrators. We would be
                   willing to facilitate that workshoD. Some aspects of this are

                   already being done by the ICM committee which Roger Schecter

                   chairs.




                                 OBSERVATIONS AND CONCLUSIONS



                         The planning process used for the FKNMS was not designed
                   from the outset to produce an integrated coastal management plan
                   for the Florida Keys National Marine Sanctuary. It has many
                   elements of integrated coastal management, but it should not be
                   surprising that it is not consistent with the ICM paradigm
                   described in the NRC report "Wastewater Management in Urban
                   Coastal Areas." Nor should it be surprising that it is not consistent
                   with all aspects of the 1CM paradigm two of us (Eichbaum and
                   Schubel) have heard Blair Bower describe. The FKNMS planning
                   pre-dates these initiatives and the FKNMS planning process
                   represents application in the real world and not a theoretical

                   discussion.






                                                     3







                          The FKNMS planning process star-ted before the elements of

                    ICM were codified and even today there is debate as to what

                    constitutes ICM. The FKNMS planning process has some elements
                    of ICM, but a number of the most important elements are missing.
                    Since NOS has expressed interest in using ICM in future
                    applications in other sanctuaries and perhaps in collaborative
                    efforts outside of sanctuaries, the leadership of NOS and we
                                                                                                      0
                    believed that itmight be valuable to compare the FKNMS process

                    with the ICM process: not to criticize the process that was used,
                    but to gain new insights.



                          In preparing for the review, we developed the ICM checklist

                    shown in Exhibit  E.
                                                                                                      0



                    Missing Element



                          Among the most important elements of the ICM process that
                    were perceived as being deficient or missing altogether from the
                                                                                                      0
                    FKNMS process are:
                    0     a clear identification of goals and objectives at the beginning
                    of the process.
                    [These were specified in the Act that created the' FKNI@4S. but
                                                                                                     0
                  -members of the Advisory Council were unaware of them.


                          Many of those interviewed felt the process suffered from the               0
                    lack of a shared vision. A number expressed the opinion that the
                    process was more reactio  nary than visionary. Nearly all felt that



                                                     4
                                                                                                     0







                  the process would have benefitted from taking time at the outset to

                  formulate a  shared vision of what they wanted the FKNMS to be
                  like in the future, say the year 2020. They felt that if NOAA had

                  this vision. -it was not conununicated to them.


 0
 0                       According to the majority of the people we interviewed. the
 0
 0                NOS process for the FKNMS had not resulted in an explicit
 0                statement of goals and objectives at the time of our interviews; an
 0
 0                identification of major threats to prionty values and uses, research
 0
 0                and monitoring programs in the plan -- all integral elements of
 0
 0                1CM.
 0
 0
 0                       There was a widespread      feeling among members of- the
 0
 0                Advisory Council and the Core      Group we interviewed that the
 0                 stage" for the process was not    set initially and that this led to
 0
 0                confusion that has persisted. They were quick to point o     ut that
 0
 0                the reason for this was that the FKN`MS process was unique and
 0                that for NOAA it was a learning process.
 0
 0
 0
 0                       delimiting the  geographic area of concern --- in ICM this
 0
 0                would be the FKNMS plus the zone of influence on the FKN`MS.
 0                (Not the boundaries of the FKNMS which were specified in the Act,
 0
 0                but the zone of influence on the FKNMS).
 0
 0
 0                       The lack of priorities troubles most of the people we
 0
 0                interviewed. They cited a long list of objections, but no attempt to
 0
 0                rank them. They attribute it to the failure to formulate goals and
 0
 0
 0                                                  5
 0
 0
 0
 a







                   objectives to serve as a template in setting priorities. "Water
                   quality" was the only priority they could identify and even that they
                   were unable to quantify.



                          comparative assessment of risks and management options



                         a carefully crafted research and monitoring program
                   designed to generate the data and information needed to assess the
                   effectiveness of management actions taken. and to provide the
                   knowledge needed to better manage the FKNMS in the future.                         0
                                                                                                      0
                                                                                                      0
                                                                                                      0
                   Collaboration /Consultation                                                        0
                                                                                                      0
                                                                                                      0
                         'Mere was general agreement that NOAA was very skillful in                   0
                                                                                                      0
                   meshing the missionq of the various Monroe County, state and                       0
                                                                                                      0
                   federal agencies in the FKNMS into a cooperative and collaborative                 0
                   venture. This is a critical element of lCM and NOAA gets high                      0
                                                                                                      0
                   marks.                                                                             0
                                                                                                      0
                                                                                                      0
                   Familiarily with lCM Concep                                                        0
                                                                                                      0
                                                                                                      0
                                                                                                      0
                         Most interviewees were not familiar with the terin Integrated                0
                   Coastal Management. Those that were thought it referred only to                    0
                                                                                                      0
                   the integration of institutional roles and responsibilities. One                   0
                                                                                                      0
                   individual said the FKNMS process was an integrated managemen't                    0
                                                                                                      0
                   approach, not integrated coastal management. The distinction to                    0
                   him was quite clear: the emphasis was on integrating the roles of                  0
                                                                                                      0
                                                                                                      0
                                                                                                      0
                                                     6                                                0
                                                                                                      0
                                                                                                      0
                                                                                                      A






                  e--,dsting management agencies, not on developing a comprehensive
                  and coherent integrated coastal management plan for the FKNMS.
                  [Note: There was no reason for members of the Advisory Council
                  and Core Group to have been familiar with lCM -- certainly not at
-0
                  the beginning of the process, since the term was not in popular use

                  until about 1991-92.



                        Many interviewees believed that NOS put too much attention
                  on using them in the "process" and not enough attention on using
                  them in producing and reviewing the products.



                  Roles



                        The respective roles of the Advisory Council and the Core
                  Group are obscure to many of the individuals we interviewed from
0                 both groups. This has been the case throughout the process.


0                       Those we interviewed believe that because the Core Group
0                 was created a number of months before the Advisory Council. there
                  was a disconnect between the two from the "get-go" and the

                  connection has never been made. (We recognize that the delays in
                  securing approvals of appointments to the Advisory Council is a
                  result of the political process, and not a problem with NOAA.
                  However. it caused -a problem for the FKNMS program).


                        Members of the Advisory Council felt they should be -full
                  partners" in the process and that they are not. They said they
0
0
0                                                  7
0
0
0
a







                  were told -- literally -- by NOAA "We'll listen to you. but %ve don't
                  have to do what you say." They agreed with the conclusion. but
                  thought the message was delivered inappropriately.


                        'Me roles of ORCA and SEA throughout the FKNMS process
                  were not clear to most   members of the Advisory Council and- the

                  Core Group we interviewed.


                        There was confusion among some members of the Advisory

                  Council we interviewed as to whom the Advisory Council is

                  advisory to. Everyone agreed it was NOAA, but that was @01 they
                  agreed upon. Some said the Secretary of Commerce; others Billy
                  Causey; still others, Ed Lindelof. One member of the Core Group
                  believed the Advisory Council was advisory to them -- the Core

                  Group.



                        The roles of the Advisory Council are still ambiguous, even to
                  NOS. This was obvious in the discussion by NOAA personnel on
                  how the Council would be involved in the formulation of the plan,
                  in the review of the plan. and in the revision @of the plan in
                  response to public comments. The same confusion was expressed
                  by members of the Core Group. They pointed out. for example,
                  that they did not know what responsibilities. if any, the Advisory
                  Council would have after the draft plan was released. (Some
                  members of the Core Group were unsure about their own roles.)



                        NOAA has already made some -first cuts" at the management



                                                    8







                   plan, but the Council has not seen them. They think they should

                     if they are really par-triers in the process.
0


                         Members of the Advisory Council we interviewed believe
                   there have been recent signs of intr'usion by NOAA into Council
0,                 Activities. They cite as an example that they no longer control the
                   ag enda for their meetings.



                   0     Members of the Advisory Council and Core Group we

                   interviewed did not believe that explicit goals and objectives were
                   formulated early on in the planning process for the FKNMS, for the

                   Core Group or for the Advisory Council. The absence of shared
                   goals and objectives has contributed to confusion, at least for those
                   members of the Advisory Council we met with. They said they
                   crafted their own and passed them on, but that they never
                   resurfaced. The lack of shared goals and objectives also caused
                   confusion for some members of the Core Group.



                         Nearly all members of the Advisory Council and the Core
                   Group we interviewed believe that there should have been a
                   discussion in which NOAA defined the roles of the Core Group and
                   the Advisory Council in a joint meeting. This might have prevented
                   the sense of alienation that developed. particularly by members of
                   the Council. A couple said the separation was good, but that roles
0                  did need to be clarified.






                                                     9







                   NOS - Advisory Council - Core Group Interactions



                         Early  encounters of the Advisory Council with NOJVA were

                   intimidating. Most got the feeling that NOAA was "big brother,-
                   that NOAA was tolerating the Council because it had no choice
                   because of the legislation. but in the end that the NOAA would do

                   what they wanted. This same feeling was shared by members of

                   the Core Group. Both groups said they sensed a change iiii NOAA
                   attitudes when they (NOAA) realized that they needed these two

                   groups to succeed.



                         Interviewees of the Advisory Council       felt this attitude

                   changed about the third meeting of the Council: that. at that point,
                   NOAA began to realize that the Council members had good ideas
                   and that their linkages to the local community were crucial to the
                   success of the process.


                         Most of the people we interviewed feel that the rules being
                   transmitted by NOAA governing the process are 7fluid" and that
                   they "shift" without explanation. The perceived "changing of
                   signals" by NOAA troubles them. They felt this happened with the
                   protocol - for defining and selecting among management
                   alternatives. They asserted that originally they were told that the
                   Council could mix and match strategies for different alter-natives
                   and come up with a new alternative. Later they were told they
                   couldn't. This eroded their trust in NOAA and in the process.
                   They also expressed concern that it diminished the public's trust in             0


                                                   10
                                                                                                    0








                   all parties.


 0                       They also expressed concern about staffing for the FKNMS
                   Office.    They felt Billy Causey had accumulated new
                   responsibilities without additional staff. He not only had a
                   planning function, but a PR function and an operational function.


                         Perhaps the most.problematic set of relationships are those
                   between the Advisory Council and the Core Group. To say that the
                   Advisory Council resents the Core Group is not too strong. They
                   object to the characterization that the Core Group is the "group of
                   experts." They believe they (the Council) have far more'expertise
                   relevant to the FKNMS. They belie%@e the Core Group is Isolated

                   from the users and from the real issues.



                         Members of the Council believe there should have been more

                   interaction with the Core Group: that there should have been a few
                   joint meetings and that one'Joint meeting early on to develop
                   mutual goals and objectives would have been very helpful. Several
                   members of the Core Group agreed.



                   NOAA and Public Relations

0

                         In future situations NOAA should have more effective

                   mechanisms for public relations and outreach to keep the public
                   informed. Nearly everyone expressed disappointment and concern

                   about this failure. Several stated that there should have been a


0
0                                                   11
0
0
a







                   newsletter from the outset (apparently one has recentRy been
                   started). [This, of course, requires support for staff.]


                         There was general agreement that NOAA is not very skillful
                   at dealing with the public. They cited examples of presentations at
                   a Key Largo meeting in which the public was "baffled" by the
                   terminology and the complex graphics material. Too many "buzz
                   words"; loo much jargon., too. complicated flow charts.


                         They recommended that in the future NOS should listen
                   more intently to the "locals"': don't surprise them. Exploit their
                   expertise, their concern and their commitment. This was not done

                   as well as it might have been.



                   Identification of Important Ecosystem Values and Functions and

                   Human Uses -- Allocated in Time and Space as Appropriate



                         The feeling is that coupling of NOAA to EPA on the water
                   quality issue has been weak. Failure to make a request for funding
                   in the FY '94 request was viewed as a major failure.


                         Many of those we interviewed felt that to this point the-s-ingle
                   largest contributor to stress on the ecosystem -- activities of

                   individual tourists. particularly recreational boats -- had been
                   neglected. In the aggregate the effects of these activities are
                   believed to be enormous. One key to controlling their adverse
                   impacts is public education. Many acknowledged it may be



                                                    12







                   necessary to control their numbers and their activities. A couple
                   said that this problem was addressed in the zoning plan, but
                   acknowledged that it had not been explicitly considered.



                   Balancing-of Biases on Counci



                         The diversity of interests represented on the Advisory

                   Council and the choices of individuals to represent those interests
                   have been major factors in the success of the process to this point.



                         All of those we interviewed from the Advisory Council felt
                   that members of the Advisory Council have risen above parochial
                   interests and have formed an effpctive team in pursuit of a
                   strategic plan both to restore ecosystem integrity to the sanctuary
                   and to accommodate high priority uses.



                   Consultation



                         The process has provided extensive opportunities for input
                   by everyone. That quality should be replicated in future settings.


                   Identification, Assessment and Selection of the Various

                   ManaE!ement Strategies -- Individually and in Differen
0                  Combinations -- to Eliminate or Reduce the Threat5


                         Many members of the Council believe       that the process of
                   selecting management alternatives and strategies has been too



                                                    13









                    restrictive.



                          They believe feedback from NOAA is se       lective. A. couple
                    believe they have been "kept in the dark."             This lack of
                    .consistency" led two people to remark that they "didn't trust

                    NOAA."



                          The process that led to zoning was rewarding.               The              0
                    consensus building that resulted formed a cohesiveness among
                    members of the Council who represent different constituencies

                    with conflicting interests.



                    A Research Program        to Provide Information Needled for

                    Management



                          Nearly everyone we spoke to felt that although the e.-dsting
                    body of scientific knowledge is limited, it has not been adequately
                    exploited in the planning process. Indeed, most felt that science                  41
                    has been largely absent from the process up to this point and as of
                    now it is scheduled to play only a -bit part- over the- next .5 years.
                    Many feel this is appropriate. They are more interested in action.
                    A few others agreed with the need for action, but wanted to be sure
                    that an appropriate research program -would provide the scientific
                    information needed to fill critical information gaps. All exI.:)ressed

                    the opinion that regardless of how one feels about science, actions
                    have not been taken and believed it was because of uncertainty
                    about where authority rested. One person expressed the opinion
                                                                                                       40



                                                    14




                                                                                                       db







                   that "science" was used as often to obfuscate an issue as to clarify


                   one.


 0                       A few expressed a dissenting opinion. They felt     that good
 0
 0                 use had been made of existing science. They referred      to science
 0
                   briefings of the Core Group by consultants and their indentification
 0                 of the status of existing knowledge and of areas that needed
 0
 0                 attention.
 0
 0
 0                       Two individuals felt that carefully-crafted and targeted
 0
 0                 scientific papers could have been helpful in de-politicizing
 0
 0                 important issues so they could be dealt with. Mosquito spraying
 0
 0                 was cited as an example of an important problem that has been
 0                 avoidable.
 0
 0
 0
 0                 Some Unanticipated Events
 0
 0
 0                       The legislation outlawing treasure salving early in the
 0
 0                 process without involving the Advisory Council caused major
 0                 problems for* them with their relationships with. their
 0
 0                 constituencies. The Advisory Council felt betrayed and believes
 0
 0                 that it took many months to regain the confidence of the public
 0                 that their (the Advisory Council's) opinion really did matter.
 0
 0                 Several believe there are still lingering problems from this action.
 0
 0                 It sent a signal to them and to those they represent that they were
 0
 0                 not full partners in the process. Most of the Council members we
 0                 spoke with felt that the process could not have survived this
 0
 0
 0
 0
 0
 0
 a







                   incident if there had not been such widespread respect for Billy

                   Causey and for members of the Council.


                        The law prohibiting treasure salvage went into effect before

                   the establishment of the FKNMS.




                   Administration of the Council



                        Most members had high praise for the Chair of the Council
                   and gave him a great deal of credit for the effectiveness of the
                   Council. Most also pointed out, however, that they would like to
                   have seen more structure in the meetings and better facilitation.
                   Lack of punctuality in starting meetings and failure to keep to the
                   posted schedule were cited as examples of poor meeting

                   management by the Chair.



                        There was widespread agreement that staffing of the Council

                   was inadequate. This is manifested in poor communication with

                   members about meetings and Council activities. sketchy agendas.
                   often arriving too close to the meeting date, etc. We also observed
                   that the arrangements for the meeting we attended were not                      0

                   impressive and that the facilities resulted in problems. There were
                   only two microphones: feedback between them: no flip charts: and

                   an inadequate agenda, etc.


                        They also expressed concern about staffing for the new
                   FKNMS Office. They felt Billy Causey had accumulated new                       A0


                                                  16




 0


                  responsibilities without additional staff. He not only had a
                  planning function, but a PR function and an operational function.


























 0













 0




 0

                                                17









                                               EXHIBIT A                                             
                        LIST OF INDIVIDUALS INTERVIEWED AT HAWKS CAY                                 
                                                                                                     
                                                                                                     
                   George Bailey                                                                     
                   Mike Collins                                                                      
                   Allison DeFoor, Jr.                                                               
                   Bruce Etshman                                                                     
                   Allison Fahrer
                   George Garrett                                                                    
                   Debbie Harrison                                                                                        8q0
                   Karl Lessard
                   Jim Miller
                   John Ogden                                                                    
                   Deevon Quirolo                                                                       
                   Danny Riley                                                                    
                   Mark Robertson                                                                     
                   Spencer Slate                                                                    
                   Sandy Sprunt                                                                     
                   John Stewart                                                                    
                   Terry Sullivan                                                                                  


                                                                                                     
                                                                                                     
                                                                                                     
                                                                                                     




                                                                                                     
                                                                                                     
                                                                                                     
                                                                                                     
                                                                                                     
                                                                                                     
                                                                                                     
                                                                                                     
                                                                                                     
                                                                                                     
                                                                                                     
                                                                                                     
                                                                                                     
                                                                                                     
                                                                                                     
                                                                                                     
                                                                                                     
                                                    18                                               
                                                                                                     
                                                                                                     
                                                                                                     
 








                                          EXHIBIT B


                         INDIVIDUALS INTERVIEWED IN SILVER SPRING

                 Dana Bryan
                 Ed Lindelof
                 Toy Livingston
                 Jim Smith
                 (Two others whose names I've lost)










































                                            19












                                                  EXHIBIT C

                                     QUESTIONS USED IN INTERVIEWS



                  oWere the goals and objectives of the National Marine Sa:nctuary
                    PROGRAM stated explicitly at the outset of the process?



                  oWhat are the goals and objectives of the process you are invo       Ived
                    in? Were they stated explicitly at the outset? By whom?



                  oArhat were your expectations for the process when you staft-ed out?

                    Have they changed? How?



                  -What are the expected outcomes (yours) for the                  FKNMS

                    management plan?



                  oWas the stage set properly at the outset?



                  oWhat are the good points about the process you've been ihvolved
                    in? ... the characteristics you'd recommend be followed -in other
                    National Marine Sanctuaries? What would you change? Why?


                  ols the Council the primary source of advice in the process?



                  oHave the right people been involved?       ... the right agencies?
                    organizations?                                                                     0



                  -Has the level of involvement been about right relative to anticipated



                                                     20







                    payoffs?



                  *Was there ample opportunity for participation? Was your voice
 0                  heard?


                  oWas the process for setting priority uses and values appropriate?

                    What changes would you suggest?



                  -What is the process for resolving conflicts? How would you change

                    it?



                  -,What are your thoughts on Integrated Coastal Management? ... Is

                    the process you've followed an ICM process?



                  *Do you think the plan will be implemented? Will it change things?

                    How?


 0
 0                -Did the process identify early on those'strategies for which there is
 0
 0                  enough information to take action now? ... actions consistent with
 0                  the goals and objectives of the Program?
 0
 0
 0
 0                *To what extent have lack of scientific data and information limited
 0
 0                  your ability to formulate appropriate strategies to deal with specific
 0                  issues?
 0
 0
 0
 0                -,Should there have been an extended (multi-year) research program
 0                  first -- before formulating a management plan?          ... as in the
 0
 0
 0
 0                                                   21
 0







                  National Estuary Programs where a 2-3 year research program

                  precedes development of CCMP?



                eTo what extent has the process you've been involved in looked
                  beyond the sanctuary boundaries for threats to values and uses

                  within the sanctuary?



                *Would you like to comment on the zoning PROCESS that was used?

                  ... selection of criteria for setting boundaries?



                *Is an ongoing program of research and monitoring an integral part
                  of the plan?



                -How will the results of the research and monitoring be used to
                  evaluate the effectiveness of the management plan in achieving
                  goals and objectives and as a basis for making appropriate changes
                  to the plan?



                *WHO evaluates the comments received during the public comment
                  process?                                                                       0



                -What's the future of the Councfl? Duration? Roles? etc.




                                                                                                 0









                                                22








                                              EXHIBIT D

                             WI-1Y WE ARE HERE AND WTY WE ARE NOT




                 -We are NOT here to review, to evaluate. the PLAN.

 0
 0               eWe are here to review the process that was used to develop the plan
 0
                   ... so that we can help NOAA improve the process when it is

 0                 applied in other National Marine Sanctuaries.
 0
 0
 0               oAll comments will be held in confidence ... Le   anonymity will be

                   preserved.



                 oWe are on a search for -lessons learned" about the process of
                   developing integrated coastal management plans for national

                   marine sanctuaries (and other waterbodies).
 40



 40
 0
 40






















                                                  23









                                              EXHIBIT E

                                           ICM CHECKLIST



                 An 1CM Program should include the following:



                 oldentification of specific goals and objectives.



                 eldentification of important ecosystem values and functions and

                  human uses -- allocated in time and space as appropriate.



                 -Identification of the boundaries of the "Zone of Influence.-



                 eldentification and ranking of the locations and relative magnitudes

                  throughout the Zone of Influence of the threats to important

                  ecosystem values and functions and human uses of the coastal

                  water body.



                 *Identification and assessment of the various management strategies
                  -- individually and in different combinations -to eliminate or

                  reduce the threats.



                 *Selection of the best      most appropriate -- combination of

                  management strategies.



                 eA monitoring program to evaluate the effectiveness of management
                  strategies and to track progress toward important goals.




                                                 24







                 *A research program to provide information needed for management.



                 *GIS or other system(s) to tailor data and information to the, needs of
                   different user groups.



                 eInstitutional mechanisms to ensure continuity of management and
                   the funds required.



                 -An educational program to keep everyone "in the boat and rowing in

                   the same direction."







































0

                                                   25


0
Ah



                                                                  D  IkL









                                            APPENDIX D



                                   Executive SummaU from Liepitz 1994










                                                EXECUTIVE SO@@Y


                 The Kenai River Cumulative Impacts Assessment of Development Impacts on Fish Habitat, was
                 funded in part by the Alaska Coastal Management Program's (ACMP) Section 309 Enhancement
                 Grant Program. This study was designed to identify and evaluate the cumulative impacts of
                 development actions including public and private land use impacts on Kenai River fish habitat.
                 The Alaska Department of Fish and Game (ADF&G) established a Technical Advisory Group
                 (TAG) to help define the issues and identify an acceptable methodology to be used for the
                 assessment. The TAG was composed of representatives from all state and federal resource
                 agencies with regulatory and management responsibilities on the Kenai River. The TAG was
                 provided a summary of the results of the ADF&G's literature search of cumulative impact
                 methodologies. The ADF&G also recommended the TAG consider the use of the U.S. Fish and
                 Wildlife Service's (FWS) developed Habitat Evaluation Procedures (HEP) as the process to be
                 used for the impacts analysis portion of this study.            The group concurred with this
                 recommendation. They concurred with the ADF&G recommendation for the development of
                 a habitat classification process for the Kenai River's fish habitats that incorporates a combination
                 of assessment techniques including aerial photograph assessment, field inventory, and the use
                 of a Geographic Information System (GIS) for data compilation and analysis.

                 Existing mapped and/or digitized data for land ownership, soils and         vegetation types were
                 obtained through the Soil Conservation Service (SCS) and the Kenai Peninsula Borough (KPB).
                 This information was edited and stored for use in our assessment efforts on the GIS at the
                 ADF&G's regional office in Anchorage. Information from this data set was edited and provided
                 to the SCS for inclusion in their technical report.

                 Field data compilation and ground truthing of aerial photograph interpretation data was initiated
                 during the fall 1992 low water period and was completed during the summer and fall of 1993.
                 The field survey resulted in an inventory of existing bank and fish habitat conditions occurring
                 along the entire 67 miles of Kenai River mainstern from the outlet of Kenai Lake to the Skilak
                 Lake inlet and from Skilak Lake's outlet downstream to its confluence with Upper Cook Inlet
                 near the City of Kenai. All natural and disturbed bank habitat conditions were inventoried using
                 w-field data inventory form and color photo documentation. Data collected included vegetation
                 type and coverage at both the river's ordinary high water (OHW) mark.and the top of bank,
                S--e-arshore substrate composition, fish cover characteristics, and documentation (description and
                 measurement) of all structures and bank alterations observed.. Positions were confirmed using
                 Global Position Satellite (GPS) receivers that were differentially corrected to a resolution of
                 10.0 feet.

                 The diverse habitat types occurring along the river's 67 mile length (approximately 166 miles
                 of water frontage) provide a varying degree of habitat value to juvenile salmon. The nearshore
                 waters of the Kenai River provide critical early life stage rearing habitat for juvenile chinook
                 salmon during that period of the year when these fish are using this important part or the river


                                                                - Xi -








               (this includeds the late spring, summer and early fall period). Mainstern rearing habitat within
               the Kenai River, which occurs primarily in a very narrow (6.0 foot wide) corridor adjacent to               0
               the river's banks, has been described in previous studies by the ADF&G and I-VS. ADF&G                      0
               surveys of fish rearing habitat indicates that over 80 percent of all rearing juvenile chinook are          0
               found within this corridor. The total area within this narrow corridor including both the river's
               upland and island shorelines amounts to a mere. 121 acres. It should be noted, however, that
               much of this 121 acres does not constitute    preferred juvenile chinook salmon rearing habitat
               because: a) it is a tidally influenced reach with brackish water conditions and no cover habitat
               or lacks an adequate food source; b) it is naturally unsuitable to rearing juvenile- salmon due to
               high water velocities and/or a lack of cover habitat; c) alteration of natural conditions by man
               associated with river access have led to vegetation loss and/or bank erosion; or d) the nearshore
               fish habitat has been degraded as a result of bank stabilization and property pn)tection efforts.

               The field inventory and fish habitat classification analysis completed in this study has
               documented that 11. 1 percent to LI-2.4 percent (18.4 to 20.6 miles) of the river's 134 miles of
               upland and 32 miles of island shoreline and nearshore habitats have been impacted by bank
               tr4ippling vegetation denuding, and- structural development albng the river's banks. The two
               different ;engths or percentages cited above relate to the habitat impacts measured at either the
               OHW line or at the top of the bank. Optimum fish rearing conditions (i.e., wateT velocities less
               than 1.0 foot per second, undercut banks with overhanging vegetation, and gravel/cobble
               substrates) occur on only 80,440 feet (15.2 miles or 9.2 percent) of this important fish rearing
               corridor along the entire Tiver length. Study results indicate that 63,299.0 feet (12.0 miles) of
               this corridor is currently in the developed/impacted category, amounting to, approximately
               8.7 acres of the total 121 acres of available juvenile rearing habitat. The sum of the impacted
               or altered habitats (8.7 acres) plus the lower quality habitat for rearing fish (which includes all
               of the Kenai River 309 Study's Reach I or lower 10 miles of river nearshore habitat)(15.7 acres)
               and the heavily trampled/denuded areas documented on the river (5.1 acres) equals 29.5 acres
               or 24.4 percent of the river's total nearshore habitit. Tbis leaves a tota], of 91.5 acre@                 4P
               (75.6 percent) of mainstem nearshore rearing habitat for juvenile fish of which only 11. 0 acres
               (9.2 percent) provide their ideal rearing conditions.

               The field inventory data was entered into the GIS database for tabulation and graphical analysis.          0
               The tabulated data was then used to complete a Habitat Evaluation Procedure (HEP) analysis.
               HEP converts both the natural and developed habitat areas into a relative value for fish habitat.
               HEP was developed as a tool to document the quantity and quality of available habitat for a
               selected fish and/or wildlife species in a given area and uses a species/habitat relationship
               approach to impact assessment. HIEP identifies key habitat components for a slecies of interest
               (e.g., an indicator species) which are used for a comparison of existing or future habitat
               conditions to the optimum habitat conditions for that species.

               The HEP assessment approach is based on the fundamental assumption that (=Wn specified
               habitat parameters can be described numerically and ranked. This ranking allows for the
               comparative analysis of habitat change over time resulting from individiW or multiple
               development projects or other habitat altering activities (e.g., public and private access,
               recreational uses, etc.). Comparative analysis determines the overall impact of habitat change




                                                             - Xii -








0
              within a system in terms of net gain or loss of habitat units (HU's) associated with these
              activities.


              HEP characterizes habitat quality using a Habitat Suitability Index (HSI) value. HSI's are
              derived from established or project-developed Suitability Indices (SI) or Curves. The HSI is a
              numerical value ranging from 0.0 to 1.0 and is generated from an analysis of the ability of key
              habitat components to supply the life requisites of the indicator species. HSI's assign a value
              to a species' key habitat component(s) or variables.         This value represents that habitat
              component's relative importance to the evaluation species and is based upon what is considered
              optimum habitat for that species.

              Overall habitat impact can be assessed by calculating the gain or loss of Habitat Units (HU's)
              associated with a land use or development action affecting fish habitat. Mean HSI values (the
              sum of all the suitability index values identified for a species' individual habitat components
              divided by the total number of habitat component SI's defined) are used to calculate the HU's
              available for the species of concern. The mean HSI values, which are calculated for the habitat
              conditions occurring as a result of a project or use that has changed the naturally occurring
              habitat characteristics, are multiplied by the area affected by the habitat altering activity. The
              product of this calculation defines the HU's available to the indicator species as a result of the
              activity. The HU's can be used for comparative analysis or an assessment of the amount of
              habitat gained or lost to the overall system resulting from an action or group of actions which
              has or will likely affect the system.

              Study results indicate that there are 1,482,790 HU's currently available to juvenile chinook
              salmon in the Kenai River mainstern (see Table 14). These units are distributed throughout six
              different undeveloped shoreline habitat categories and another six developed shoreline or
              structures categories. These fish habitat classification categories include: ideal rearing habitat,
              vegetated undeveloped habitat, vegetated slightly degraded habitat, heavily degraded habitat,
              non-eroding gravel banks, and erosional gravel banks. The developed categories include: boat
              launches and access; docks, decks, and other structures; bank protection measures; bulkheads;
              jetties and groins; and "other development".

              Of the total 877,070 feet (166.1 miles) of waterfront on the river, 813,775 feet (154.1 miles)
              is in a natural state and provides 1,416,783 HUs for rearing chinook salmon. There is
              currently another 63,299.0 feet (12.0 miles) of water frontage in some form of developed status
              which, while providing less favorable conditions for rearing fish than that of the natural bank,
              comprises another 73,189 HU's for these fish. Together they amount to 1,489,972 HU's in the
              Kenai River currently available for rearing juvenile chinook salmon.

              By defining the area of habitat within the river's 6.0 foot corridor along the banks that is either
              currently developed or altered by man-made structures or that which has been severely impacted
              by access resulting in heavy trampling, vegetation loss, and bank instability, we have estimated
              that prior to the presence of these impacts, there was originally 1,523,144 HU's available to
              rearing juvenile chinook salmon in the Kenai River mainstem (see Table 15). The difference
              between this figure and the 1,489,972 HUs which currently exist is the amount of habitat lost
              or gained (lost in this case) to rearing fish. This, amounts to 33,172 HU's or 2.2 percent of the
  0


                                                             xiii -







             total Habitat Units originally available to rearing juvenile chinook salmon prior to any man
             induced alteration of the river's shoreline habitat.

             A Development trends Analysis was completed        to provide important insight into the rate at
             which this habitat loss has been occurring on the Kenai River. This analy!;is used aerial
             photograph interpretation of development conditions that existed within and adjacent to the river
             in 1963/64 and compares those conditions to the documented development scenario observed
             during the 1993 Kenai River 309 field surveys. Such an analysis can be used not only to
             determine how much development has taken place over the last 30 years, but can also be used
             as an interpretive tool to extrapolate future development scenarios and estimate the level of
             additional impact and habitat change (loss or gain) that can be anticipated in the future.

             Using the GIS system, the ADF&G developed mylar overlays of the property ownership land
             use patterns that correlated to the varying scales of the 1963 and 1964 aerial photo coverage of
             the Kenai River mainstem. This allowed for a direct visual comparison of -the amount of
             development affecting the river shoreline and nearshore habitat over a 30 year time period. The
             ADF&G, with assistance from the FWS used stereo scopes to interpret the photos which allowed
             for a resolution of up to two feet. All manmade alterations observed through the scopes were
             identified and measured.

             The final results indicate that over 76 percent of the modified banks and structures that were
             observed in the field surveys in 1993 and 94 have been introduced since 1963/64. The vast
             majority of these changes include the large increase in bank stabilization efforts and the
             construction of boat docks and groins or jetties.

             All future development projects, maintenance projects, and land uses that affact the river and
             its shoreline will have to consider the limits of available habitat within this system, which is
             critical to the continued production of the Kenai's world class chinook salmon population. If
             we are to continue to be afforded the opportunity to harvest these fish either commercially,
             recreationally, or for personal use, we must avoid the continued cumulative loss of their nursery
             habitat.


             The results of this analysis are intended to provide a basic understanding of the cuirrent condition
             of the nearshore fish habitat occurring on the Kenai River mainstem. This information is
             Intended to help educate the general public of the effects of development and access-related
             habitat impacts that potentially affect the river's ability to continue to produce healthy runs of
             chinook salmon. The data will provide a basis for the ADF&G to draft Adask-n Coastal
             Management Program project descriptions that result in the approval of sound development
             projects while promoting efficiency in the application of the coastal review process.

             One of the primary objectives for the use of the Kenai River 309 project results has been to
             assist the local coastal district (KPB) in the review of their existing coastal man2gement plan's
             policies. The study results are intended to be used as a tool in the district's effbrt to develop
             revised or new enforceable policies that can be implemented by the KPB as well as the existing
             state and federal regulatory agencies charged with Kenai River management responsibilities.




                                                           Xiv -








             The developed database and analysis process will be used by the ADF&G and hopefully other
             management agencies to evaluate all future development actions using a cumulative impacts
             assessment approach which considers the entire Kenai River watershed rather than just the
             individual project and its immediate and/or local effects.

 0           The application of the type of cumulative impact analysis completed during this study not only
 0           allows for the natural resource managers to make a decision to approve or deny an activity based
 0           upon the level of impact that would occur as a result of action, it would also allow for an
 0           comparison evaluation of alternatives to the proposed action and for the identification of
 0           mitigative measures necessary to offset or compensate for the unavoidable losses associated with
 0           the activity.
 0
 0           An important strength of this type of impact analysis is the ability for non-technical persons to
 0           better grasp the big picture of what an individual project or activity can do to the river system
 0           as a whole. By comparing HU changes that result from a proposed project, the degree of habitat
 0           impact can be defined. This should be a significant aid in helping individuals that proposing a
 0           certain project or activity to understand why that activity is denied or modified during the
 0           permitting process. It will also help explain to project proponents how to avoid or minimize
 0           project related impacts with a project redesign or the use of an alternative that reduces the
 0           identified impact. This assessment process can also be used as a tool to define those actions that
 0           improve the habitat quality or availability.
 0
 0           The Kenai River Cumulative Impact Assessment process can be readily used by inexperienced
             personnel with a minimum of training in the application of the HEP procedures and the existing
             software systems developed by the FWS.
 0
 0           With regard to the application of this cumulative impact assessment process to other similar
 0           riverine systems, it is extremely applicable. Other drainages would likely be less time
             consuming to evaluate in as much as the development pressure in these drainages is much less
             than that which has already occurred in the Kenai River and they have not been subdivided into
             as many small (100 foot) parcels as the Kenai River's riparian area . Even so, the ability of
             aerial photograph and videography resolution can allow for detailed habitat classification of these
             small parcel sizes.

             One of the benefits to the impact assessment approach used in this study is that it is a habitat
             based assessment which evaluates the actual or potential end result of an action as it affects the
             pre-existing habitat condition(s) which can occur as the result of the initial or primary activity
             or a spin-off effect such as a secondary impact affect. It can also effectively quantify the
             cumulative impact of multiple actions affecting a specific system.            For example, this
             meth6dology can be used to quantify the effects of the construction of a boat launch at a given
             site based upon pre-project conditions. It can also quantify the effects of secondary uses such
             as habitat alterations in the vicinity of the project associated with the other uses that may occur
             as result of the initial project or action such as bank trampling associated with fishermaii access
             provided by the launch installation. It can also asses habitat change related to bank scour or
             erosion (or lack thereof) associated with mooring boats either temporarily or long term and








              depending on the measures taken to either protect or not protect the bank associated with the
              launch and the effects of accessing the moored boat,@.

              The HEP analysis, which is a substantial part of this cumulative impact assessment methodology,
              has been developed with a variety of species specific suitability curves including airian, mammal
              and fish species, that can be used to quantify habitat loss related, not only to aquatic habitats but
              to wetland habitats as well. The Kenai River Cumulative Impact Assessment. approach would
              certainly be applicable to evaluating the effects of cumulative impacts on wetland habitats within
              and outside of Alaska.


              In reviewing the development and application of this impact assessment methodology, I would
              recommend that, for large scale drainage basin applications at least, a joint agency approach be
              used especially to accomplish the field survey and ground-truthing portion of this assessment
              process. 11is can help reduce costs to any one agency or group completing the assessment and
              lends credibility to the overall study results through the benefits of interagency cooperation and
              the sharing of technical and local biological expertise.






































                                                             Xvi -



                                                                       E ,
                                                                         IlL




0
0
0
0
0                                               APPENDIX E
0
9
0
9                                  List of Tables and Figures from Ligpitz 1994
0
0



0


9
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
9
0
0
0
0
0
0


0
40
0
40
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0                                                                            -
0
9
0
0
0
0
0
40
m








                                         LIST OF FIGURES



          FIGUR                                                                                PAGE

          1      Kenai River Location Map    .......................................                7
          2      Study Area Boundary   .......................................                      8
          3      Study Reach 3 Map   ........................................                     13
          4      Kenai Riverfront Property Development   ..........................               14
          5      Summary of Kenai River Waterfront Lengths and Structures   ..............        17
          6      Kenai River Ownership By Parcel   ..............................                 27
          7      Kenai River Ownership Categories - All Five Reaches Combined    ...........      27
          8      Kenai River Ownership Categories - Reaches 1 - 4   ...................           29
          9      Kenai River Ownership Categories - Reach 5   .......................             29
          10     Kenai River Water Frontage Alterations For
                 Each Reach At Ordinary High Water    ............................                33
          11     Kenai River Water Frontage Alterations For
                 Combined Reaches At Ordinary High Water   ........................               35
          12     Water Level And Bank Location Definitions ........................               35
          13     Kenai River Bank Vegetation Types At Ordinary High Water    .............        39
          14     Kenai River Bank Vegetation Types At Top Of Bank     ..................          39
          15     Kenai River Bank Vegetation - All Reaches Combined    .................          41
          16     Kenai River Bank Vegetation For All Reaches At Ordinary High Water    .......    43
          17     Kenai River Bank Vegetation For All Reaches At Top Of Bank    ............       43
          18     Kenai River Nearshore Substrates By Reach .......     .................          47
          19     Kenai River Nearshore Substrates All Reaches Combined    ...............         47
          20     Kenai River Fish Cover - By Reach   ..............................               51
          21     Kenai River Fish Cover - All Reaches Combined   .....................            51











                                                      V








                                          LIST OF TABLES


            TAB                                                                                PAGE

            I    Fish Cover Types And Substrate Categories  .......................            A-1

            2    Land Ownership, Development Status, And Water Frontages
                 By Study Reach  ...........................              ...............      A-2

            3    Development/Access Structures Inventory
                 By Study Reach - Reach 1 ..................................                   A-5

            4    Development/Access Structures Inventory
                 By Study Reach - Reach 2 ...................................                  A-8

            5    Development/Access Structures Inventory
                 By Study Reach - Reach 3 ...................................                  A-10

            6    Development/Access Structures Inventory
                 By Study Reach - Reach 4 ..................................                   A-12

            7    Development/Access Structures Inventory
                 By Study Reach - Reach 5 ..................................                   A-14

            8    Development/Access Structures Inventory
                 By Study Reach - Total For All 5 Reaches  .........................           A-16

            9    Percentage Of Total Waterftont Affected By Structures
                 And/Or Bank Trampling   ...................................                   A-17

            10   Trampled Versus Naturally Non-Vegetated Riverbank
                 At Ordinary High Water And Top Of River Bank     ...................          A-18

            11   Vegetation Types By Study Reach At Ordinary High Water
                 And Top Of River Bank   .....................................                 A-19

            12   Substrate Types Listed By Study Reach  ..........................             A-20

            13   Available Fish Habitat Cover Types At Or Below
                 Ordinary High Water Line By Study Reach    .......................            A-21

            14   Habitat Suitability Indices And Available Habitat Units For
                 Juvenile Chinook Salmon  ..................................                   A-22










       TABL                                                  PAGE


      15  Habitat Suitability Indices And Available Habitat Units For
          Juvenile Chinook Salmon Without Structures ...................... A-23


      16  Habitat Suitability Index Formula .... ........................ A-24

























































                                  vu -



Ah







                                                                               F




 0





                                               APPENDIX F



                                          May 5 Meeting Agenda and

                                          List of Meetim! Participants









































Ah
r
lw









                           Use of ADF&G and KPB GIS/Database Systems in
                            the Continued Assessment of Cumulative Impacts

                                   May 5, 1995 -- Final Agenda

    9:30 1.     Purpose of Meeting
                0  purpose of this meeting relative to previous EPA meeting
                0  FY95 309 study/Task 2, funding situation
                0  consider altematives/feasibility/fiscal constraints
                0  determine who will use/contribute to the information management system
                0  comments/suggestions on agenda

    9:45 2.     Description of Existing ADF&G and KPB Information Management Systems
                0 assumptions, focus, and limitations of 1994 309 cumulative impact study
                13 demonstration


    12:00 - 1:00 Lunch


    1:00 3.     Definition of Problem
                11 definition of Kenai River cumulative impact issues
                      habitat, water quality, access, recreation, other??
                      geographic scope of problem (e.g., Kenai River mainstem, tributaries?)
                0  permitting issues
                0  which problems/issues are the priority

           4.   Establish Data/Information Management Needs
                0  baseline and future structural/habitat alteration conditions
                0  modeling (HEP or other techniques)
                0  trend analyses
                0  permit tracking
                0  monitoring and compliance
                0  geographic scope/data needs (e.g., expand to side channels/tributaries?)
                11 cumulative impact evaluations
                0  public information needs
                13 others???


           5.   Define the System
                0  what are the desired outputs
                      e.g., maps, computer generated reports, statistical analysis, information queries,
                      modeling, trend analysis, others?
                0  who should have access to database and what form of access?
                0  distribution of outputs
                0  data collection, system maintenance, and update responsibilities
                      e.g., who will be maintaining the system, who will collect data and enter into
                      system, how often will the system be updated, where will the system(s) be
                      housed?










                      software/hardware needs
                   El others???


            6.     Design Input and Processing
                   ï¿½ establish data to be input
                   ï¿½ system design (e.g., how should existing systems be expanded/modifieAl?)

            7.     Program Implementation/Feedback
                   0  implement the program through permitting and other actions
                   11 field evaluation
                   ï¿½  prepare periodic reports and evaluations
                   ï¿½  re-evaluate problem statements, goals, analytical tools, models
                   11 evaluate if the information system(s) are working and identify improvements
                   13 are MOUs, MOAs, or other agreements necessary to carry out recommendations?

            8.     Fiscal Needs
                   ï¿½ what can be done at existing funding levels
                   ï¿½ what are the short and long-term fiscal needs to implement the prograra?

            9.     Where From Here/Assignments
                   0 product I will produce
                   13 who will be interested in reviewing draft product(s)
                   0 assignments and schedule









            May 5. 1995 Meeting Participants

            NANW                 AGENCY/ORGANIZATION                        PHONE NO.

            Jim Wadell           Kenai Peninsula Borough                    (907)262-4441
            Harriet Wegner       Planning Department
            Dick Troeger         Soldotna
            Debra Gilcrest

            Margaret Spain       U.S. Dept. of Agriculture                  (907)283-8732
            Deb Swanson          Natural Resource Conservation Service
                                 Kenai


            Ted Cox              U.S. Dept. of Agriculture                  (907)745-4274
                                 Natural Resource Conservation Service


            Glenn Seaman         Alaska Department of Fish and Game         (907)267-2342
            Gary Liepitz         Habitat and Restoration Division
            Frank Wallis         Anchorage

            Michele Brown        The Nature Conservancy                     (907)262-3377
                                 Soldotna


            Keith Boggs          Alaska Natural Heritage Program
                                 University of Alaska
                                 Anchorage

            Phillip North        Environmental Protection Agency            (907)271-3401
                                 Anchorage

            Steve Zemke          Chugach National Forest                    (907)271-2521
                                 Anchorage

            Rick Ernst           U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service             (907)262-7021
                                 Kenai National Wildlife Refuge

            Doug Palmer          U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service             (907)262-9863
                                 Kenai Fishery Resource Office

            Suzanne Fisler       Alaska Dept. of Natural Resources          (907)262-5581
                                 Division of Parks and Outdoor Recreation
                                 Kenai River Special Management Area
                                 Soldotna



                                               G      I@L









                                               APPENDIX G



                                             PLQposal/Work Plan for

                                     National Marine Fisheries Service Grant






 0
 0
 0
 0
 0
 0
 0
 0
 0
 0
 0
 0
 40                                          -
 0
 0
 0
 0
 0
 0
 0
 0
 0
 0
 0
 0
 0
 0
 0
 0
 0
 0
 0
 0
 0










                                   NATIONAL MARINE FISHERIES SERVICE

                  KENAI RIVER SALMON HABITAT PROTECTION AND RESTORATION

                                            GRANT FUND PROPOSAL



                                                       Objectives


           The overall objective for the use of the $926,000 National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS)
           grant for the Kenai River drainage is to protect and restore fish habitat. There is general
           agreement among fisheries scientists and state and federal agencies that land development and
           recreational activities in and along the Kenai River have impacted streambank fish habitat and
           water quality in the Kenai River. There is general concern amongst scientists and the public that
           the Kenai River salmon runs will decline unless there are some changes to how the Kenai River
           and its riparian habitat are used and developed. Degradation of fish habitat in the Kenai River
           is the result of private and public property development, urbanization, and intense recreational
           use of the river's riparian area. The Alaska Department of Fish and Game's (ADF&G) Kenai
           River 309 Project' found that 12 percent of the available Kenai River chinook salmon rearing
           habitat has been altered to various degrees by shoreline development and recreational activities;
           and that 2 percent of the available chinook salmon rearing habitat has been lost to these
           activities. Fisheries biologists' who have studied the Kenai River believe that production of
           chinook salmon is limited by available rearing habitat. The 309 study did not evaluate the status
           of rearing habitat for other salmon species, but because these species may be equally or more
           sensitive to loss of cover and water velocity increases, it is believed that a similar degree of
           habitat degradation may have occurred. Water quality studies have revealed that many naturally
           occurring benthic organisms have disappeared below the City of Soldotna. storm drain outfalls.
           It is believed that this is the result of hydrocarbons and other pollutants in stormwater
           discharges.

           ADF&G is proposing to use the NMFS grant to improve the process for evaluating and
           regulating development along the Kenai River, and for projects to protect and restore fish
           habitat. The department and the Kenai Peninsula Borough (KPB) agree that public awareness,
           coordinated permitting, and bank restoration/protection projects are a high priority for funding
           under the NMFS grant. The success of any long-term habitat protection and restoration program
           for the Kenai River watershed is dependent upon general public awareness of the source and
           extent of threats to the ecosystem and support for measures to halt and reverse those threats.
           The perceived complexity of the permitting process for activities on the Kenai River has
           frustrated many property owners and undermined support for a comprehensive habitat
           conservation program for the Kenai River drainage. The river would also benefit greatly from



                   Liepitz, Gary S. 1994. An Assessment of the Cumulative Impacts of Development and
                   Human Uses on Fish Habitat in the Kenai River Technical Report No. 94-6. Alaska
                   Department of Fish and Game, Habitat and Restoration Division.

                2 Terry Bendock (ADF&G) and Carl Burger (USFWS); pers. comm.

           Abbreviated Proposal/July 29, 1995                                                          Page I









             implementation of the recently enacted Kenai River tax credit program for fish habitat restoration
             and protection projects. This proposal contains the means to initiate these programs, which
             would be further supported by contributions from the KPB. There is an urgent need: to halt the
             accelerating fish habitat damage on the Kenai River from bank trampling, land development,
             boat wakes, and associated bank erosion; prevent pollution; protect undamaged areas; and restore
             damaged fish habitat to its former level of productivity on private and public lands. Grant funds
             would be used for fish habitat protection and to restore damaged fish habitat on public and
             private lands.









































            Abbreviated Proposal/July 29, 1995                                                          Page 2










                                   ALASKA DEPARTMENT OF FISH AND GAME


                    KEN,,- RIVER SALMON HABITAT PROTECTION AND RESTORATION


                                 FEDERAL FISCAL YEARS 95 - 97 PROGRAM BUDGETS
                                            (STATE FISCAL YEARS 96 - 98)


             Program                                                                      cost,

             1.      Kenai River Center
                                                           Subtotal                      $100,

 0           2.      Habitat Protection and
                     Restoration Demonstration Projects:

                     A.      Restoration Identification Prioritization                   $30,000
 0                   B.      Fish Habitat Protection and
                             Restoration Demonstration Projects
                             on Private Land                                               200,000
                     C.      Fish Habitat Protection and Restoration
                             Projects on Public Land                                       396,000
                     D.      Riparian Plant Selection and Harvest Sites                     30,000
 0                   E.      Bank Protection and Restoration in
 0                           Boat Wake Areas                                                70,000
 0
 0                                                         Subtotal                      $726,000
 0
 0           3.      Project Management and Administration
 0                                                         Subtotal                      $ MO.
 0
 0                                  Total Co                                             $926,000
 0
 0
 0
 0
 0
 0
 0
 0
 0
 0
 0               3   Costs and project descriptions are conceptual and are subject to discussions with
 0                   cooperators and negotiations with potential contractors. The department will solicit and
 0                   participate in these proposals with state, federal, and local agencies as well as appropriate
 0                   contractors and private organizations.       ADF&G will also actively seek potential
 0                   cooperators that can provide matching funds or services to enhance these projects.
 0
             Abbreviated Proposal/July 29, 1995                                                             Page 3






                                                                                                                               0
                                                                                                                               9
                    KENAIAIVER SALMON HABITAT PROTECTION AND RESTORATION                                                       0
                                                                                                                               0

                                              PROGRAM JUSTIFICATION


                                              FEDERAL FISCAL YEAR 95
                                                (STATE FISCAL YEAR 96)


             AGENCY:                Alaska Department of Fish and Game

             CATEGORY:              Kenai River Center

             TOTAL COST:            $100,000 plus Kenai Peninsula Borough funding

             JUSTIFICATION:

             This project would     help establish a Kenai River Center located in Soldotna, Alaska in
             conjunction with the Kenai Peninsula Borough. The Center would offer information on the
             Kenai River and identify permits required for activities in the Kenai River drainage. When fully
             operational, the facility would house one staff member each from the Alaska Department of Fish
             and Game's Habitat and Restoration Division, the Alaska Department of Naturd Resources'
             Division of Parks and Outdoor Recreation (DNR/DPOR), and the Kenai Peninsula Borough
             Planning Department, as well as a Kenai watershed information repository. The personnel
             would provide information, accept permit applications, help determine permit requirements,
             provide technical assistance, and generally assist the public in designing means and methods to
             accomplish their projects while protecting the watershed.

             Information provided at the center would include displays on subjects related to the Kenai River
             ecosystem, information on salmon life history and fish habitat, information for sport fishermen
             on how to use the river without damaging it, and information for property owners on techniques
             for protecting and restoring riverbanks. This information would be presented through a number
             of venues including videotapes, pamphlets, documents, photographs, and computer programs.
             Staff would be available to provide assistance.

             For most projects on the Kenai River, only three authorizations are needed: an ADF&G
             Anadromous Fish Act Permit; a DNR/DPOR KRSMA permit, and a Coastal Consistency
             Determination. Most Corps of Engineers projects are covered by General o-r Nationwide
             permits. The most efficient way to handle Kenai River permitting, coastal reviews, and tax
             incentive approvals without substantial changes in state and federal statutes is by collocating staff
             from the ADF&G, DNR/DPOR, and KPB in an office at a central location on the Kenai River.
             Coastal consistency determinations, ADF&G, DNR, and KPB permits for Kenai River projects
             would all be issued based upon a single application. General permits for standardized projects
             such as approved floating docks, boardwalks, and bank protection could be issued based upon
             a simplified application and subject to standardized stipulations. For more complex projects,
             agency staff would be available for site inspections, technical assistance, and coordinated review
             of projects. An ADF&G Habitat Biologist, DNR/DPOR Park Ranger, and KPB representative,
             and a Clerk Typist would provide permit assistance.

             Abbreviated Proposal/July 29, 1995                                                            Page 4              0









             The Kenai Project Office would also provide more uniform efficient and effective monitoring
             and enforcement of state and borough statutes. The goal would be to provide local one-stop-
             shopping for all but the most complex projects. The office would be connected to other
 0           ADF&G, DNR, and KPB offices through an E-Mail computer network. This would provide for
 0           rapid file searches, and a similar application process for the large percentage of riparian property
 0           owners who do not live on the Kenai Peninsula. The office would be provided with the
 9           computers and the Kenai River 309 geographical information system (GIS) containing land
 0           status, shoreline development, ratings, soils, vegetation, and 1993 photographs of each Kenai
 0           River parcel. Portable computers containing these data would be provided for field inspections.

             Potential Cooperators: Kenai Peninsula Borough, Alaska Department of Fish and Game, Alaska
             Department of Natural Resources.

             COST BREAKDOWN:


                     Salaries and Benefits                                               $34,565
                     Travel                                                                  2,435
                     Equipment and Supplies                                                 17,200
                     Contractual Services                                                  45,800
                     Publishing and Communications                                               0

                     Total                                                               $100,000



























             Abbreviated Proposal/July 29, 1995                                                            Page 5







                      KENAI RIVER SALMON HABITAT PROTECTION AND RESTORATION

                                                  PROGRAM JUSTIFICATION


                                                  FEDERAL FISCAL YEAR 96
                                                   (STATE FISCAL YEAR 96)


               AGENCY:                                                Alaska Department of Fish and G )ame

               CATEGORY:                                              Habitat     Protection       and       Restoration
               Demonstration Projects

               SUBCATEGORY:                                           Restoration Identification Prioritization

               TOTAL COST:                                            $30,000
                                                                                                                                        0
               JUSTIFICATION:                                                                                                           0
               Habitat damage in the Kenai River has occurred on all land ownership categories and within a                             0
               wide variety of habitat types. The level of documented damage ranges from light (i.e., loss of                           0
                                                                                                                                        0
               some riparian vegetation and initial deterioration of banks) to heavy (i.e., complete loss of                            0
               vegetation and bank structu@e). At some heavily used access sites, banks have laterally eroded                           0
               up to 30 feet from their historic location. The sources of bank damage range from intensive                              0
               trampling by bank fishermen in popular fishing areas to land development for boat launches,                              0
               campgrounds, and access. Bank damage appears to be cumulative and spreading. Heavily                                     0
               damaged banks do not naturally recover. Sixty percent of the land on the Kenai River, including                          0
               the riverbed below ordinary high water, is in public ownership, while 40 percent of the riparian                         0
               lands are privately owned. Most damage on public land is related to bank-trampling and access                            0
               from recreational use. Public lands along the Kenai River and its tributaries are. managed by                            0
               the U.S. Forest Service, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Alaska Division of Parks and Outdoor                            0
               Recreation, Alaska Department of Fish and Game, Kenai Peninsula Borough, Alasla Department                               0
               of Transportation and Public Facilities, City of Kenai, and City of Soldotna. All of the state and                       0
               federal land managers have a statutory responsibility to manage their land to conserve fish and                          0
               wildlife resources in the river. The public also expects governmental agencies to, take the lead                         0
               in protecting the habitat and maintaining its fish runs. There is an urgent need oil public lands                        0
               to halt ongoing damage of streambanks and water quality, protect undamaged habitit, and restore                          0
               areas that have been damaged. Because bank protection and restoration is potentially costly, it                          0
               is important to identify and prioritize the most important areas in need of attention. This                              0
               prioritization will be used for directly funding restoration to areas of greatest need. Criteria                         0
               would include degree of damage, potential for additional damage, value of fish habitat, potential                        0
               for protection and rehabilitation, and level of public use.                                                              0
               This project will develop a list of restoration and protection projects on public lands in                               0
               cooperation with state, federal, and local government land managers. The product, will be a list                         0
               of damaged sites with short descriptions, prioritized for restoration.                                                   0
                                                                                                                                        0
                                                                                                                                        0
                                                                                                                                        0
                                                                                                                                        0
               Abbreviated Proposal/July 29, 1995                                                                   Page 6              0
                                                                                                                                        0







             Potential Cooperators: U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, U.S. Forest Service, Alaska Department
             of Natural Resources/Division of Parks -,7-A' Outdoor Recreation, Alaska Department of
             Transportation and Public Facilities, Alaska      --partment of Fish and Game, City of Kenai, and
             City of Soldotna.

             COST BREAKDOWN:


                     Salaries and Benefits                                                 $27,180
                     Travel                                                                   2,120
                     Equipment and Supplies                                                        0
                     Contractual Services                                                          0
                     Publishing and Communications                                              700

                     Total                                                                $30,000







































             Abbreviated Proposal/July 29, 1995                                                              Page 7






                                                                                                                                0
                    KENAI RIVER SALMON HABITAT PROTECTION AND RESTORATION

                                              PROGRAM JUSTIFICATION


                                           FEDERAL FISCAL YEARS 96 - 97
                                            (STATE FISCAL YEARS 96 - 98)


             AGENCY:                Alaska Department of Fish and Game

             CATEGORY:              Habitat Protection and Restoration Demonstration Projects

             SUBCATEGORY:           Fish Habitat Protection and Restoration Demonstration Projects on Private
                                    Lands


             TOTAL COST:            $200,000

             JUSTIFICATION:

             Forty percent of the streambanks of the Kenai River are privately owned, but over one-half of
             all damage to the fish habitat on the Kenai River has occurred on private land. LA-Iss than one-
             half of the private property on the river has been developed; remaining private land is likely to
             be subdivided and developed in the future. Most streambank damage on private property has
             resulted from alteration of the streambanks, removal of bank vegetation, and construction of
             structures such as docks, stairs, boat ramps, or groins to provide access to the river. Because
             habitat loss affects all Kenai River stakeholders, there is a need to assist landowners to:
             (1) prevent habitat loss, and (2) undertake projects to restore damaged habitat. This project
             would provide a portion of the cost of protecting and restoring streambanks on commercial and
             residential properties that have suffered habitat damage.
                                                                                                                                0
             Demonstration projects would provide a percentage of project cost for development and testing                      0
             of fish habitat restoration and protection technology, on lands with particular types of                           0
             streambank habitat damage and loss of fish habitat. This could include the removal and                             0
             restoration of existing structures such as groins and bulkheads, the reconstruction and                            0
             revegetation of eroding banks, and the protection of as yet undamaged fish habitat. For                            &
             demonstration purposes, sites would be selected where specific restoration techniques could be                     0
             used to restore similar damage on other sites along the river. Rather than spending all funds on
                                                                                                                                0
             one project, several projects with differing bank, hydrologic, and human use conditions would                      0
             be selected to maximize diversity and demonstration value. The cost of individual projects is                      0
             expected to range from $2,000 to $50,000. Property owners would be expected to provide                             0
             matching funds. Between 20 and 30 projects would be sponsored. Alaska Department of Fish                           0
             and Game staff would provide technical assistance to project applicants on fish habitit restoration                0
             techniques and assistance in obtaining necessary project permits.              Fish habitat use at                 0
             demonstration project sites would be monitored before and after restoration by Alaska                              0
             Department of Fish and Game staff. The durability and effectiveness of restoration techniques                      0
             would be evaluated throughout a three to five-year monitoring program. The product would be                        0
             a site-specific report with photo documentation that would also evaluate cost, site conditions,                    0
             techniques, and gains in habitat and fish usage. The Alaska Department of Fish and Game has                        0
                                                                                                                                0
             Abbreviated Proposal/July 29, 1995                                                             Page 8              0
                                                                                                                                0







              requested grant authority from the Legislature to directly sponsor projects with private
              landowners.     Until that authority is granted, the department would continue to provide
              demonstration grants through the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Private Lands Grant Program.

              Potential Cooperators: U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, private conservation groups, and Alaska
              Department of Fish and Game.

              COST BREAKDOWN:


                      Salaries and Benefits                                                $43,327
                      Travel                                                                   3,673
                      Equipment and Supplies                                                       0
                      Contractual Services                                                  151,000
                      Publishing and Communications                                          2.

                      Total                                                               $200,000





































              Abbreviated Proposal/July 29, 1995                                                             Page 9







                    KENAI RIVER SALMON HABITAT PROTECTION AND RESTORATION

                                              PROGRAM JUSTIFICATION


                                           FEDERAL FISCAL YEARS 95 - 97
                                            (STATE FISCAL YEARS 96 - 98)


             AGENCY:                Alaska Department of Fish and Game

             CATEGORY:              Habitat Protection and Restoration Demonstration Projects

             SUBCATEGORY:           Fish Habitat Protection and Restoration Projects on Public Land

             TOTAL COST:            $396,000

             JUSTIFICATION:

             This project would provide funding for fish habitat protection and restoration projects on public
             lands on the Kenai River. Projects would include restoration of damaged habitat, improvements
             to existing access to the river to reduce damage to fish habitat (i.e., boardwalks, stairs, floating
             docks), and protection of currently undamaged areas. Funding could also be provided for the
             removal and restoration of illegal or abandoned structures such as groins and bulkheads on
             public lands which are detrimental to fish habitat or to prevent pollution. Projects would be
             selected based on priorities identified in the previously described Restoration Identification
             Prioritization Project (2A). Up to four large projects may be funded depending upon cost. A
             project report and matching support would be sought from land managers. Department staff
             would provide technical assistance in project design and in obtaining permits.

             Potential CgqRprators: Alaska Department of Natural Resources, Alaska Department of Fish
             and Game, Alaska Department of Transportation and Public Facilities, U.S. Fish and Wildlife
             Service, Kenai Peninsula Borough, City of Soldotna, and City of Kenai.

             COST BREAKDOWN:


                    Salaries and Benefits                                                $22,845
                    Travdl                                                                  1 Y555
                    Equipment and Supplies                                                       0
                    Contractual Services                                                  371,100
                    Publishing and Communications                                             500

                    Total                                                               $396,000









             Abbreviated Proposal/July 29, 1995                                                          Page 10








                   KENAI RIVER SALMON HABITAT PROTECTION AND RESTORATION


                                              PROGRAM JUSTIFICATION


                                           FEDERAL FISCAL YEARS 96 - 97
                                            (STATE FISCAL YEARS 96 - 97)


             AGENCY:                                            Alaska Department of Fish and Game

             CATEGORY:                                          Habitat     Protection      and      Restoration
             Demonstration Projects

             SUBCATEGORY:                                       Riparian Plant Selection and Harvest Sites

             TOTAL COST:                                        $30,000


             JUSTIFICATION:

             Water tolerant woody and herbaceous plants provide effective low cost bank protection and fish
             habitat restoration. Most habitat and streambank restoration projects require plant materials that
             are currently not available commercially and therefore require harvest from native plant
             communities. The success,of these projects is dependent on availability of willow and other
             species which root readily and tolerate periodic flooding. Although the interest in soil
             bioengineering projects and revegetation with willow and other native plant species is increasing,
             land owners and public land managers often do not know where to obtain these materials.
             Known sources of native willows and other plants suitable for use is severely limited, plant
             identification is difficult, and competition for the few known harvest sites is increasing.

             This project would identify areas containing appropriate species (i.e., Feltleaf-, Barclay-, and
0            Pacific-willow; beach rye) for potential plant material harvest; coordinate plant collection efforts
&            with state, federal, municipal and Native land managers to avoid impacts resulting from harvest;
0            optimize harvest for sustained yield; and investigate opportunities for cultivation of target
0            species. The product would be a document listing plant materials and sites where plants can be
             obtained for restoration harvest by private citizens and government agencies. This information
             could be made available to the public, where appropriate. This project is very important for the
             success of the restoration projects which would be undertaken on the Kenai River.
0
0            Potential CoWerators: Alaska Department of Natural Resources/Plant Materials Center and
0            Division of Parks and Outdoor Recreation, Kenai Peninsula Borough, U.S. Fish and Wildlife
0            Service, U.S. Forest Service, municipalities, and Native corporations.
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0            Abbreviated Proposal/July 29, 1995                                                           Page I I
0









              COST BREAKDOWN:


                      Salaries and Benefits                                                   $ 2,362
                      Travel                                                                           0
                      Equipment and Supplies                                                          38
                      Contractual Services                                                       27,600
                      Publishing and Communications                                                    0

                      Total                                                                    $30,000













































             Abbreviated Proposal/July 29, 1995                                                                 Page 12








                   KENAI RIVER SALMON HABITAT r-,ZOTECTION AND RESTORATION


                                            PROGRAM JUSTIFICATION


                                         FEDERAL FISCAL YEARS 96 - 97
                                             (STATE FISCAL YEAR 97)


             AGENCY:              Alaska Department of Fish and Game

             CATEGORY:            Habitat Protection and Demonstration Projects

             SUBCATEGORY:         Bank Protection and Restoration in Boat Wake Areas


             TOTAL COST:          $70,000

             JUSTIFICATION:

             Boat wakes were identified as a major cause of streambank erosion on the Kenai River in the
             1980s. Outboard motor size was reduced in 1986 to reduce streambank erosion and damage.
             In spite of the horsepower reduction, the effects of boat wakes on streambank habitat remains
             a concern because of the vary large number of boats using the Kenai River. Boat wakes present
             a different problem than natural down-stream erosional forces because wakes run up the
             streambanks lifting and dislodging material that would not be affected by normal downstream
             currents and water level fluctuations. During a single day, wakes repeatedly raise water levels
             to heights that would normally only be reached once or twice during a normal hydrological
             season. Wakes from boats traveling upstream strike the bank in a manner that does not occur
             naturally. This may dislodge material that resists normal downstream water movement.

             These characteristics of boat wakes present unique problems for land managers trying to protect
             streambanks and fish habitat from accelerated erosion. Boat wakes are also a serious challenge
             to land managers who are attempting to restore fish habitat because wakes wash away soil and
             plant materials before they can become established. This project will determine the mechanics
             of streambank erosion at several sites and provide a report on the findings with recommendations
             for techniques to protect fish habitat and restoration activities from boat-wake-caused bank
             erosion.


             Potential CoMerators: U.S. Geological Survey, University of Alaska, Alaska Department of
             Fish and Game.













             Abbreviated Proposal/July 29, 1995                                                       Page 13








               COST BREAKDOWN:
                                                                                                                                      0
                       Salaries and Benefits                                                   $ 8,402                                0
                       Travel                                                                           0                             0
                       Equipment and Supplies                                                          38                             0
                       Contractual Services                                                       61,560                              0
                       Publishing and Communications                                                    0                             0
                                                                                                                                      0
                       Total                                                                   $70,000                                0
                                                                                                                                      0
                                                                                                                                      0
                                                                                                                                      0
                                                                                                                                      0
                                                                                                                                      0
                                                                                                                                      0
                                                                                                                                      0
                                                                                                                                      0
                                                                                                                                      0
                                                                                                                                      .0
                                                                                                                                      0
                                                                                                                                      0
                                                                                                                                      0
                                                                                                                                      0
                                                                                                                                      0
                                                                                                                                      0
                                                                                                                                      0
                                                                                                                                      0
                                                                                                                                      0
                                                                                                                                      0
                                                                                                                                      0
                                                                                                                                      0
                                                                                                                                      0
                                                                                                                                      0
                                                                                                                                      0
                                                                                                                                      0
                                                                                                                                      0
                                                                                                                                      0
                                                                                                                                      0
                                                                                                                                      0
                                                                                                                                      0
                                                                                                                                      0
                                                                                                                                      0
                                                                                                                                      0
                                                                                                                                      0
                                                                                                                                      0
                                                                                                                                      0
                                                                                                                                      0
                                                                                                                                      0
                                                                                                                                      0
              Abbreviated Proposal/July 29, 1995                                                                Page 14
                                                                                                                                      0
                                                                                                                                      A









                   KENAI RIVER SALMON HABITAT PROTECTION AND RESTORATION


                                             PROGRAM JUSTIFICATION


                                          FEDERAL FISCAL YEARS 95 - 97
                                           (STATE FISCAL YEARS 96 - 98)



             AGENCY:               Alaska Department of Fish and Game

             CATEGORY:             Project Management and Administration
    
             TOTAL COST:           $ 100,000

             JUSTIFICATION:
 
              A Project Manager is essential to the efficient and effective use of this grant for the three year
              period from federal fiscal years 95 to 97. Duties include: solicitation of proposals; development
              and approval of individual project work plans; preparation of contracts and reimbursable services
              agreements; project tracking and performance monitoring; and report editing and approval.
 
             COST BREAKDOWN:
 
                     Salaries and Benefits                                              $97,564
                     Travel                                                                 2,436
                     Equipment and Supplies                                                     0
                     Contractual Services                                                       0
                     Publishing and Communications                                              0
 
                     Total                                                              $100,000



















             Abbreviated Proposal/July 29, 1995                                                         Page 15
 
 



                                                        H  '*4&h,










                                               APPENDIX H



                                  "Upper Cook Inlet Fisheries and Habitat Plan"

                             Outline of Govemor Knowles April 1995 Presentation to

                                        Anchorage Chamber of Commere
 0







                                 GOVERNOR TONY KNOWLES'
                             Upper Cook Inlet
                Fisheries & Habitat Plan
                       "The most importantfish is the one on Alaska's dinner table.
          a
                       ENSURE THAT COOK INLET REACHES ITS POTENTIAL
                       AS THE WORLD'S FINEST SPORT FISHERY FOR ALASKA

                       FAMILIES.
 0                         While maintaining healthy subsistence, personal use, commercial, and commercial sport
                           fisheries.
                           Governor initiates process for analysis, input and development of recommendations;
                           management roles of Department and Board of Fisheries are maintained and protected.


                       REVITALIZE UPPER COOK INLET RIVERWAYS.
                           $20 million to provide habitat protection along the Upper Cook Inlet Riverways (Kenai
                           River, Anchorage, Susitna Drainage).
                               * Expand and improve responsible recreational access.
                               * Acquire critical lands on the Kenai River.
                                  (lean up our own house.

                       PROTECT OUR RIVERWAYS AND FISH STOCKS
                       THROUGH PARTNERSHIPS WIM KENAI & NIAT-SU
                       BOROUGHS AND ANCHORAGE, PROVIDE
                       EDUCATION AND PROMOTE COORDINATION OF
                       LOCAL, STATE AND FEDERAL AGENCIES.

                        EDUCATION                          COORDINATION
                         * Schools                            River Advisory Committees
 0                       0 Stream Watch                       Kenai River Center
          E3
















                                                              Community action to protect rivers



                    UPPER COOK INLET FISHERIES & HABITAT PLAN - OFFICE OF THE GOVERNOR - APRIL 1995







             
                 WORLD'S FINEST                                                 
                                                                                
                 SPORT FISHERY                                                  
                                                                                
                                                                                
                                                                                
                                                                                
                                                                                
       Direct the Department of Fish & Game to contract with
       a third-party facilitator to:                                            
                                                                                
                                                                                
                                                                                
       ï¿½ Gather and analyze scientific, socio-economic,                         
                                                       
           demographic and management information, and        
           identify additional information needed to improve  
                                                              
           fisheries management for Cook Inlet and the Kenai																
                                                            
           and Susitna River drainages.                                                                                                  
                  
                  
       ï¿½ Facilitate discussion with all user groups, citizens and                   
                                                                                
           local governments to develop ideas and options for                       
                                                                                
           achieving the following goals:                                           
                                                                                
                                                                                    
               ï¿½ Protect important fisberies habitat.                                 
                                                                               
               ï¿½ Ensure necessary escapement to build and protect wildfish              
                                                                                
                 stocks.                                                            
               ï¿½ Provide for personal needs of Alaska families.
                                                               
               ï¿½ Maintain viable and prosperous commercial and
                 commercial sports fishing industries.                           
                                                                                
                                                                                
                                                                                
       ï¿½ Prepare recommendations for consideration by the                      
                                                                            
          Board of Fisheries.                                                  
                                                                               
                                                                               
                                                                               
                                                                               
                                                                               
               UPPER COOK INLET FISHERIES & HABITAT PLAN - OFFICE OF THE GOVERNOR-April 1995
                                                                                





                         PROJECTS FOR
                         REVITALIZING UPPER
                         COOK INLET RIVERWAYS


                       Total Expenditures -                                 Sources of Money
                      more than $20 Million


               Kenai River $6 72 Million                        0 Exxon Criminal Funds
               Rest of Kenai Peninsula $3.2 Million             0 Exxon Civil Funds
               Anchorage & Susitna Drainage $8 Million          0 Dingell - Johnson Sport Fish Restoration
               Commitment of money to purchase acreage          0 ISTEA Enhancement Funds
               along Kenai River atfair market value            0 Scenic Byway Funds
 0                                                              0 NMFS - Senator Stevens special appropriation
 0
 0
 0            Expand and improve responsible recreational access in Upper Cook Inlet while
 0            protecting habitat. (Parks, boardwalks, interpretive displays, boat launches,
 0            camping, balanced with habitat protection.)
 0
 0            Susitna                                           Kenai
 0
 0            & Talkeetna River boating access S400, 000        a Pillars S1.8 Million
 0            0 Susitna River landing improvement $90, 000      - Cooper Landing scenic overlook S600, 000
 0            0 Bradley Kepler lakes S300, 000                  0 Bings Landing $200, 000
 0            0 Lake Louise State Recreation Area $340,000      - Acquisitionfor habitat protection
 0
 0            Anchorage
 0
 0            0 Fort Richardson Fish Hatchery S4 Million
 0            0 Chugach State Park $2.9 Million
 0
 0        a   Acquisition of critical lands on Kenai River and enhancement of greenways
 0
 0            0   Cove Parcel - 100 acres near the mouth of Kenai River at Kenai River Flats
 0            0   Kobylarz Subdivision Parcel - 20 acres at Big Eddy
 0            9   River Ranch Parcel - 146 acres near mile 32
 0            0   Salamatof Parcel - 1260 acres between miles 26 and 28
 0            0   Stephanka Tract - 803 acres southeast ofSterling
 0            0   Public Use Cabins in Kachemak Bay - acquire existing private cabinsfor public use at Bear
 0                Cove, Halibut Cove, Eldred Passage, Sadie Cove and Tutka Bay
 0            Cleaning up our own house
 0
          E:3




























































              0 Move DOT site in Soldotna
 0            0   Pollution prevention
 0
 0
 0                   UPPER COOK INLET FISHERIES & HABITAT PLAN - OFFICE OF THE GOVERNOR     APRIL 199S





                                                                                
                                                                             
           3    EDUCATION & AGENCY                                              
                                                                             
                COORDINATION                                                     
                                                                             
                                                                                 
                                                                             
                                                                                 
                                                                             
         ï¿½ Education
              ï¿½ Educational programs in Cook Inlet area schools
              ï¿½ Volunteer program "Stream Watch"
       ï¿½ Create partnerships with Kenai & Mat-Su Boroughs and                
          Anchorage to protect our riverways and fish stocks.                
                                                                             
       ï¿½ Revitalize Kenai River Advisory Committee
              * Resource agencies to work in a coordinated manner.
              * Update Kenai River Management Plan (including long-          
                range acquisition goals & habitat protection).
                                                                             
               Streamline the permitting process.
       ï¿½ Create Susitna Drainage River Advisory Committee

       ï¿½ Establish Kenai River Center
              ï¿½ Provide interpretive and educational information on the      
                river.                                                       
              ï¿½ Act as a clearinghouse for the permitting process.
       ï¿½ Support the Kenai Peninsula Borough in enacting a
          zoning ordinance and community action to protect
          other Cook Inlet rivers.


                                                                             
                                                                             

































































































              UPPER COOK INLET FISHERIES & HABITAT PLAN OFFICE OF THE GOVERNOR-April 1995

























                                                111HIIIIIIIIIIII
                                                 3 6668 00003 1171