[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. � 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. � Literature Cited The section includes references for the literature cited in this report. � 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 � 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. � 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. � 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. � 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. � 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. � 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. � 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. � 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 � 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. � 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 � 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, � 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, � 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 � 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 � To familiarize attendants with the permitting system Announcements (PSAW and a video: required for many bank and wetlands projects. products will include information on � 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, � 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 � 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 � 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. � 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 � 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- � 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 � Enforces water quality laws and regulations for all proposed permits discharges into the Kenai River. � 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. � 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. � 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 � 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. � 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 � Provides review comments on Clean Water Act involvement through Section 404 and Corps Section 10 permits. Corps public notices � 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 � 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 � 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. � 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. � 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 � 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. � Preparation of a summary of in-river access structures and other access-related impacts to salmonids in the Kenai and other Pacific Northwest rivers. � 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 � 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. � 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 � 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. � Review and comment on ElSs and EAs for compliance with NEPA. � 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 � 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 � Inspect facilities with underground storage tanks for compliance with upgrade requirements per 40 CFR, Part 280. Contact: Jackie Poston (EPA) @ 271-3401 � 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 � 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 � Advises the Corps on Section 404 and Section 10 comments provided permits for activities in and near the Kenai River. through Corps Public � 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 � 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 � 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. � 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 � 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. � 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., �1444) 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 � 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. � 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 � establish data to be input � 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 � prepare periodic reports and evaluations � 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 � what can be done at existing funding levels � 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: � 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. � Facilitate discussion with all user groups, citizens and local governments to develop ideas and options for achieving the following goals: � Protect important fisberies habitat. � Ensure necessary escapement to build and protect wildfish stocks. � Provide for personal needs of Alaska families. � Maintain viable and prosperous commercial and commercial sports fishing industries. � 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 � Education � Educational programs in Cook Inlet area schools � Volunteer program "Stream Watch" � Create partnerships with Kenai & Mat-Su Boroughs and Anchorage to protect our riverways and fish stocks. � 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. � Create Susitna Drainage River Advisory Committee � Establish Kenai River Center � Provide interpretive and educational information on the river. � Act as a clearinghouse for the permitting process. � 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