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

                                                                              Task 13
                                                                             Final Product











         MANAGEMENT OF CUMfULATIVE IMPACTS
           IN VIRGINIA: IDENTIFYING THE ISSUES
             AND ASSESSING THE OPPORTUNITIES

























TDi

  1 94 .6   a CoastalResources Management Program links state programs to manage coastalresources.
   iM36     m'scoastalboundaryincludesthe29counties and 15cities withinTidewater Virginia. The
  991        coordinated and monitored by the Virginia Council on the Environment















































This report was funded in part by the Virginia Coastal Resources1
Management Program through Coastal Zone Management Act grant
funds provided by the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration.
The Virginia Coastal Resources Management Program is managed and
coordinated by the Virginia Council on the Environment.


Virginia Council on the Environment
202 N. Ninth Street, Suite 900
Richmond, Vt 23219
(804) 786-4500












MANAGEMENT OF CUMULATIVE IMPACTS
 IN VIRGINIA: IDENTIFYING THE ISSUES
                        AND
      ASSESSING THE OPPORTUNITIES






                     prepared for the

                     Proper~ty of CSC Library
 I~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

        Virginia Council on the Environment's
       Coastal Resource Management Program

                          by

    The Institute for Environmental Negotiation
                University  of Virginia



                    December 1991



                     t:. S. DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE NOAA
                     COAST AL SERVICES CENTER
                     2234 SOUTH HOBSON AVENUE
                     CHARLESTON, SC 29405-2413














Th~~~~~~~~~~~isrprwafuddinprbthVignaCuclote
Env~~~~~~~~~~irnetsCatlRsucsMngmnPrgathoggrt
NA90AA-H-CZ796 of the NaioaOcniadAtspec
Adm~~~~~~~~~initainudrteCatlZn aaeetAto 92a
amended.~~~~~~







      I                           ~~~~~~ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS


 I            ~~~This report was prepared by the Institute for Environmental
         Negotiation under the leadership of Dr. A. Bruce Dotson and Dr. Timothy
1       ~~Beatley.  Assistants Barbara Jeanne Bowry and Bill Street conducted much
        of the research examining cumulative impact approaches from other
8       ~~states.  Word processing was provided by Barbara Jones.
              A working group of state agency personnel met several times with
        the Institute team to review the study plan, to offer suggestions and to
        comment on drafts. The group consisted of:
                    Ann Dewitt Brooks       Council on the Environment
                    Rick Hill               Council on the Environment
                    Bart Theberge           Virginia Institute of Marine Science
  5                ~~~~~Maurice Lynch       Virginia Institute of Marine Science
                    Bob Grabb               Virginia Marine Resources Commission
                    Beth Lester             Dept. of Air Pollution Control
  I               ~ ~~~~Alan Pollock         State Water Control Board
                    Bob Croonenberghs       State Department of Health

 I'           ~~~In the course of preparing this report, staff from a variety of
         Virginia state agencies responded to questions and offered opinions and
         suggestions.   Leaders of environmental organizations and representatives
         of business/industrial perspectives also contributed information and
         views. In states other than Virginia, dozens of people provided helpful
5 ~~information, supplied documents as requested and shared perspectives.

              The authors would like to acknowledge the assistance provided by
        the above groups and individuals.







       S                                ~~~~~~TABLE OF CONTENTS

                                                                                        Page #
K         ~~ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

             EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

             I.    INTRODUCTION AND STUDY METHODOLOG

             II.   DEFINING CUMULATIVE IMPACTS                                             4
                       Additive Impacts
                       Cross-media and Multi-media Impacts
                       Synergistic/Interactive Impacts
  I                 ~    ~~~~~Cross-boundary Impacts
                       Catalytic or Secondary Impacts
                       Discussion

             Ill.   OBSTACLES AND IMPEDIMENTS TO MANAGING CUMULATIVE IMPACTS                9
  Ii                  ~~~~~~Reports from the States
                       Legal Obstacles
                       Political Obstacles
                       Scientific, Technical and Informational Obstacles
                       Financial and Personnel Obstacles
                       Organizational and Jurisdictional Obstacles
  p                   ~~~~~~Philosophical Obstacles

5           ~~~~~~IV.   CUMULATIVE IMPACT ISSUES IN VIRGINIA                               2 0
                       The Overall Framework for Environmental Management
                       Wetlands
                       Air Quality, Water Quality and Quantity
  I.                ~    ~~~~~Land Use Changes
                       Wildlife and Habitat
                       Environmental Impact Review
  I                 ~    ~~~~~Other Areas Where Cumulative Impacts Occur

             V.    SELECTED CUMULATIVE IMPACT MANAGEMENT APPROACHES FROM
 I              ~     ~~~~~~~OTHER STATES                                                  4 5
                       A) Statutory Language and Case Law Issues
                       B) Environmental Impact Laws
                       C) Planning Approaches
                       D) Permitting Practices
  I                 ~    ~~~~~E) Organizational Structure
                       F) Technical Support







VI.    FINDINGS AND OPTIONS                                                         8 9
         Options for Improving the Existing Framework
         Options for Modifying Virginia's FrameworkI

VII.   REFERENCES                                                                  101

Vill.  TECHNICAL APPENDIX - This is a separate volume containing 101
     selected progam descriptions, statutes and regulations relating to 
     cumulative impact management. A copy is on file at the Council
     on the Environment and in the libraries at the University of
      Virginia and the Virginia Institute of Marine Science.






      I                           ~~~~~~EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

I       ~Purposes  of the Study

              This study was conducted in order to explore both the concept and
U     ~    ~practice of cumulative impact management.   Consideration focused on the
        definition of cumulative impacts, obstacles which make their assessment
         and management a difficult challenge, current practices in Virginia as
        well as other states, and proposed options which have the potential for
         advancing cumulative impact management practice in Virginia. The study
I     ~    ~was supported by funds from the Virginia Coastal Resource Management
         Program and is responsive to the federal program's special interest in
1       ~~improving the overall management of cumulative impacts.

3       ~Defining  Cumulative  Impacts

              Cumulative impact assessment can be contrasted with conventional
I     ~ ~impact assessment by the broader manner in which the temporal, spatial
         and jurisdictional boundaries of evaluation and management are conceived.
        As one source has put it, "Cumulative impact assessment takes a broader
I     ~ ~view:. the boundaries it draws in regard to the number of disturbances, the
        geographic area, and the timneframne conceived are larger. Conventional
         impact assessments are typically bounded by the expected zone of
I      ~ ~~influence of a single disturbance or proposed project . . . . While such a
         bounding process allows evaluation of the local impacts on resources, it
         does not allow evaluation of impacts of the project on these resources as
         a whole, of the total impact on these resources from all anthropogenic
         disturbances, or secondary impacts resulting from the interaction of
         impacts from the project with other anthropogenic disturbances."
         (Preston and Bedford, 1988, p. 566)
 I            ~~~The most widely referenced definition of cumulative impacts is the
         one set forth in the Council on Environment Quality regulations for
         implementing the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969.  It defines
        cumulative impact as:
              the impact on the environment which results from the incremental impact of the action
 I          ~ ~~~~when added to other past, present, and reasonably foreseeable future actions regardless
              of what agency (federal or non-federal) or person undertakes such other actions.
              Cumulative impacts can result from individually minor but collectively significant
 I          ~ ~~~~actions taking place over a period of time. (Sec. 1508.7)







The key words in this definition that broaden it beyond that of 
conventional assessment are "incremental," "when added to," "other past,
present and reasonably foreseeable future actions' and "regardless of
what agency or person undertakes such action." As the last sentence of
the CEQ definition indicates, the concern is as much with a series of small
but collectively significant actions as it is with larger projects.3

     Cumulative impacts come in a variety of forms. One is termed
"additive" - where the environmental result -comes from a series ofI
repetitive actions. Also referred to as the "nibbling effect," this type of
impact is well illustrated by a series of small wetland conversions which
add up over a period of time to significant acreage.  Other types of 
cumulative impacts addressed in the study include: cross-media or multi-
media; synergistic/interactive; cross boundary; and catalytic or secondary
impacts.  In considering these various definitions, it becomes apparentI
that, for practical purposes, managing for cumulative impacts quickly
merges with efforts at overall environmental  management.5


Findings

     Effective management of these various types of cumulative impacts
poses a major challenge to all states as well as to the federal
government.   Review of state by state reports filed with the Office of
Ocean and Coastal Resources Management of the National Oceanographic
and Atmospheric Administration, found that no state has fully achieved an  
effective cumulative impact management  system.   Virginia fits within
this overall pattern.I

     There are substantial obstacles to implementing effective
cumulative impact assessment and management. These include legal
limitations; political obstacles; scientific and technical issues; financial
and personnel constraints and organizational and jurisdictional patterns
plus a range of philosophical obstacles which underlie many debates aboutI
the role of public policy regarding cumulative impacts.  Various
innovations are identified by the study for addressing the different types
of obstacles but many are sufficiently new or are so inadequatelyI
evaluated that there is little evidence at this point upon which to base an
assessment of their actual effectiveness.3

      Examination of the ways in which Virginia's regulatory and
management agencies are currently considering cumulative impacts in1
their permitting decisions and other management activities, was found to







I      ~~be like describing whether a glass of water is half full or half empty.
        Much is being done to control environmental impacts - including avoidance
        of cumulative impacts. The underlying philosophy of key programs is to
K,    ~allow emissions or discharges only up to the point that the particular
        resource can assimilate the load in question. This approach is entirely
        consistent with a cumulative impact management perspective. This study
        also found that while cumulative impacts are not going unaddressed in
        Virginia, there remain significant opportunities for advancing cumulative
        impact management.

5       ~Conclusions

              The analysis of programs and initiatives, both in other states and
        those being explored in Virginia, does suggest that there are things which
        Virginia's agencies and departments could do to strengthen their ability to
5       ~~manage cumulative impacts.  Some of these changes are modest in scope
        and could be implemented within the existing framework. Others are more
        fundamental and may be best viewed in a longer time frame. For these,
        more detailed study may be appropriate before a course of action, is

3       ~~Options for improving the existing framework include:

 *           ~~~improving coordination and interaction between regulatory agencies

           *  expanding state environmental impact review requirements

 ï¿½           ~~~authorizing or requiring cumulative impact assessment and
              management in existing laws and regulations
           *  modifying  permitting procedures to promote facility-wide, cross-
 R            ~~~media management
           *  enhancing baseline data and monitoring capability

 I   .        ~~~increasing resources and funding for cumulative impact analysis and
              management

 I   .        ~~~removing or reducing exemptions of categories of impacts from
              cumulative impact assessment.







     Other options would involve more significant changes in thej
framework of the state's environmental programs.  Options for
consideration include:

  *  reorganization and consolidation of environmental management
     functionsg

  * greater emphasis on basin-wide and regional approaches

  * strengthening the system of land use planning and growthI
     management

  * greater emphasis on waste reduction and pollution prevention

  *  developing methods for interstate or regional cooperation

  *  addressing equity issues in allocating limited assimilative capacity

Section VI of this report more fully discusses these various options.








     No man, woman, launderer, or launderesse dare to wash any unclean
linen, drive bucks, or throw out the water or suds of fowle cloathes in open
streets, within the Palizadoes, or within forty foote of the same, nor rench, and
make clean any kettle, pot or pan, or such like vessel within twenty foote of the
olde well, or new pumps, nor shall anyone aforesaid within lesse than a quarter
these unmanly, slothfull, and loathsome immodesties, the whole fort may bee
choaked and poisoned...

                        --from the first sanitation  law in Virginia,  1610


I. INTRODUCTION AND STUDY METHODOLOGY

     The problem of managing cumulative effects is not a new one in
Virginia, as the above quote illustrates.   From the state's earliest period
of settlement, human alterations to land, air and water have resulted in at
least some degree of cumulative environmental impact.   For most of our
history, aggregate environmental results have generally not been seen as
widespread or serious because human and development pressures have not
overtaxed the assimilative capacities of the natural system.   However, as
Virginia's population continues to grow, and as the pressure to utilize its
natural resources rises, long term cumulative impacts will likely become
more evident.   In recognition of this same pattern nationwide, improving
the ability of states to manage cumulative impacts is one of the primary
goals of the Federal Coastal Zone Management Program.

     This  study  was  commissioned  by  the  Virginia  Council  on  the
Environment as part of the state's Coastal Resources Management Program
to consider the issue of cumulative impacts in Virginia.  The study seeks
to assess the extent to which cumulative impacts are seen as a problem in
our state and to examine the ways in which state environmental and
regulatory agencies are currently taking cumulative impacts into account
in their decisionmaking. The more specific objectives of this study
include:

     --to examine the ways in which Virginia regulatory and management
agencies are currently considering cumulative impacts in their permitting
decisions and other management activities; and to identify possible
limitations and deficiencies in current approaches.

     --to identify programs and strategies employed by other states and
to judge whether these  might represent  models  for Virginia to adopt,
adapt or to learn from.





                                                                   21
     --to identify obstacles and impediments faced by Virginia and other3
states in effectively incorporating cumulative impacts into resource
decisions.

     --to  identify  potential  opportunities  for  changes  in  current
procedures, regulations, laws, etc., in Virginia which could be undertaken
in  either  the  short-term  or  the  longer-term  so  that  cumulativeU
environmental impacts could be better managed.

     To accomplish these objectives several research steps were'
undertaken.   The authors first conducted an extensive   search of the
literature  to  identify  articles,  books,  and  reports  addressing  the3
cumulative  impacts question.   The  existing published  literature on the
subject was found to be rather modest, but the search did unearth some
literature  useful  in helping  to  identify  different  types  of cumulativeI
impacts and many of the scientific, methodological and other difficulties
in considering and managing cumulative impacts.   The  materials found
most useful are referred to later in this report.
     Next, the authors sought to identify and examine the ways in which
the existing regulatory and management framework in Virginia considers
cumulative  impacts and  any  impediments  and  obstacles which   these
efforts encounter.   To this end the authors conducted a series of phone
interviews with a small set of knowledgeable individuals representing
various viewpoints. Approximately 30 interviews were conducted. These
included representatives of key state agencies (13 individuals), business 
and industry (7 individuals), and the environmental community (7
individuals).   Ten of the individuals were attorneys reflecting the legal
and institutional emphasis of the scope of work of the study.   AgencyI
staff included people with technical backgrounds. The interviews were
informal  but  generally  included  three  themes:    identifying  current
practices,  assessment  of  these  practices,  and  suggestions  for 
improvements.    The  limited  resources  and  objectives  of the  study
precluded a larger number of interviews.5

     In addition to assessing the existing regulatory and management
framework those interviewed were also asked if. they knew of other
states that might be   taking different cumulative  impacts approaches.
Some useful leads were provided in this fashion and, in combination with
literature  references  and  additional  consultations  with  knowledgeableI
organizations, states and programs were identified which might, in one
way or another, offer examples of alternatives for addressing cumulative
impacts.  Among the additional groups and organizations consulted during





                                                                             3
I      ~~this process were: the federal Office of Ocean and Coastal Resources
        Management in NOAA; the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency; the
R       ~~Council of State Governments; the Fund for Renewable Energy and the
         Environment; and the National Governors Association. This analysis of
        innovative state programs focused on several key areas, including
*       ~~environmental impact assessment requirements and permitting practices.

             Assessing the actual extent and nature of environmental change that
        is due to cumulative impacts was not part of the scope of this study.
        Rather, the study proceeded on the basis that if a policy decision were
        made that Virginia should do more to manage cumulative impacts, what
I     ~    ~management approaches might be available, what advantages might they
        hold over current practice and might they be feasible in Virginia given our
*       ~~current management  institutions.
             The organization of this report roughly follows the different
        research steps just described.   Section  11 attempts to define what  is
        meant by cumulative impacts and identifies several key ways of defining
        them.    This  section  establishes  some  important  terminology  and
        conceptual  distinctions useful to subsequent  discussions.   Section  III
        identifies the primary obstacles and impediments to cumulative impacts
        management,  both in Virginia and in other states as identified by the
S     ~ ~literature and through phone interviews.  Section IV presents the -findings
        of our review of the Virginia framework and summarizes many of the key
         observations  of  interviewees  in Virginia.    Section  V  describes  in
           consderbledetail what other states are doing to address cumulative
        impacts, emphasizing those states and state programs which are
        potentially transferable to Virginia. Finally, Section VI presents the
        major conclusions of the study and offers alternative ways which Virginia
        agencies might consider for better addressing cumulative impacts based
        on  ideas which  emerged  during the study.   Alternatives in this final
        section include actions and policy changes that could be undertaken in the
        short-term, as well as larger and perhaps more fundamental changes in
        Virginia's environmental management system that may require a longer
        timeframe to undertake or complete.   References are provided in Section
I~~~VI
              A separate Technical Appendix has been prepared which contains
        more detailed regulatory excerpts and program descriptions for several of
ï¿½      ~ ~the states discussed  in Section V.  It is not necessary to have the
        Technical Appendix in order to read the body of the report.




                                                                   45

II. DEFINING CUMULATIVE IMPACTS

     Explicit attention to cumulative impacts, as evidenced in the
literature and in federal and state environmental legislation, has been
relatively  recent.    One  of the  first major  pieces  of  environmental
legislation at the federal level with the potential for addressing
cumulative environmental impacts was the National Environmental  Policy 
Act (NEPA) of 1969.  NEPA requires the preparation of an environmental
impact statement for all federal projects or actions which may
significantly affect the environment. Guidelines and implementation
regulations prepared by the Council on Environmental Quality (CEO)
explicitly require federal agencies to consider the cumulative impact of
their projects. (For a discussion of cumulative impacts and NEPA see
Eckberg, 1986).

     A "cumulative impact"  is defined in the CEQ  regulations as "the
impact on the environment which results from the incremental impact of
the action when added to other past, present, and reasonably foreseeableI
future actions regardless of what agency (Federal or non-Federal) or
person undertakes such other actions. Cumulative impacts can result from
individually minor but collectively significant actions taking place over a
period of time." (Sec. 1508.7).  While this definition is a useful starting
point, a more refined set of definitions and categories of cumulative
impacts can direct attention to the many ways that cumulative effects
manifest themselves.

     Before presenting a more detailed typology of cumulative impacts,
however it is also important to distinguish between cumulative impacts
assessment or evaluation   as an analytic task and cumulative impacts
manacement.   Much  of what one encounters in the literature involves
different approaches and techniques for better evaluating the cumulative
impacts  of various  human  activities.    However,  cumulative  impactsI
management involves more than assessment or evaluation, and
encompasses as well the policies, programs and strategies employed to
mitigate or control them.   Evaluation and assessment methodologies are
often important components of cumulative impacts management but are
not the only components. While a state may require that the cumulativeI
impacts of a particular proposed facility, say a highway or industrial
factory, be analyzed, management of those impacts implies much more
(e.g. facility design,  siting, permit  conditions,  etc.).  It might  also  bea
observed that cumulative impacts management can occur with little or no
formal cumulative impacts evaluation procedure.   A  state may  enact a
wetlands protection act, for example, that in effect manages cumulative





                                                                              5

I       ~~impacts  but does  not specifically include  a cumulative  impact  review
        procedure. However, even in these cases there is usually an evaluation
        component in the sense that scientific studies, data or models are utilized
        to identify potential impacts that require managing.  The emphasis in this
        study is on management approaches but attention is paid to a degree to
*       ~~assessment and evaluation issues.

              In conducting this study it became evident that there are actually a
        variety of ideas about cumulative impacts and as a result there remains
        considerable terminological and conceptual confusion.   Depending on who
        you talk to, cumulative impacts may be everything or they may be nothing.
I     ~In its most  expansive  conception,  cumulative  impact  management  is
        virtually  synonymous  with  overall  environmental  management.    We
        suggest  five. primary  definitions of cumulative  impacts.   These  are:
        additive cumulative impacts; cross-media or multi-media impacts-,
        synergistic/interactive impacts: cross-boundary impacts; and catalytic or
I       ~~secondary impacts.  While this may not be an exhaustive list, these five
        broad types tend to capture most of the issues and concerns identified in
        this study.

      I.                           ~~~~~~ADDITIVE  IMPACTS

              Additive cumulative impacts are those environmental impacts or
        effects which  are the  result of a series  of repetitive  actions.   The
I      ~ ~phenomenon has been described by some as the "nibbling effect," in that it
        results from the gradual and incremental degradation of a resource, such
        as a waterbody or wildlife habitat resulting from a series of small
        actions.   The  impacts of any single action may  be  negligible but the
        accumulated effect of many actions can be significant. 

              Considerable attention has been paid in the literature to the gradual
        loss of wetlands as a prime example of the additive category of
I      ~ ~cumulative impacts (e.g. see Preston and Bedford, 1988; Risser, 1988).
        Wetlands and wetland systems serve a number of valuable environmental
3      ~ ~and ecological functions and their loss over time, it is generally agreed,
        has serious consequences.   Yet, the manner  of their loss is typically
        gradual and through a large number of small actions--an acre filled here, a
        shorefront  lot bulkheaded  there.   Focusing  on  the discrete  action  or
        degradation tends to overlook the larger pattern of loss and its long term
        consequences.





                                                                    6
             CROSS-MEDIA OR  MULTI-MEDIA IMPACTS5

     Many projects or development proposals necessarily involve more
than a single type of environmental resource or medium.   An industrial
activity, for instance, may as a normal course of its production process
produce wastes which are discharged to both the air and water. Such an
activity might be said to have "multi-media" cumulative impacts.   The  
cumulative environmental impact of such a proposed factory or industrial
plant is the total impact on these different environmental media, i.e. air,
water, land.   An  industrial activity might also be said to have "cross-
media" cumulative impacts in that a pollutant might start out in one
medium  and end up in another medium.   Acid deposition is a classic
example of this.  These types of impacts are also referred to as trans-
media cumulative impacts.

     While many development activities or industrial projects have
cross-media or multi-media impacts, historically the management and
regulatory  framework  at  federal  and  state  levels  has  been  highly              '
segmented by medium. Air pollutants are typically regulated by one
agency. Water pollutants are regulated by another.   Impacts on wetlands
and wildlife habitat are managed by still other agencies.

                       SYERISICINERCTVEIMPACTSI

     Another  form  of  cumulative  impact  is  those  which  involve3
interactive or synergistic effects.   These are circumstances where  "the
total effect of an interaction between two or more agents is greater than
the sum of the effects." (Peterson at al, 1987, p.7). Photochemical smnog,             '
for instance, is the result of the interactive effects of pollutants such as
nitrogen oxides and ozone, in the presence of sunlight.                                I

     In point of fact there are probably few environmental impacts or
perturbations that are not interactive to some degree.  The gradual loss of
wetlands example above is also important because of the interactive
effects of such losses with other environmental variables.  At the same
time that wetlands are being reduced, other elements of the ecologicalI
system  are  also  being  altered.   This combination  can  have  serious
interactive  consequences  for  wildlife,  for  water  quality,  etc.    As
universal as these synergistic effects seem to be, they are also difficultI
or expensive to document and to manage.





                                                                            7
     3                       ~~~~~CROSS-BOUNDARY IMPACTS

             Clearly an important dimension to the cumulative impacts problem
        is  the  fact  that  environmental    pollution  knows  no  jurisdictional
        boundaries.  When a factory emits air or water pollutants very frequently
        environmental impacts are "exported" to other localities, states and even
        nations.  These cross-boundary  or cross-jur-isdictional impacts are often
        not fully understood or considered in the permit and other decisions made
I       ~~by governments either at the local, state or federal level.  Much of the
        increase in global environmental awareness of late is due to the existence
ï¿½       ~~of these  cross-jurisdictional/cross-boundary  effects.



    I                    ~~~~CATALYTIC OR SECONDARY IMPACTS

              In some cases concern about a particular action or decision is
I     ~    ~expressed  not simply because of the direct or immediate impacts but
        because of the secondary impacts which will be brought about or
        stimulated as a result.   Classic examples  include the construction  of
        major facilities, such as highways or shopping malls, which may
        themselves cause impacts but which also generate additional growth and
3       ~~development pressures which in turn bring further impacts.  These types
        of impacts might also be referred to as catalytic, in the sense that they
        spur or provoke additional impacts. The actual types of secondary effects
I      ~ ~generated  may  range from automobile traffic to air pollution to urban
        sprawl.


                                     DISCUSSION

 I           ~~~There  are, then,  several  different ways  of thinking  about  and
        classifying cumulative impacts. It is useful to note that while every
3       ~~category of our impacts typology was  mentioned at some  point in the
        phone interviews, there did seem to be a natural tendency to view
        cumulative impacts in a more compressed two-dimensional fashion.
I      ~ ~Concerns were expressed about, on the one hand, intra-agency/ single-
        medium impacts (additive and interactive), and cross-media/cross agency
5       ~~impacts, on the other hand.

              From these various definitions it is apparent that cumulative
        impacts management generally involves taking a broader view of
        environmental managernent--one which goes beyond the conventional





                                                                           8

approach of focusing on the limited impacts of a single action on a singleI
.Site at a single point in time under the authority of a single regulatory
agency.   Rather, cumulative  impacts evaluation  and  management  take a
itmore comprehensive view. As Preston and  Bedford (1988, p.566) describe  

            An essential difference between conventional impact assessment [and cumulative
      impact assessment] lies in the manner in which spatial and temporal boundaries of the
      evaluation are established... Cumulative impact assessment takes a broader view; the
      boundaries it draws in regard to the number of disturbances, the geographic area, andI
      the timeframe considered are larger. Conventional impact assessments are typically
      bounded by the expected zone of influence of a single disturbance or proposed project.
      The effects on environmental resources failing within that zone are then estimated.
      While such a bounding process allows evaluation of the local impacts on resources, itU
      does not allow evaluation of impacts of the project on these resources as a whole,
      of the total impact on these resources from all anthropogenic disturbances, or secondary
      impacts resulting from the interaction of impacts from the project with otherI
      anthropogenic disturbances.

      While the distinctions between the categories of cumulative
impacts listed above are not hard and fast, they do suggest considerable
implications for how to go about managing them. Concern about additive
cumulative impacts, such as in the case of the gradual loss of wetlands orI
wildlife habitat, may suggest that a single regulatory or resource agency
can achieve change through better internal analysis and decisionmaking
procedures.   If concern  lies with cross-media  or multi-media cumulative
impacts, effective management may require procedures and strategies
which  involve multiple agencies.   If the concern  is with cross-boundary
impacts, management may require the creation of new institutions more
consistent with the parameters and boundaries of the natural system (e.g.,
a regional management  entity).   The wide array of these potential policyI
responses and management strategies is discussed in the sections to
follow.5





                                                                             9
I        II1111. OBSTACLES AND IMPEDIMENTS TO MANAGING CUMULATIVE
             ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS

 I           ~~~The task of environmental management,  particularly as it attempts
        to take cumulative impacts into account, is complex and difficult.  It is
        not surprising that agencies in all the states contacted report difficulty
        managing cumulative impacts and cited various limitations under which
        they operate.   This section describes and discusses the major obstacles
I      ~ ~which  have been  identified from a number  of sources,  including those
        interviewed for this study and the relevant literature.   The obstacles to
        managing cumulative impacts identified here apply both to Virginia and to
I      ~ ~other states.   What  follows is an  attempt to identify, categorize,  and
        discuss these  major obstacles  and  impediments.   Once  identified the
        challenge becomes finding ways to overcome them - that is the task of
        Section V and VI.

     3                        ~~~~~REPORTS FROM THE STATES

 3            ~~~As an initial attempt to got a better understanding of the experience
        of other states, we examined the program status reports submitted by
        states participating in the federal Coastal Management  Program.   These
I      ~ ~reports  are  submitted  to  NOAA  on  a  yearly  basis.    They  contain
        considerable information about the different state coastal programs and
        for the last two years (1989 and 1990) have contained questions
I      ~ ~explicitly asking  about  management  of cumulative  impacts,  specifically
        on wetlands and estuarine resources. One of these questions asks about
        the types of problems faced in implementing a cumulative impact review
        policy or process. While many of the states had no program or policy on
        which to base a reply, a number did provide comments about
I       ~~implementation problems.  These problems are summarized in Table 1, and
        are listed in order of frequency cited. It should be noted that in tabulating
        the list, responses from two different years were combined.





                                                                     I101
      Table 1: Problems cited by coastal states in implementing a cumulative
     impacts review process or policy for wetlandslestuarine resources                   .
                      (listed in order of frequency)

           Implementation  Problems                  Frequency of Citation 
   1.  the case-by-case decisionmaking process             1 2
   2.  lack of methodology for evaluating impacts           9I
   3.  lack of baseline acreage data
   4.  inexperienced personnel                              8
   S.   inadequate data on functions                        7
   6.  lack of established thresholds                       7I
   7.  exemptions for small wetlands                        6
   8.  lack of legal authority                              4
   9.  limited financial resources                          3I
  1 0.  definitional difficulties 
  11.  absence of standardized practice                     2
  1 2.   lack of land use plan                              2
  1 3.  disagreement between agencies on criteria           2
  14.   lack of long term monitoring I
     Source:  Yearly state program reports, Office of Ocean and Coastal Resources
Management, NOAA

     As Table I indicates, coastal states have experienced a range of3
problems in implementing a cumulative impacts policy or program, at
least for wetlands and estuarine management.   The  most frequently cited
problem was that agencies made decisions on a case-by-case or permit-a
by-permit basis and that this did not lend itself to a more comprehensive
cumulative impacts approach.  Among the other more frequently mentioned
problems were: the lack of a methodology for making cumulative impacts
decisions; the lack of baseline data; the lack of experienced personnel; and
the lack of established thresholds for making cumulative impact
decisions.

     A  general discussion  of these  and  other impediments  follows.   It5
reflects our literature review as well as interviews in Virginia and
elsewhere plus the results above. We have grouped obstacles into several
categories,  subsuming  some  of  the  more  specific  implementationI
problems  already  cited  in Table  1.   These  broad  categories  include:
philosophical issues; legal constraints; political obstacles; economic and
personnel obstacles; scientific and database factors; and organizational
and jurisdictional limitations. Each is described in more detail below.






      I                            ~~~~~~LEGAL OBSTACLES

              Several legal obstacles to cumulative impacts management have
        been cited by those interviewed for this study and by the literature.
        Among them are: whether state regulatory agencies have or need explicit
        statutory authority to make decisions based on cumulative impacts;
        whether single-purpose regulatory agencies can take actions which are
        based on controlling impacts in a different medium (e.g., an air quality
3       ~~agency  making  a decision  based  wholly or in part on water pollution
        effects); whether agencies can deny or condition permits based on
        speculation about what will happen in the future; whether or not an agency
I      ~ ~can control a use or activity in order to prevent the establishment of a
        precedent with significant cumulative impacts; the extent or level of
         scientific precision or study that is required to uphold the legality of a
        threshold used in allocating limited assimilative capacity-, and a host of
        potential legal impediments, constitutional and otherwise, to controlling
        land use and private property to managing cumulative impacts - most
        notably the "takings" question. (For a review of many of these legal issues
        see  Reiser and  Quintrell, 1986).   This list of questions,  even without
        elaboration, is daunting and sufficient to discourage many from innovation
        without clear legislative authorization.   Nonetheless,  brief discussion  is
        useful.

              One important legal issue revolves around the question of whether
        an environmental and resource management agency has the explicit
I      ~ ~authority to take cumulative effects into account.   If an agency  has a
        broad mandate to protect and manage the natural environment, or some
        component of the environment, is this sufficient or is explicit statutory
I      ~ ~language   necessitated?        Some   states   have   modified   existing
        environmental statutes to specifically allow or require consideration of
        cumulative impacts (e.g., the State of North Carolina, for example, has
        amended its Coastal Area Management Act to explicitly address
        cumulative impacts-, see Section Vto follow).

              A related issue is the extent to which single-purpose regulatory
        agencies--i.e., those with responsibility for air, water, wetlands,
I      ~ ~respectively--can  take  actions on  environmental  grounds  broader  than
        their own narrow charges. Can, for instance, a state wetlands agency (e.g.,
        VMRC) deny a permit request to fill a wetland because it feels the overall
I      ~ ~environmental  damage  from  the  proposal  (e.g.  air  pollution,  water
        pollution, traffic generation, etc.) is too extensive? Generally, are
        environmental and resource agencies restricted from such a broader
        cross-media review?   This type of problem represents a significant legal





                                                                    1 21

obstacle in Virginia, and is discussed in greater detail in Section IV. OneI
innovation to overcome this type of legal limitation is 'whole facility
permitting" discussed in Section V.

     Another set of legal questions centers on the permissible scope of
the  permit  decision.    More  specifically,  what  is the  temporal  and
geographical  scope  which  agencies  are  permitted to consider?   Can  
resource agencies deny permits, or substantially condition permits, based
on projects and proposals that they believe will occur in the future?  Can
a regulatory agency make permitting decisions which take into account
the other permits "in the pipeline" or that might be reasonably foreseeable
as NEPA specifies? In Virginia, this issue has been brought to the fore by
the large number of co-generation permit applications filed this past year.
This also raises questions of temporal and geographic scope.   Can  a
resource agency deny a permit, or substantially condition a permit, basedI
on impacts which will occur beyond its jurisdictional boundaries (e.g., to
another state)?

     Another legal issue identified is the difficulty in denying a
particular desired use or permit where similarly-situated parties have
already been issued such permits in the past. This is sometimes described
as the problem of setting precedents.   Once a government agency has
issued a permit allowing, for instance, the filling of a certain type of
coastal wetland in a certain circumstance, the perception is that it then
becomes difficult legally to deny a similar permit request in the future.
Taking back a permit or seriously modifying the conditions of a valid
permit would also raise legal questions.

     Because successful management of cumulative impacts will likely3
involve some degree of land use management, there are also a host of legal
issues and potential obstacles here.  If preventing the cumulative water
quality impacts of bayfront development  requires substantial restrictions 
on what private landowners are permitted to do with their property, will
such regulations violate any federal or state constitutional safeguards?
The most frequently mentioned of these is the so-called "takings" issue,
where government is required to compensate landowners when land use
regulations are so onerous as to amount to an expropriation of land.  OtherI
constitutional challenges of concern include substantive and procedural
due process, and equal protection challenges.  Several states have faced

such issues and the outcome of these is discussed in Section V.





                                                                              1 3
      I                          ~~~~~~POLITICAL  OBSTACLES

              Significant  political  obstacles  to  effective  management   of
I     ~ ~cumulative impacts can also be identified.  They derive in large part from
        the lower priority assigned by the political process to these often less
        evident and less immediate types of impacts. Because the ramifications of
        cumulative impacts are often not felt until some time in the future, and
        are often exported to communities and populations in other places, there
3       ~~is a natural tendency to undervalue them in the political process.  As well,
        controlling cumulative impacts frequently requires the loss of certain
        short term benefits, and usually incurs the wrath of identifiable
I      ~ ~constituents.  In the words of one individual interviewed, "Who's going to
        tell Old Joe he can't fill a wetland..."  Moreover, state and local officials
        are often confronted with the choice of adding to the tax base and
I      ~ ~enhancing  economic  prosperity, or seeking to control impacts that are
        difficult to measure and see.   Especially at the local level there is a
        natural tendency for elected officials to feel that their first and foremost
        priority is to the local populace and to the constituents who actually
        elected them.   There are few political points to be won  by working to
3       ~~~protect  the  interests  of  those  living  outside  o ne's  political  or
        jurisdictional boundaries.

 I            ~~~Equally true, there is a tendency in the political system to favor
        actions and policies which involve a short timeframne.   Political leaders
        have few incentives to consider the long term and cumulative effects of a
I      ~ ~particular policy or action.   Emphasis is frequently given to benefits and
        projects that can be realized in the timeframe of elections and reelection
S       ~~campaigns.
              The often intangible nature of cumulative impacts also puts them at
        a disadvantage when evaluated through benefit-cost analyses and other
        techniques. While it may be very easy to identify the costs, it is typically
        much more difficult to assess the long term benefits of actions to
I       ~~minimize cumulative  effects.   Put another way,  it is difficult to assign
        cumulative impacts a high priority compared to other values which have
        organized constituencies where compelling personal pleas are presented.
        Cumulative impacts can be a difficult sell in the political arena.

 I           ~~SCIENTIFIC, TECHNICAL AND  INFORMATIONAL  OBSTACLES

 3            ~~~There  is little doubt  that a  major  difficulty  in taking  a  more
        aggressive cumulative impact approach is that the science to support it




                                                                  1 41
may not be fully developed. The scientific impediments are several and
clearly relate to numerous other impediments mentioned here.  First, manyI
of the more significant environmental impacts of concern may be indirect
and, as a result, causal pathways are poorly understood. While we may beI
able to say with great certainty that uncontrolled urban development will
have negative, perhaps even fatal effects on shellfish resources, it may be
difficult to discern the actual impact of a single project or a single acreI
of development.   Moreover,  it may be especially difficult to determine
ecological and biological thresholds-, that is, amounts of degradation that
will cause certain fundamental changes in the functioning or productivityI
of the natural system.   (For a good discussion of these scientific and
methodological difficulties see Preston and Bedford, 1988; Bain et al,
1986) At what point can it be justified that enough is enough?
     Determining causal pathways and establishing thresholds is perhaps3
easiest where the focus is on a single pollutant and on a single biological
parameter  (e.g. sub-aquatic  vegetation).   Ideally, though,  cumulative
impacts management  should consider the effects of not only this waterI
pollutant but others potentially present and their combined effects.
Furthermore, cumulative impacts management ideally requires, as
discussed  earlier,  not  simply  the  consideration  of  the  impacts  ofU
waterborne pollutants but other types of degradation as well, e.g. air
pollution, wetland filling. There is little doubt that regulators are
hesitant  to  impose  environmental  restrictions  on  companies  and
landowners where they feel the science to back them up is uncertain.

     Some of these obstacles may tend to be more informational than
scientific  or  causal.    For  instance;  several  people  observed  that
decisionmakers have been  hesitant to make decisions on the basis ofa
cumulative impacts because they lack certain basic background data from
which to make these judgments. The lack of baseline data is a problem
frequently mentioned  in the literature and by program administrators in 
all states. (See Table 1 above.) This type of impediment is perhaps most
pronounced in the case of the nibbling away of resource lands, such as
wetlands and wildlife habitat.

              FINANCIAL AND PERSONNEL OBSTACLESI

     We heard quite frequently in our discussions with state officialsI
that they could indeed more carefully incorporate and consider potential
cumulative impacts if they had the additional personnel and money for
scientific evaluations.   State environmental  agencies  in Virginia,  and







I       ~~elsewhere, frequently feel that they lack the resources and manpower to
        do any more than what is absolutely required in reviewing and assessing
        impacts.   Agencies  also  report  lacking  the  personnel  to  provide  full
        analysis and critique of proposed projects sent to them for comment by
        other agencies.  There is also an indirect effect of the budget constraints
*       ~~facing states during the present period -this is the effect on employee
        attitudes and morale.   Few are as excited about their work as they once
        were and fewer still see much to be gained from initiatives that would
        only complicate their lives during these lean times.
 3           ~~~Many  of the more  serious obstacles to more  effective cumulative
        impacts management are fundamentally fiscal. Preparation of carrying
        capacity plans for watersheds or estuaries, for example, can be very
        expensive. Several people suggested, for instance, that they had serious
        doubts about the effectiveness of Virginia's Bay Act as a result of the
        very small amounts of state funding made available to local governments
5       ~~to prepare and to implement the mandated plans.         Furthermore, some of
        the  more  effective  strategies  for controlling  cumulative  impacts  may
        require very large amounts  of money.  The  most effective approach  to
I       ~~preventing  cumulative  impacts  on wetlands,  shorelines,  wildlife habitat,
        and similar resourcelands, may be for the state or some  other entity to
        purchase many of these areas.   The costs of land acquisition, however,
I      ~ ~especially where significant urban development pressures exist, are very
        high.


                ORGANIZATIONAL AND JURISDICTIONAL OBSTACLES

 I            ~~~Effective cumulative impacts management may not be supported by
        existing organizational structure.   Division of environmental  management
3       ~~responsibilities  into a variety of agencies  and  offices was  frequently
        identified in the literature and in our interviews as a significant obstacle
        working against more comprehensive and holistic approaches. One author,
U      ~ ~Butler (1990), concluded that Virginia's efforts suffer from  bureaucratic
        fragmentation and that the General Assembly has tended to address
        environmental management in a piecemeal and crisis-oriented way.
I      ~ ~Moreover,  she  finds  that  different  agencies  are  "turf"  conscious.
        "Development   of  more   comprehensive   and   better   coordinated
        environmental laws should help to alleviate the problem of turf-guarding
        that now exists among many environmental agencies. As Virginia's
        experience indicates, an uncoordinated and incomplete regulatory
        structure  tends  to  produce  an  uncooperative  atmosphere  among
        environmental agencies.   Instead of taking a holistic view, agencies  in





                                                                   1 6
such  a regulatory structure tend to focus only on their responsibilitiesI
and, as a result, become overly protective of their own programs.
Improved coordination should create more positive feelings among
agencies." (p.886)
     Not everyone would agree with Butler's assessment of the severity
of this problem but to the degree that units within a larger environmental
protection organization find it difficult to work in concert, for whatever
reason,  it is clear that it will be more difficult for anyone to addressI
cross-media impacts.

     Another generic organizational problem -procedural inertia -also3
came up in the literature and our review of various organizational studies.
Agencies develop particular procedures and processes for making resource
decisions (albeit based on certain legislative and legal mandates) whichI
over  time  become  highly institutionalized.   Once  "standard  operating
procedures" are firmly established, agencies and agency personnel may
have a difficult time visualizing alternatives.   Combine with this the fact
that more integrative and comprehensive approaches are more demanding
(in terms of information  needed,  level of scientific understanding,  etc.)I
and it follows that many regulatory agencies will operate on a case-by-
case approach, as indicated by the NOAA state survey.

     Heavy reliance on local governments in land use decisionmaking as in
Virginia, may also work against area-wide cumulative impacts
management.  The more decentralized the focus, the less able the systemI
is to consider impacts in an overall fashion, particularly when it comes to
cross-boundary resource issues. Granted, there are many positive benefits
of a localized and decentralized approach to government,  including the  
potential  for  greater  participation  and  involvement  of  the  average
citizenry. It should also be recognized that moving these decisions to
higher  governmental  or  jurisdictional  levels  is  politically  difficult.
However, where the resource of concern spans many local jurisdictional
boundaries (such as a river basin or an airshed), regional or substateI
institutions may become necessary and appropriate.


                    PHILOSOPHICAL OBSTACLES

     From  the literature and from discussions with agency  officials inI
Virginia and elsewhere it appears that officials also have difficulty
taking tough cumulative  management  stances for philosophical reasons.                  i
Managing cumulative impacts often requires establishing limits on





                                                                              1 7
3       ~~environmental  resources and restricting the freedoms of individuals and
        groups based on these limits.  This is true of all forms of environmental
        regulation, of course, but in addressing cumulative impacts this difficulty
I     ~ ~is heightened.  In dealing with cumulative impacts, cause-effect relations
        are less obvious and more indirect.   New forms of specialized expertise
        may be needed. There may also be a fear that if all forms of cumulative
I     ~ ~impacts  were. to be  taken  into account  it might be  more  likely that
        projects would be denied than is currently the case. These facts suggest
3 ~~that for public officials decisions about managing cumulative impacts,
        and about how aggressively to manage them, may be difficult ones.

 3           ~~~There are a number of difficult philosophical and ethical questions
        which are likely to arise in environmental management generally but
        particularly in the course of the managing cumulative impacts.  A primary
I     ~ ~philosophical issue is whether, in the minds of elected officials (and their
        constituents), the benefits obtained from managing cumulative impacts
        are indeed worth the societal costs of controlling them.   Should Virginia
I      ~ ~agencies work towards the goal of preventing the generation of non-point
        water pollution, for instance, at any cost?  Is it necessary and desirable
        that all such  impacts be eliminated?   Is some  degree  of pollution or
        degradation of the state's resource base permissible and even desirable,
        taking into account the costs of controlling these impacts and the
3       ~~benefits produced by them?   Many of these questions, especially those
        involving pollution control, boil down to fundamental disagreements about
        acceptable levels of risk.  Should society expend  large amounts of its
I      ~ ~resources to reduce risks from substances such as dioxin to extremely
        low levels (e.g. carcinogenic risk levels of one death per million people
        exposed)? Many would argue on philosophical grounds that only the most
        significant and serious cumulative impact problems ought to be addressed
        where the costs of managing them are very high.

 I           ~~~There are other ethical positions and considerations beyond simply
        weighing the relative societal benefits and costs.  It could be argued, for
I       ~~instance, that stringent controls of air pollution or water pollution are
        morally justified on the grounds that these types of impacts represent
        instances of individuals and firms inflicting "harms" on other individuals
a      ~ ~and the larger public.  It is one thing for an individual to freely choose to
        subject himself or herself to a certain risk (say from dioxin or some other
        toxic pollutant), but another entirely to have  these forced  upon  them
I      ~ ~through someone else's decision.  Such logic is at work when people feel
        indignant about the impacts of electric plants and  industrial enterprises
        wherever they might be located on visibility and air quality in the national
        parks. Such activities are viewed as imposing harms on the public and




                                                                  1 81

degrading a "public" resource and consequently, they feel, it is entirelyI
fair to hold polluters culpable for these actions.   Those who  hold these
types of views, of course, have an easier time supporting stringent public
controls on cumulative impacts.
     Involved here as well are basic questions about the personal and
societal value placed on those elements of the natural environment thatU
may  be threatened by cumulative impacts.  If public officials see little
value in protecting wildlife and wildlife habitat, especially when
compared with jobs and 'economic activity, taking strident actions to
manage cumulative impacts on these resources will be a low priority. On
the other extreme, there appears to be increasing recognition (especially3
by many in the environmental community) that the natural environment,
and its constituent parts, have intrinsic value and inherent worth
irrespective of the human value (monetary or otherwise) attached to theirI
use and enjoyment and that there consequently is a moral obligation to
protect them.3

     Cumulative impacts management is premised on the philosophical
and policy position that the boundaries of analysis ought to be expanded in
time and space over current practice.  Managing cumulative impacts places1
importance   on   identifying   and   controlling   impacts   that  cross
jurisdictional boundaries and which occur or manifest themselves in theI
future. At the heart of these questions are assumptions about the extent
of the moral community to which obligations are owed. It can be argued,
as many have in the past, that obligations to consider the interests of theI
future, and future generations, are of a lesser moral weight. The first
obligation is to think about the immediate present, and the needs and
concerns of citizens as they exist in the present.  Similarly, it has beenI
argued that ethical priority should be given to members of one's own
community.    The first obligation is to consider the interests and welfare
of one's own community, with concern about those communities, statesI
and nations beyond one's borders being, again, of lesser moral weight.  It
is not hard to see how these different philosophical positions couldI
directly influence public and private decisions about cumulative impacts.

     There are numerous questions here as well about the fairness and3
equity with which people and groups are treated in the process of
managing cumulative impacts.  It is difficult for a public official to deny
a permit to a landowner to build a shoreline home when she or he knowsI
that such permits have in the past been issued to many other similarly-
situated property owners.   The fact that some designated environmental
threshold has been exceeded, from the point of view of personal fairness,





                                                                             1 9

3       ~~may be irrelevant.  In the minds of public officials it may appear that th is
        particular property owner is being asked to bear a disproportionately
        greater burden than others in similar circumstances.   Parallel concerns
U      ~ ~can  exist at a community  level.   For  instance,  the  limited carrying
        capacity of the environment might preclude the location of new polluting
        industries in certain localities or regions, translating into real economic
        hardship  (e.g. has  an  impact on jobs,  income,  tax base).   Impacted
        communities will feel unfairly treated when compared with other
5       ~~similarly-situated communities or regions where  such  polluting activities
        have been allowed in the past. These are not insignificant concerns when
        public officials are weighing the merits of managing cumulative impacts.

              Often tied into these concerns are basic philosophical views about
        the sanctity of private property. Almost irrespective of the legal or
I      ~ ~constitutional  dimensions,  many   people  have  basic  philosophical
        difficulties with public policies and regulations which severely constrain
        the use of private land--especially where there appear to be few
        opportunities to use one's land in an economically profitable manner.
        Effectively managing cumulative impacts may regularly require land use
5       ~~restrictions which  seem  harsh  to private landholders and  their elected
        representatives.



              This review of obstacles and impediments suggests that managing
I      ~ ~cumulative  impacts  is not easy.   Identification  of obstacles,  however,
        helps to point the way to programmatic and legislative changes that might
        overcome them.   The sections to follow, especially Sections  V' and VI,
I      ~ ~describe a variety of alternative approaches  to promote  more  effective
        cumulative impacts management.   Before turning to these alternatives, we
        will first examine the ways that Virginia addresses cumulative impacts
        as part of its environmental management efforts.





                                                                 20
IV.   CUMULATIVE  IMPACT ISSUES IN VIRGINIA3

     As mentioned in Section I, the authors conducted a series of phone
interviews with selected individuals whom it was believed would
represent different perspectives on the cumulative impacts issue in
Virginia.  Interviews  were  conducted  with  representatives  of  the
environmental and business communities, and with representatives of theU
major state agencies or departments involved in environmental
management  in Virginia.   Interviewees were asked about how  existing
programs were structured and how well, in their view, they succeeded inU
addressing cumulative impacts. Individuals were also asked to identify
obstacles or impediments that might exist to considering cumulative3
impacts, legal or otherwise, and also to suggest approaches that might
make for more effective cumulative impact management in Virginia if
they felt that was  needed.   Interestingly, most people had suggestions5
even where they felt that current practices were not bad.  Others saw the
need for change as great.  Others, while not opposed to change, were
concerned with its costs to the state or to the applicant. It is importantI
to stress that our review of the existing framework is much like the
proverbial glass of water that is either half full or half empty, - what one
hears depends to a large degree on the speaker's perspective.
     While neither exhaustive nor random, the interviews did provide the
authors with a sense of how well various people perceive the state to be
doing.   In addition to these  interviews, the authors analyzed  relevant
statutes, legislative provisions, programmatic descriptions, and other3
materials, to obtain a more accurate understanding of how these state
regulatory and management systems are structured.

     Overall, there was a general sense that while existing laws and
programs do address cumulative impacts to a considerable extent,
opportunities for advancement in the current system also exist.   TheseI
include wetlands, air quality, water quality and quantity, wildlife, and
land use. This is not to say that these are the only resource where
attention could focus on cumulative impacts but is to say that these were
the areas that came  up most often in our investigations.   Each of the
resource areas discussed below begins with a brief summary of the key3
legislative provisions and the agencies responsible for implementing
them.





                                                                            2 1
I         ~~THE OVERALL FRAMEWORK FOR ENVIRONMENTAL MANAGEMENT

              A frequent observation made by those we talked with about
        cumulative impacts was the shared nature of environmental management
        responsibilities in Virginia (and in many  other states as well).   Some
        refer to this as fragmented, some as segmented, others as unconsolidated
        or divided. This factor was cited by a number of the people interviewed as
        a major reason for why cumulative impacts   - especially those of the
3       ~~cross media variety - are not more often taken into account.   Regulatory
        and management agencies tend to take a single-permit, single-project
        approach, making permit decisions and imposing mitigation and other
I      ~ ~project  design  requirements  based  on  their own  particular  statutory
        provisions and environmental missions.

 I            ~~~One  interviewee  used  the  example  of  an  industrial  facility
        considering how to respond to the various demands of different regulatory
        agencies to illustrate one pitfall of this fragmented approach.   To satisfy
        concerns with surface water, the facility might decide to substantially
        reduce its surface water emission and in turn to increase its use of
        lagoons or land applications.  Reducing the surface water emission would
        be a positive result from one perspective but the alternative land disposal
        could  raise groundwater concerns.   Fortunately,  in this example  both
I      ~ ~surface and groundwater are under the same agency.  In most instances,
        however, this is not the case so what could happen is shifting pollution
        around between agencies and media until one was found that would allow
I      ~ ~the facility to be approved.   At least theoretically, a facility could obtain
        permits from several media each of which would be at its allowable
        maximum and no one agency would be aware of the total pollution
        discharge from the particular facility.. This would be perfectly legal but
        run contrary to a goal of overall pollution reduction.

 I            ~~~With  multiple permits one respondent also cited another potential
        problem which could result where an applicant uses a permit granted by
3       ~~one agency to gain  momentum  for his case in seeking  a permit from
        another.   Another respondent indicated that this was  unlikely and that
a        ~~industry often went for the toughest permit first in order not to invest
        money unwisely in a project that would eventually not be approvable.
        Whichever situation prevails, the point is that people on all sides uses the
        fact of segmented approval to whatever advantage they can and
        cumulative impact consideration is likely to enter in.
 3            ~~~The  segmented  nature  of Virginia's  environmental  management
        system  is conveyed  in Table 2.  It presents a list of selected  state





                                                                 2 2
environmental programs and laws and the primary state agencies5
responsible for implementing  them.   While  not a comprehensive  or
exhaustive listing, the table does illustrate that environmental programs
and  policy are scattered  over a  number  of different agencies  andI
institutions and come under several different secretariats.  Each agency
has different personnel, missions, and procedures.  While there is debate
about whether such unconsolidated management systems inherently makeI
it difficult to manage cumulative impacts, many people interviewed for
this study-both inside and outside Virginia -felt that more coordination3
would be desirable and that the current structure might make this
difficult to achieve.







                                                                                                                                   23

                                                                          TABLE II

                              Selected State of Virginia Environmental Programs & Agencies


                 State Aaencv                                      Type of Activity                             Leaislative  Authoritv
                                                                Reaulated/Manaaed

                 State Water Control Board                   Discharge of point source pollutants into          State Water Control Law
                                                            surface waters

                                                            Groundwater withdrawals in designated              Virginia Groundwater Act
                                                            management areas

                                                            Regulation of underground storage tanks            State Water Control Law

                                                            Surface water withdrawals in surface               Surface Water Management Act
                                                            water management areas

                 State Department of Health                  Minimum drinking water standards for               Virginia Public Water Supply Act
                                                            public water supply systems
                                                            Regulation of septic systems and shellfish         Sewage Handling & Disposal Law
                                                            sanitation

                 Department of Air Pollution Control         Emissions in both attainment and non-              Virginia Air Pollution Control Law
                                                            attainment areas

                 Department of Waste Management              Solid waste disposal (e.g., design and             Virginia Waste Management Act
                                                            siting of sanitary landfills)

                                                            Monitoring, transport, and disposal of             Virginia Waste Management Act
                                                            hazardous wastes

                                                            Siting of hazardous waste facilities               Virginia Waste Management Act

                                                            Clean up/recovery of hazardous waste               Virginia Waste Management Act
                                                           sites

                 Deoartment of Agriculture & Consumer        Manufacture, sale, application and storage         Virginia Pesticide Control Act
                 Serices/Pesticide Control Board             of pesticides

                 Q.!ari-ne Resources Commission              Filling and alteration of tidal wetlands           Virginia Wetlands Act
                                                           Alteration of/construction on primary              Coastal Primary Sand Dune
                                                           dunes                                              Protection Act

                 Department of Conservation and              Erosion and sediment control plan                  Virginia Erosion and Sediment
                 Recreation/Division of Soil and             required for land disturbing activities            Control Law
                 Water Conservation

                 COesapeake Bay Local Assistance             Designation (by localities) of                     Chesapeake Bay Preservation Act
                 Department                                  Chesapeake Bay Preservation Areas

                 Department of Game & Inland Fisheries       Taking of endangered species                       Virginia Endangered Species Act

                 Council on the Environment                  Coordinate review of state agency                  Virginia Environmental Quality Act
                                                           environmental reports












I





                                                                  2 4
     Having identified the number of the separate programs existing in3
Virginia and having spoken about the division of labor between agencies, it
is also important to identify a number of ways that these agencies
coordinate  their  activities.    Permit  applications  under  the  VirginiaI
Pollutant Discharge Elimination System, and the Virginia Wetlands Act
and   section  404/405   (federal  wetlands   provisions/water  quality
certification),  for example,  are  routinely  sent  for comment  to  other3
agencies.   The Virginia Department of Game  and  Inland Fisheries,' for
instance,  is very  actively  involved   in commenting  upon  proposed
streambed modifications and wetlands alterations, with particular
concern about their possible impact on fish and other wildlife. On the
other hand, the Department of Game and Inland Fisheries (DGIF) is not,3
according to a number of respondents, very involved (with recent
exceptions) in the permitting activities of the Air Pollution Control Board,
despite the fact that the air quality impacts on streams and wildlife couldI
be substantial.

     Another coordinating mechanism -which at this point is not beingI
used - is a special provision in the Code allowing the Council on the
Environment to coordinate multiple agency permits for a single project or
proposal.   Referred to as the Multiple Permit Coordination  Process,  it
allows an applicant of a project requiring permits from multiple agencies
to make a single application to the Council.  After receiving and reviewing3
the application the Council may, at its discretion, "consolidate, coordinate
and expedite the permit review process including but not limited to the
elimination of redundant or overlapping procedures; consolidation of anyI
formal hearings that may be required into one hearing; and coordination of
the processing of the permits where both federal and state requirements
are involved" (section 10.1-1206).  The hearing for a multiple permit mustI
be conducted within sixty days of application and action by each relevant
board, commission or state agency is to be completed within ninety days.
This mechanism, however, appears entirely procedural in nature, allowingI
for some streamlining of the application review process but doing little
to  promote  substantive  cross-agency  decisionmaking.    Indeed,  the3
provisions explicitly protect the authority of each individual agency to
make its own permit decision based on its own judgments. In the words of
the state code: "Judgments of the merits of each  required permit shallI
remain the responsibility of each respective board, commission, or state
agency."   (Section 10.1-1206). As well, a 1977 opinion of the Virginia
Attorney Generals Office concludes that an agency's permit decision couldI
be legally challenged if it includes in its decision record information not
directly relevant to its regulatory charge.3





                                                                               2 5
 I           ~~~~For example, the record upon which the State Air Pollution Control Board makes its
              decision must not contain evidence relevant to whether the State Water Control Board
              should issue its NPIDES permit. If such evidence is present in both records, the decision
             of either Board would be subject to challenge that it did not base its decision upon
              information relevant only to that decision. (Ryan, 1977).

 3           ~~~According to state officials, this multiple permits review procedure
        has never been used since its creation.  One industry attorney indicated
        that there was considerable uncertainty about the process and a
I     ~ ~perception that it was generally safer simply to go through the usual (and
        better understood)  agency-by-agency  review  process.   Several  people
        suggested that the consolidated review idea was a good one but the law
        should be changed to make it workable.
 *           ~~~There is also currently underway in Virginia an  EPA  Facility-Wide
        Pollution Prevention Project, which may represent a model for future
        cross-media impacts management. The Amoco Project is a joint initiative
I     ~ ~between Amoco and EPA at the Amoco Yorktown refinery.  This refinery is
        a study site to inventory current releases into the environment; develop
        possible source reduction, recycling and emission control options-, assess
I     ~ ~the relative impacts,  benefits and costs associated with these options;
        and identify present and potential barriers to implementing the options. A
        key feature of the project is the opportunity to address issues which
I     ~ ~cross media boundaries between air, water and land.    Representatives
        from the Departments of Air Pollution Control, the Water Control, Board
        and the Department of Waste Management are involved in a project
        workgroup that developed and is judging the options for pollution
        prevention at the Yorktown refinery.

              The Virginia Department of Waste Management has also recently
        received a two-year grant from the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
U     ~ ~to  develop  a  program  to  promote  interagency  pollution  prevention.
        Referred to as "Virginia Interagency Multimedia Pollution Prevention
        Project," the program will utilize an interagency team to coordinate
I      ~ ~pollution  prevention  activities  between  the  Departments  of  Waste
        Management and Air Pollution Control, and the Virginia Water Control
        Board.   Among  other functions, the team will identify pollution prevention
        opportunities, promote coordination of pollution prevention activities in
        these different agencies, and promote education and training both within
3       ~~the agencies and within polluting industry.   A pollution prevention policy
        statement has been recently approved by the Directors of the Departments
        of Waste Management and Air Pollution Control, and the State Water

        Control Board  (Kenneally-Baxter, 1991).  These initiatives, while still in




                                                                  2 61

the early stages, hold considerable promise for reducing cross-media
cumulative impacts.

     For some of the individuals interviewed for this study, one possibleI
solution to these problems was some type of governmental reorganization
which would better integrate and coordinate the implementation of these
different  environmental  laws,  taking  a  more  holistic approach  to theI
management and protection of the State's environment.    Some individuals
had specific suggestions about other states which had undertaken such 
reorganizations, and a discussion of several of the more promising ofU
these is contained in Section V.

     Regarding Virginia's existing legal framework, a number ofI
interviewees, particularly those representing regulatory agencies, pointed
to legal obstacles that would prevent decisionmaking based to a greater5
degree on cumulative impacts.   While this study did not undertake an
exhaustive legal analysis, we did review the major state statutes and
regulations and confirmed that there is a general lack of exp'licit legal
authority for considering cumulative impacts. The Virginia State Attorney
General's (AG) office, along with a number of other attorneys, was
contacted  in an  effort to clarify the  legal  situation.   Our  interviewsI
confirmed that there was  little or   no specific statutory language, that
they were aware of, allowing or compelling agencies to consider
cumulative impacts, and no case law dealing specifically with the
cumulative impacts question. No applicant had challenged a permit denial
or conditions based on any agency rationale of cumulative impacts.   No3
environmental groups had sought to overturn agency action by claiming
that cumulative impacts had been inadequately considered.  Though there
is not statutory language  expressly dealing with cumulative  impacts,  itI
was suggested that many of the existing permitting programs did contain
implicit cumulative impacts provisions, in that they involve 'permit
allocations based on permissible loads or limits.  Moreover, the view wasI
expressed that the courts have historically given wide discretion to
regulatory agencies involving single-media permit decisions and will tend
to give agencies the benefit of the doubt when a reasonable case can beI
made for a standard or permit condition.  From a legal defensibility point
of view, however, incorporation of explicit language allowing or requiring3
consideration of cumulative impacts would be favored as a way to
substantially buttress the legal position of agencies.

     A number of other more specific observations and concerns were
expressed   about  particular  environmental  resource  sectors.  The





                                                                             2 7
I       ~~paragraphs to follow provide a more detailed examination of cumulative
        impact issues as they relate to particular resources or media.



                                      WETLANDS
              Historically, wetlands have been a resource strongly susceptible to
        the gradual nibbling effect. The filling of an acre here and an acre there
I      ~ ~might  not  seem  to fundamentally  threaten  or jeopardize  the  overall
        resource base, or the integrity of the larger ecosystem of which wetlands
3 ~~are a part, but gradually over time the losses can be dramatic.

              Virginia has had a state Wetlands Act since 1972. Under the Act's
        provisions a permit is required before filling or otherwise altering tidal
        wetlands  under state jurisdiction.   Responsibility for issuing permits at
        the state level lies with the Virginia Marine Resources Commission
3       ~~(VMRC), although local governments may take over these responsibilities
        by creating local wetlands boards. VMRC retains appeal authority. Permit
        decisions are to be made consistent with a set of state wetlands
3       ~~guidelines  which  stipulate,  among  other  things,  that  alteration  to
        wetlands should be discouraged except in the case of water-dependent
        uses and where no feasible alternative locations exist.   State wetlands
I      ~ ~are  classified  according  to their function  and  productivity,  and  the
        guidelines  mandate  that  alterations  should  be  directed  to  lower-
        productivity classes.   There  is no  explicit mention  of the cumulative
I      ~ ~impacts  in the guidelines.  However,  cumulative  impact consideration  is
        believed by some to have entered the decisionmaking of local wetlands
        board members in a number of instances.  Pier construction and marina
        expansion, for instance, have been denied because of concern that too
        much pressure would be put on a creek.   As well, there is the general
*       ~~feeling expressed on the part of many that while there is some variation
        .between the local boards, the Virginia Wetlands Act is fairly restrictive
        and fairly stringently enforced.
              Complicating things is the fact that there are two primary sets of
        regulatory  requirements  for  tidal  wetlands--the  provisions  of  the
I      ~ ~Virginia Wetlands Act and the federal Section 404 requirements, under the
        Clean Water Act. The federal 404 wetlands protection program mandates
        consideration of the cumulative impacts of wetlands degradation in its
        permit review but Corps of Engineers officials indicate that as a practical
        matter cumulative impacts are generally not identified or considered. For
3       ~~tidal wetlands,  there  is a perception  that the  Virginia standards  are
        tougher than the federal standards and some regional permits have been




                                                                  2 81

issued which stipulate that where a permit is issued by VMRC, Section
404 approval is also granted.1

     There is also concern about impacts on non-tidal wetlands, which
are not regulated under the Virginia Wetlands Act. While there have been
attempts in recent years to enact similar provisions which would apply to
non-tidal wetlands, these have so far been unsuccessful.   Attention to
nontidal wetlands was given added momentum by the creation of the
Nontidal Wetlands Roundtable in 1989. In January 1990 the Roundtable
issued its final report recommending, among other things: expansion ofI
funding and staffing for 401 certification;  decertification of certain U.S.
Army Corps of Engineers nationwide permits deemed to undermine
protection  efforts  in  the  state;  promotion  of  greater  educational,
incentive-based   and  non-regulatory  approaches  to nontidal wetlands
protection; undertaking of a comprehensive study of the impact of existing
state programs on nontidal wetlands, and the incorporation into all state
programs of a recognition of the importance of protecting these resources
(including the need to minimize impacts, and to provide full compensation3
when nontidal wetlands are destroyed or altered, etc.); and the need to
establish a current inventory of these resources and to undertake research
on  the  basic  structure  and  function  of  nontidal  wetlands  (SeeI
Commonwealth of Virginia, 1990).

     Regulation of non-tidal wetlands is at present addressed  in twoI
ways: by reliance on the Section 404 provisions of the Corps of Engineers
and through the 401 water quality certification procedure under Virginia's
water quality program. Reliance on 404 has been criticized and is seen by
some as problematic for a variety of reasons including the frequency with
which permits are issued.  A  very small percentage of permit requests
are turned down outright.  (See General Accounting Office, 1988.)  There
are a number of exclusions and exemptions in the program (e.g.,  normal
farming practices).  As well, there are several nationwide permits whichI
exempt from review wetlands alterations of a certain type or size (e.g.
filling parcels less than 10 acres in size) though Virginia is seeking to
modify this for conversions in the state.  (For a general review of theI
issues associated with the federal 404 program see Conservation
Foundation, 1988).  Recent changes in the federal wetlands delineation
manual will also substantially reduce the amount of acreage considered
wetlands under the 404 program and thus subject to cumulative impact
consideration. A number of people interviewed are concerned that the3
Virginia Water Control Board still lacks the personnel sufficient to
undertake 401  review in all cases needing careful attention.   Extensive
assessment of cumulative impacts would add to the workload of already





                                                                            29

~I      bordered docets   Staff to carry out 401  certification  at VWCB  was
        increased in 1990 and then reduced.   Now we understand staff numbers
        may be higher by the end of the year. It should also be acknowledged that
        the full burden of non-tidal wetland protection does not fall on SWCB
        alone since non-tidal wetlands receive some level of added protection
        under the Chesapeake Bay Preservation Act.

             There currently  exist several mechanisms for coordinating review
        of federal and state wetlands permits, and which facilitate interaction
        between different state agencies and consideration of cross-media
        impacts.   For most proposed alterations to tidal wetlands and subaqeous
        lands, the VMRC takes the lead and sends out applications to other state
        agencies for comment.   These agencies include the State Water Control
        Board,  the  Game  Commission,  the  Department  of Conservation  and
        Recreation, and the Health Department's Bureau of Shellfish Sanitation.
        Concern about particular proposals and suggestions for mitigation, can be
3I      submitted  in writing  and  agencies  are encouraged  to present their
        concerns at regular Commission meetings if they choose to. Where these
        proposals are not covered by a nationwide or regional Corps of Engineers
        permit, the Corps  undertake a similar process  of coordinated  review.
        Specifically the Corps holds a joint permitting meeting monthly to solicit
        comments from federal and state agencies.  These monthly meetings are
        usually attended by VMRC, the Council on the Environment, SWCB and Game
        and Inland Fisheries staff.  These sorts of joint application and review
        processes represent one of the directions in which the state could move in
        order to achieve better coordinated and more comprehensive review of
        permit applications.
            Wetlands mitigation, including the creation of new wetlands or the
        restoration  of damaged  wetlands  in exchange  for permitting  certain
        wetlands  alterations,  is another  issue  of significance  to cumulative
        impacts management.   In theory, if mitigation is required on an acre-for-
        acre basis, "nibbling" does not occur, i.e. there is no net cumulative
        impact.  However, recent studies suggest that while it may be possible to
        replicate certain functions of natural wetlands with considerable success
        (e.g. their stormwater containment functions) other functions (e.g. their
        importance as habitat for wildlife) are less replaceable (see Kusler and
        Kentula,  1989; Zedler,  1991).    Cumulative  impacts  management  for
        wetland alterations in the future will have to resolve this mitigation
~I  ~    question.

             In neither the federal nor state program are wetlands permitting
        decisions based on larger basin-wide or statewide plans. The Virginia
        Institute for Marine Science (VIMS) has been working on developing a





                                                                     30

functional analysis system on a regional landscape level which might
provide more guidance for such permit decisions in the future (Hershner,
1991).

     Part of the problem with the wetland management, as identified in
Table 1 above, has been the lack of baseline information.  Neither the
VMRC  nor local wetlands boards have been in a position until recently to
place their individual wetlands decisions in the context of the larger
picture of how much has been converted and is being converted in  a
cumulative fashion.  A pilot project, -recently initiated by the VIMS, may
do much to correct this data deficiency. VIMS has established a wetlands
database which contains information about the extent of alteration
allowed through wetlands permits.   This information is also coded  by
watershed and the types of wetlands affected. The first summary data
available is for 1988 and is contained in a recent VIMS  report entitled
Cumulative  Imoacts  of  Shoreline  Construction  Activities  on  Tidal
Wetlands (VIMS, 1990).



                                TIDAL WETLANDS !MV'vA.TS
                                  WATERSHED S2'MMARY
                                                       LEGEND)
                                                       ~   VogcEtte(!
      Table 3         .....








                                            1       4~ ~ ~ ~~~~~,' ---"- ..-

                          AC  OBIN ES58 ESS Nhle  aFa'l  PO  58   J~ Yt 1    'RR
                                   WATERSHED
                                         TtI  v-g(r'et:'~5.~-Tg    n o .0 Bgt~t~~~ . O





     Table 3 above is an example of the type of summary information
generated from the database. For 1 988 a total area of 21 acres of tidal
wetlands was altered by permit, with the greatest impacts occurring in
the Southern Bayshore, James River, and Middle Peninsula watershed units.





                                                                             3 1
 I           ~~~The VMRC also has responsibility for implementation of the Coastal
        Primary Sand Duns Protection Act. This has potential for managing the
        cumulative  impacts of shorefront development.   Similar in structure to
        the wetlands provisions, the act requires a permit for major activities in
        dune and beach areas. Among other things, the act prohibits the placement
        of structures seaward of the crest of the primary coastal dune.  The issue
        of cumulative impacts has been explicitly considered by VMRC in
        evaluating proposals to allow second-home construction on Cedar Island, a
5       ~~seven-mile long barrier island on the seaside coast of Accomack County.
        A major point of concern has been the cumulative impact of development,
        and development-related activities (e.g. sand fencing) on the erosion of
U     ~ ~the island.  VIMS prepared a special study of the island which concluded
        that "the long term cumulative adverse impacts of building on the island
        will be a continued narrowing of the active sand strip and an accelerated
I      ~ ~erosion rate due to the greater loss of sand offshore." (VIMS, 1986, p.6).
        Consideration of these types of cumulative impacts led VMRC  to adopt a
        special "Barrier Island Policy," in 1986 placing certain additional
        restrictions on development in these sensitive locations (e.g. restrictions
        to shore-hardening structures, roads, etc.; see VMRC, 1986).  An even more
3       ~~restrictive set of barrier island quidelines were adopted by VMRC  in the
        Fall  of  1990.    Those  guidelines  specifically  cite  the  problem  of
        "cumulative  and  secondary  impacts."    Among  other  things,  these
I      ~ ~supplemental guidelines call for restrictions to the density and  size of
        barrier island structures, erosion-based setbacks for structures and
        septic tanks, restrictions on the use of automobiles largely modeled after
I      ~ ~the Accomack County's Barrier Island Zoning District; (see VMRC, 1990).
        This explicit mention of cumulative and secondary impacts may be a
        starting point for similar provisions in other components of state wetland
        policies and programs.

                                     AIR QUALITY

 3            ~~~Protection  of air quality  in Virginia  is the  responsibility  of the
        Virginia Air  Pollution  Control  Board.    Virginia  is required  under  the
        federal Clean Air Act to restrict emissions from point sources to achieve
I      ~ ~National Ambient Air Quality Standards.   Virginia is required under the
        Act to prepare a State Implementation Plan (SIP) which stipulates how
        the state plans to bring air quality into compliance with the National
        Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS).
 3            ~~~For areas where the air is already cleaner than the national ambient
        standards the state must impose restrictions which prevent significant





                                                                 '32ï¿½

deterioration of these areas ("PSD" requirements). Fortunately, much of1
the state is covered by these clean air/PSD zones.  For these areas the
federal Clean Air Act mandates that air quality not be permitted to
deteriorate beyond certain allowable increments. The allowable incrementI
depends upon the type of land area affected.   The extent of allowable
deterioration is smallest for Class I lands which include national parks
and wilderness areas. Two of these Class I areas exist in Virginia--the
Shenandoah National Park and the James River Face Wilderness area. (For
a review of these provisions of the federal and state air programs see
Mays and Valentine, 1990).

     For non-attainment areas of the state (i.e., where the ambient levels3
are above the NAAQS) new point sources are subject to an offset
requirement. No new major point source is permitted unless an offset can
be obtained from an existing source for the specific pollutant of concern.I
This has the effect of preventing the creation of additional cumulative
impacts or capping cumulative impacts in non-attainment areas. While it
could be said that the underlying rationale of both the PSD and non-
attainment area programs is essentially one of preventing additive and
other forms of cumulative impacts, there appear to be a number of
limitations surrounding these programs which constrain their potential.
     One major problem is that much of the deterioration in air quality in3
recent years has been the result of non-point sources, largely from
automobiles, rather than the point sources covered by this requirement.
New emission inspection programs in several areas will help, but critics3
argue that the state has not yet been able to effectively address this
mobile aspect of the air quality problem. 

     Another limitation in addressing cumulative impacts occurs when
several permit applications are in the pipeline at the same time.   The
current system is not well adapted for this situation as has been shown by
the intense debate over the large number of co-generation plants proposed
for PSD/clean air areas in the western portion of the state-. Particularly3
vocal in expressing concern over possible long term cumulative impacts
has been the National Park Service, which is worried about the potential
impacts  on  visibility and  other ecological  effects  in the ShenandoahI
National Park. The Department of Game and Inland Fisheries has expressed
significant concern about incremental damage to mountain streams which
over recent years have seen declines in trout populations and changes inI
invertebrate life that may be due to acid deposition and other air
pollutants.   Members  of several environmental organizations have been3





                                                                              3 3
I       ~~critical of the state's inability to consider the total expected  effects of
        all of these different co-generation plants when finally on-line.

 1            ~~~As of the Spring of 1991 there were some 17 power plants proposed
        or in the planning stages. In evaluating each application, the Air Board has
*       ~~considered the effects of each plant as an increment added to all existing
        plants.  In other words, they have addressed the additive effect of each
        plant to the total but not the effect of all plants combined.   The  Air
*       ~~Board's  position  is that it has  no  authority to consider the potential
        effects of other point sources and is restricted to considering individual
        permit requests as they are submitted.  They also point out that a certain
I      ~ ~number  of applications are approved  but the facility is never  built or
        developed  for economic  or a variety of other reasons.   Thus  to treat
        applications as if they were all existing would not be reasonable. The Air
         Board has also responded that it lacks the modelling capability to fully
        determine the effects of these plants on the Park and other sensitive
I       ~~areas and has requested EPA to assist in developing such models.
              A positive outcome from one of these controversial permits is
5 ~~illustrated by the recent agreement over the proposed Multitrade 79
         megawatt power plant at Altavista, in Pittsylvania County. The plant was
         issued a permit in April, 1991 but it was shortly appealed. Subsequently a
I      ~ ~settlement  agreement  was ,reached  which  provided  for  substantial
         reductions in pollutant levels by Multitrade in exchange for the dropping
        of the appeal.  It is reported that Multitrade has agreed not to burn coal at
I      ~ ~its new plant (reducing sulfur emissions by 87%  and nitrogen oxides by
        20% from permit approved levels), to purchase pollution offsets from a
        polluting plant in Hopewell (ensuring permanent shutdown of the Aqualon
        Corporation boiler, and reducing the new Multitrade facility's emissions
        by a reported 150%), and to contribute funds for future air quality studies
3       ~~in the  state.   To  the appellants,  this agreement  indicates that more
        stringent controls an power plant emissions are possible.   The question,
         under existing arrangements at least, is whether the Air Board itself
I      ~ ~would be able to negotiate with applicants the way  that the appellants
        were in arriving at the settlement.  Opinion is divided on that question.

 I            ~~~While the Air Board's regulations do not appear to explicitly mention
        consideration of "cumulative" impacts, they do call for the Board to
        analyze the "secondary" air quality impacts associated with proposals in
         PSID  areas.   The  regulations call for permit applicants to include an
        analysis of "'the impairment to visibility, soils and vegetation' taking into
3        ~~account  associated  commercial,  residential,  industrial  and  growth
        associated with the source. The impact of that growth on air quality must





                                                                  3 41

also be shown.' (Mays and Valentine, 1990, p.5-18). None of the people3
interviewed stated that this provision had come into play in a significant
way but its existence is noted.

     Some of the people interviewed would like to see the Air Board take
a more proactive comprehensive management stance - the consequence of
which would be reduced impacts of all sorts including cumulative.   For
them such a strategy ought to include, among other things, consideration
of a range of alternatives for providing energy, including efforts to
promote energy conservation measures.  They argue that when additional
plants are needed some effort ought to be made to locate them in places
where their air quality impacts will be minimized. However, it seems
clear that much of the substance of such a larger strategy, including
promoting energy conservation, is really beyond the mission (and likely
authority) of an agency like the Air Board.  It was suggested by oneI
interviewee that these issues were in the domain of, and ought to be
addressed by, the State Corporation Commission.

     The air quality issue also illustrates the inherent limitations of
state-by- state approaches, in that a significant percentage of the
pollutants coming into Virginia are generated in other adjacent states,
especially West Virginia and  North Carolina.   The  interstate nature of
many environmental problems indicates the importance of maintaining and
strengthening national and multi-state initiatives.   On  this point the Air
Board and many other groups would likely agree.

     While the Air Board has been in the hot seat by virtue of the unusual
circumstances surrounding the multiple proposed co-generation facilities
- most permits are not this controversial - this situation does highlightU
some of the inherent limits of a system by which states and the federal
government are now managing the environment.   Another such area is
water.

                   WATER QUALITY AND QUANTITY

     Cumulative impacts are also a potential major concern in the areas1
of water quality and  quantity.   The  quality of Virginia's surface  and
groundwater resources can be negatively affected by a variety of
activities and practices which generate both point and non-point sourceI
pollutants.    Point  sources  include  industrial  facilities  and  municipal
wastewater plants which discharge into streams and  rivers.   Non-pointI





                                                                            3 5
I      ~~pollutants  include agricultural  runoff, urban  runoff, sedimentation  from
        construction sites, and acid deposition, among others.

 I           ~~~Virginia has  a  number  of regulatory and  other programs  which
        address these types of water quality impacts.   The greatest share of
*       ~~resources goes into   managing and controlling point source discharges.
        The State Water Control Board (SWCB) requires a permit for effluent
        emissions into surface waters, as mandated by the federal Clean Water
I     ~~Act and  the State Water  Control  Law.   More  specifically,  the state
        operates the Virginia Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (VPDES),
3 ~~and restricts permitted discharges based on a combination of national
        technology-based standards, and state water quality standards (the
        federal Clean Water Act requires discharges to be based on whichever is
        more stringent).  The state has also adopted an "anti-degradation policy"
        which is intended to ensure that waters that were cleaner than the
        established standards be maintained in this condition (e.g. Mays and
3       ~~Valentine,  1990).

              The state water quality standards and anti-degradation policy
*       ~~represent an effort to identify desired uses for surface water bodies and
        to restrict the overall level of pollutant loading to ensure the protection
        of these uses.  Water basin plans also exist for each of the state's river
I     ~ ~basins (with the exception of the Rappahannock River) and these are used
        by the SWOB in establishing discharge limits. In these ways, the existing-
        water quality framework does incorporate the concept of cumulative
        impacts even if that term itself is not used.
 3           ~~~Some  individuals  interviewed  for this study  have  been  critical,
        however, of several features of the implementation of the system.   In
        assessing the likely water quality effects of a proposed point source,
3       ~~modelling is required but apparently only for oxygen demanding pollutants.
        Other pollutants are typically involved in such point sources but the
        required impact modelling has been described as too rudimentary to
I      ~~adequately assess them.  Models, it has been pointed out, are best at
        estimating impacts to waters close-by, and not very good at predicting
        downstream  effects.    Heavy  reliance  on  establishing  substance-by-
        substance control standards (e.g., for toxics) may also overlook the
        interactive chemical and biological effects of different   combinations of
3       ~~pollutants. Representatives of environmental groups that we  interviewed
        also felt that the standards established for certain pollutants, such as
        dioxin, were  too  lenient.   They  frequently  cited the anti-degradation
*       ~~policy as a potentially useful tool for controlling cumulative impacts but
        they also saw it as as not very stringently enforced by the SWCB in its





                                                                   3 61

decisionmaking.   Industry does  not generally share this view and  h'as
challenged state regulations which it finds excessive.
     One important feature of the present point source control system is3
the SWCB's Toxic Monitoring and Management Program. Under Virginia's
program, point source discharges are  surveyed for the presence of 129
toxic substances - those on EPA's priority list of toxics - and subject toI
specific discharge  limitations.   In addition, a "whole  effluent toxicity"
test is required when  such substances are found.   This test mandates
minimum survival standards (a certain percentage of organisms must
survive exposure) for discharges.  These types of toxicity tests are able to
gauge  the  synergestic  and  interactive  effects  of  different  toxicI
substances found together in a point discharge itself.  Where an industry
or other discharger fails the whole effluent toxicity tests (or where
pollutants are found to exceed specific toxic standards), the facility must3
develop a toxic reduction program and long term toxic monitoring. While
the toxic monitoring and management program is an effort aimed at
considering  the  potential  interactive  effects  of toxic  pollutants,  thisI
-approach  is itself not without its limitations.   The  system  is generally
unable to consider the synergisms and interactions of the discharge with
other toxics in the waterbody though the SWCB has been able to make
adjustments for this in some cases.

     Non-point water pollution is an area where a number of interviewees
expressed concern about cumulative impacts.   While much progress has
been made over the years in regulating and controlling point sources such3
as industrial factories and municipal sewage treatment plants, there is a
feeling that much progress remains to be made in the non-point area
before it catches up to the level of protection achieved for point sources.U
This  observation  is not  unique  to  Virginia.    The  Chesapeake  Say
Foundation's recent comprehensive assessment of the condition of the
Chesapeake, for instance, concludes that agricultural runoff (e.g.
fertilizers), runoff from construction sites, and urban stormwater runoff
are major causes of water quality degradation in the Bay and are largely
unaddressed. (Horton, 1991). Furthermore, according to the report, as
population growth in the Bay's multi-state watershed continues the non-
point source problem will also grow. In the words of the study:3

           We have not even come close to being able to develop the Bay's
watershed without causing substantial and lasting degradation of
adjacent waters.  Development is accelerating, and there is no reason yet
to believe losses of water quality are not going to accelerate along with
it. (Horton,1991, p.66).





                                                                           3 7

             The State of Virginia has made substantial progress in this area,
        most recently through the enactment and early steps to implement the
I     ~ ~Chesapeake Bay Preservation Act, and through the preparation of a state
        non-point source control plan as called for under the federal Clean Water
        Act. Some are critical of the Bay Act, though, and question whether its
        heavy local-orientation will result in adequate non-point controls.   Some
        of the specific provisions of the Bay Act guidelines are also cause for
        concern.   For instance, while many people feel that agricultural runoff is
        the single most significant factor in degradation of Bay waters this
        activity is partially exempted from some of the key provisions (e.g., while
3       ~~a 100 foot shoreline buffer is required adjacent to waterways this buffer
        can be reduced to 25 feet for agricultural operations where a farm
        management  plan is prepared).   Control of non-point pollutants is also
U      ~ ~provided   through   Virginia's  erosion   and   sedimentation   control
        requirements. Under the Virginia Erosion and Sedimentation Act, localities
        must adopt minimum local erosion and sediment control ordinances.
I      ~ ~However,   these  programs   have  historically  suffered  from  great
        inconsistency in their stringency and implementation. (For a review of
5 ~~local non-point programs in Virginia see Cox and Herson, 1987).

             Now mechanisms also exist to promote more effective local and
3       ~~regional  control  of  stormwater  runoff.    Stormwater  management
        legislation was passed by the General Assembly in 1989 giving local
        governments  the  authority  to  enact  local  stormwater  management
I      ~ ~ordinances and  mandating   the preparation of stormwater management
        plans  for  state  agency  projects.    Local  stormwater  management
        ordinances  are  not  mandatory,  however,  and  the  laws  automatically
I      ~ ~exempt  certain  activities  from  coverage  (including  agricultural  and
        forestry activities, single family residences not part of a subdivision, and
*       ~~land development involving less than an acre of land).

             Protection of groundwater is also a concern in Virginia. Under the
3 ~~Virginia Groundwater Act of 1973, the SWOB has the authority to
        designate "groundwater management areas" and to control the withdrawal
        of groundwater in these areas through a permit requirement. Groundwater
I      ~ ~management areas have been designated in the York Peninsula, Tidewater
        and Eastern Shore areas of the state. This mechanism provides the state
        with some degree of control over the use of groundwater resources.
I      ~ ~However, extensive exemptions and grandfather clauses reduce the state's
        ability to manage cumulative impacts as evidenced by recent reports by
        SWCB to the Water Commission showing the consequences which could
        result if all currently permitted and grandfathered users were to





                                                                 3 81
withdraw the amount  they are allowed  under current laws.   PossibleI
changes in this system are under study.
     The  potential for excessive  withdrawal  from  the state's surface3
waters has also been a concern and is a potentially important category of
cumulative impacts. Legislation in 1989 expanded substantially the
State's control over surface water withdrawals.   Specifically, the SWCB1
is now authorized to designate surface water management areas where
permits would be required for withdrawals exceeding 300,000 gallons per
month. Among other things, permits would be conditioned on protection of
certain minimum instreamn flow levels. (For a review of the legislation
see Collins and Dotson, 1989).  These provisions hold the potential for3
substantially expanding the State's ability to manage the cumulative
effects of development and growth on sensitive riparian ecosystems.  The

regulations to implement the program are still being developed.

                        LAND USE CHANGESI

     Because land use decisionmaking is decentralized to the local level,
a number of people expressed concern about "larger than local" or crossI
boundary cumulative impacts. In many parts of the state, perhaps most
evident  in the  high  growth  corridor from    Northern  Virginia to the3
Tidewater, local governments are making land use decisions, from
approvals of rezoning requests to subdivision approvals, that together
result in cumulative  environmental  changes  of substantial proportions.3
From an understandable self interest standpoint, local governments in
making such land use decisions tend to focus on the more immediate
benefits of development including tax base expansion, jobs and economicI
activity, rather than the cumulative long term or adverse consequences
that they  might  have  on  nearby  localities or the region.   Local self
interest recognizes the beneficial economic multiplier of development butI
affords little attention to ecological impacts somewhat removed from the
immediate  setting.   (For a discussion  of some  of the  philosophical3
dimensions of such a view, see Section 11.)

     Some provisions in state and local law do currently exist to addressI
the cumulative effects of local land use decisions, but many feel that
these are inadequate.   Specifically, local governments  in Virginia are
required  by  law  to  prepare  a  comprehensive  plan  and  subdivisionI
ordinances. Zoning is optional though most counties have by now adopted
some  form of zoning.   Some,  however,  are critical of Virginia's local
planning system because it does not require zoning and other land use





                                                                           3 9
I      ~~implementation decisions to be consistent with the local comprehensive
        plan.   There  is no state plan or policies with which  local plans are
3      ~~required to be consistent except to a degree in the Bay Act jurisdictions.

             As indicated above, the enactment by the General Assembly of the
5 ~~Chesapeake Bay Preservation Act in 1988 represented a major expansion
        of control over land development activities in the state, especially in
        coastal areas.   Under this act Tidewater localities must delineate and
I     ~ ~manage Chesapeake Bay Preservation Areas (Resource Protection Areas
        and Resource Management Areas), consistent with criteria promulgated by
        the Chesapeake Bay Local Assistance Board, also created by the Act.
        Resource Protection Areas, for example, generally include tidal wetlands,
        connected non-tidal wetlands, tidal shorelands, and a buffer zone around
        these  areas.     Once  protection areas  are delineated,  localities must
        manage development consistent with a set of performance standards.
        While the program is still very much in its infancy, some are optimistic
3       ~~that the  goals   will be  achieved.    Others  are  concerned  that the
        requirements may not be as effective at managing and minimizing
        cumulative coastal land use changes as they would hope.

             Many cumulative impacts of land use actions are most effectively
        dealt with at regional levels.   While Virginia does employ a system of
I      ~ ~regional planning district commissions (PDC's) the authority and influence
        of these bodies has been quite limited. Several recent efforts to establish
        regional environmental/growth management initiatives may better
        address cumulative impacts and suggest important new directions.  While
        still in their initial stages two such initiatives can be cited:  the Thomas
        Jefferson Regional Planning District's ongoing Study to Preserve and
        Assess the Regional Environment (TJSPARE) and the Chesapeake Bay
        Foundation's Lower Rappahannock River regional planning initiative.
I      ~ ~Effective control and management of the cumulative impacts of land use
        changes will likely require greater emphasis on these types of regional
        assessment and planning approaches.  Such approaches from other states
        are described in Section V.
             Many land use changes are largely uncontrolled in the sense of
        requiring  a  specific  permit.   These  include  loss  of wildlife  habitat,
        harvesting and conversion of forests to other uses, and agricultural
        activities, among others.





                                                                   4 01

                      WILDLIFE AND HABITAT

     While there have been few comprehensive studies or analyses of
changes in wildlife and wildlife habitat in Virginia, there is a concern on
the part of state wildlife officials that incremental development and
other land use pressures in recent years have resulted in substantial
habitat  alteration  and  destruction.  Wildlife  management  representsi
another area where there may also be numerous and long term  indirect
effects of human alterations that may not be apparent by evaluating a
single project.  Over the years reductions in fish populations have been
witnessed in rivers like the James due to a combination of the effects of
population growth and construction of dams and other obstructions.  This3
is not as great a problem now as in the past because of the construction of
fish ladders and other mitigation measures. The reduction in fish in turn
affects populations  of wildlife,  like the  Bald  Eagle  and  Osprey,  thatI
depend on this food source. Use of pesticides and insecticides may have
major cumulative effects an the state's wildlife, but is poorly understood.
There has been gradual yet significant loss of fore'stlands on the EasternI
Shore, habitat very important for a variety of migratory bird species.  The
Chesapeake Bay Foundation's recent comprehensive assessment of the Bay
found, among other things, a significant decline in the diversity of
waterfowl (e.g., redhead ducks and American Widgeon; see Horton, 1991).
There are potentially many of these kinds of wildlife "ripple effects."  It3
should also be noted that some species such as deer may be developing
populations larger than desired as a result of reducing predators and other
natural population controls so cumulative impacts do not always have the3
effect of reducing populations - balance rather than numbers appears to be
the key management objective.

     Primary responsibility for wildlife resources in the state lies with
the Department of Game and Inland Fisheries. Historically the focus of
DGIF has been on managing and regulating game species, such as white
tail deer and the black bear. The department also implements a non-gamne
program  and  regulates the take of endangered  and threatened wildlife3
under Virginia's Endangered Species Act.  Responsibility over endangered
flora in Virginia falls to the Endangered Plants Division in the Department
of Agriculture.
     State control over habitat alteration is quite limited. Conversion of
a forested  habitat to a pastureland  habitat, for instance,  is generallyI
beyond the regulatory control of any agency, unless a rare or endangered
species is directly affected, and even then the agency's practical level of
control is quite limited.





                                                                             4 1

              Despite  the  limited  jurisdiction  over  habitat  alteration  the
        Department is involved in non-regulatory activities, including the
        education of farmers and landowners about wildlife issues (e.g., initiation
        of a stewardship program), managing certain state wildlife areas, working
        with ASCS to en-sure that crop reserve lands are converted to wildlife
        habitat, and the propagation and reintroduction of species such as the
        peregrine falcon, among other activities.

             The Virginia Department of Conservation and Recreation is also
        involved in management of wildlife resources through its Natural Heritage
I     ~ ~Division.   The  Division maintains a computerized database of rare and
        endangered species of both plants and animals, as well as exemplary
        natural communities, and is frequently called upon to assist in identifying
        potential species and habitat impacts of proposed projects in the state
        (e.g., power transmission lines). The Division is also involved in
        conducting more detailed fi~eld surveys of rare species and natural
        communities at the local level, under contract with local governments.
        While relatively little of this local work has been completed, the Division
*       ~~plans to become much more involved in local planning and management
        activities. The Division recognizes the need to assist local governments in
        identifying  appropriate  biodiversity  conservation   alternatives  and
I     ~ ~developing   conservation   strategies  (e. g.,  integrating   biodiversity
        conservation more directly into local comprehensive plans and land use
*       ~~controls) to manage impacts to heritage values.

             Another potentially important set of cumulative impacts from a
        wildlife  perspective  are  the  effects  of  various  pesticides  and
        insecticides.   Over  a  period  of time,  these  can  have  a  potentially
        significant  affect  on  wildlife  population.   In the  Virginia  framework,
*       ~~responsibility for regulating these types of substances falls to the State's
        relatively new Pesticide Control Board (created. under the 1989 Virginia
        Pesticide Control Act).  In the Board's short period of existence it has so
I      ~ ~far taken few actions.   However, it has been given the power to ban or
        severely control the use of certain pesticides and consequently has
        domain  over a   potentially very  important type of cumulative  impact.
I      ~ ~Recently the Board took the notable action of banning the sale or use of
        granular carbofuran, a systemic crop insecticide shown to kill songbirds
        and  raptors.   In the future, the Board will be developing  a Pesticide
        Management Plan for the state under an EPA initiated program which may
        become mandatory in the future for certain specific pesticides.  This plan
3       ~~may provide a vehicle for addressing cumulative impacts.





                                                                  4 21

                 ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REVIEW 

     When the U.S. Congress enacted the National Environmental Policy
Act (NEPA) in 1969 mandating the preparation of environmental impact
statements  for  major  federal  actions  or  projects  with  potentially
significant environmental  impacts,  the  notion  of environmental  impactI
review was a new one. Since that time a number of states have enacted
their own "little NEPAs", imposing similar environmental impact review
requirements  for state actions or projects.   (e. g., s e eRenz, 1984).I
Virginia has adopted similar provisions under the Virginia Environmental
Impacts Reports Act. State agencies are required to prepare environmental
impact reports for each major state project and to submit these to the
Council on the Environment.   At a minimum these reports must include
(section 10.1-1208):

     1.   The environmental impact of the major state project;

     2.   Any adverse environmental effects which cannot be avoided if
          the major state project is undertaken;

     3.    Measures proposed to minimize the impact of the major state
          project;

     4.    Any alternatives to the proposed construction; and

     5.   Any irreversible  environmental changes which would be 
          involved in the major state project;

     In addressing alternatives the report must "contain all alternatives
considered  and the reasons why the alternatives were  rejected.  If a
report does  not set forth alternatives,  it shall state why  alternativesI
were not considered." While most state environmental review laws are
fashioned after NEPA it is important to note that Virginia does not include
in its law specific references to cumulative impacts.
     While the above environmental impact review requirements could3
potentially highlight cumulative effects of various state projects, many
of the individuals we interviewed felt that the limited jurisdiction,
exemptions and exceptions contained 'in the law, including what has untilI
recently been a very significant exemption for road and highway projects,
undermine its potential effectiveness.





                                                                                4 3
  I           ~~~Recent developments,  however,  suggest that these  environmental
        impact review requirements -may soon come to have more effect.
        Specifically, a memorandum of agreement was recently completed
        between the Secretary of Natural Resources and the Secretary of
        Transportation which will establish an environmental review procedure
        for  state  highway  projects.    Under  the  agreement  an  Interagency
         Environmental Coordination Committee has been created to coordinate and
        oversee this review process.   Highway projects initiated on or after July
I     ~ ~1, 1991 are subject to these environmental review procedures.  The level
        of environmental review will depend on the size of the highway project
         involved.   For "major" projects a special environmental "scoping" process
I     ~ ~will be  undertaken, whereby  state environmental  and  historic resource
        agencies will be given extensive opportunity to review and comment upon
        such  proposals.   The  scoping  process  will occur  through  a  monthly
         interagency meeting.  The elements of this scoping process are described
         in greater detail in the actual agreement (Virginia Department of Waste
3       ~~Management, 1991, Appendix 1, p.3):

                    The scoping process will extend from project initiation through completion of
              construction and will include the determination of impact significance, continuous
              coordination with the interagency Environmental Coordination Committee, the evaluation
              of environmental impacts for alternative alignments and the review of construction
              activities. The scoping activities will interface with the Virginia Department of
              Transportation project development process which includes a series of actions such as
              plan development, informational meetings and public hearings, right of way acquisition,
              Commonwealth Transportation Board approvals, and advertisement for construction.

              As with most environmental impact review provisions (those under
*    .  ~NEPA  and of many other states) EIA's in Virginia are considered to be
         "informational" and there are no requirements that state agencies choose
        the  least-damaging  alternative  or  project  design.    There  is also  no
        assurance that if cumulative impacts of a proposal are predicted that the
I      ~ ~agency or department involved will have the ability or authority to control
        them  (e.g., land use impact resulting from a VDOT  project).   Virginia's
         environmental review requirements do not apply to regulatory agency
         permits and thus cannot be a tool in addressing cumulative impacts
         resulting from the permitting process.   All in all most people seem  to
        agree that EIA's play a fairly limited role in the state at the present time.


  I              ~~~OTHER AREAS WHERE CUMULATIVE IMPACTS OCCUR

              These are not the only environmental areas where cumulative
I      ~ ~impacts  were  thought  to be  important.   Other  environmental  sectors





                                                                   4 4

mentioned  by those we  interviewed  included:   fisheries management,3
energy decisions (e.g. oil drilling), waste management, soil erosion,
floodplain encroachment and vulnerability to natural hazards, among
others. Our purpose in this study, however, was not to exhaust the topic
or to examine every instance where someone felt that there were serious
cumulative impact issues. Rather our purpose was to make a broad survey
before looking elsewhere to see how similar issues might be addressed in
alternative formulatio ns.





                                                                             4 5
I       ~V.  SELECTED CUMULATIVE IMPACT MANAGEMENT APPROACHES
              FROM OTHER STATES

 U           ~~~An important part of this project has been a search for approaches
        which other states have adopted which might serve as models for Virginia
*       ~~to consider  as  alternatives  or  supplements  to  its current  practices.
        Before discussing what has been found several caveats are in order. First,
        the search process has not been exhaustive. We were limited to pursuing
I     ~those  ideas  which  we  were  able to  learn  about  either through  the
        literature search, from suggestions made by NOAA, EPA and various
        national organizations; or from individuals spoken with during the study.
I     ~ ~To  a significant degree, we  believe that if there are good  ideas "Out
        there," it is unlikely that we would have totally missed them proceeding
        as we have.   Second, there is no guarantee that any of the alternatives
        identified are actually superior or that they would work in Virginia.  Many
        of the approaches we have identified are quite recent and so there is little
        track record upon which to base a judgment. Third, because the emphasis
        in this study has been to "cast a wide net" in order to pick up on any ideas
        that are out there, we have not been able to pursue ideas in depth.
I      ~ ~Compared to our examination of practices in Virginia where we spoke with
        both a number and a variety of individuals, our information from other
        states frequently came from only one individual - often a person who
I     ~ ~could be expected to see a program or approach in its most favorable light.
        Therefore, these other state models have not been exposed to the same
        sort of close scrutiny which characterized our examination of Virginia
        programs. Because of this, we would recommend that ideas which appear
        interesting at this broad-based level of analysis be pursued further before
3       ~~final conclusions are drawn.   Fourth,  in several  instances,  Virginia is
        already experimenting with innovations which it turns out are also being
        tested in other states. Comparing results with other states is something
I      ~ ~that should be pursued for it is in these areas where there is already some
        momentum underway that change may make the most sense.

 I            ~~~What follows is a summary of what has been learned organized under
        six headings:

  I                 *~~~~~ statutory language and case law issues
                   * environmental impact laws
  *                 *~~~~ planning approaches
                   0 permitting practices
                   * organizational structure
  *                ~~~~~* technical  support





                                                                  4 61
     Each of these sections refers to laws, reports or other documents-
many of which are contained in a separate Technical Appendix
accompanying  this report.   The  reader interested in greater depth  or
particular details may want to consult that Appendix.

          STATUTORY LANGUAGE AND CASE LAW ISSUESI

     Concern for cumulative impact assessment is on the rise and, as a
result,  a  number  of  states  have  added  explicit  language  in theirI
environmental legislation and regulations that provides legal authority to
or mandates that agencies consider cumulative impacts in arriving at
permit decisions.  In some cases, equivalent language is used that calls
for consideration of indirect or growth inducing impacts, secondary
impacts, or cross-media impacts rather than "cumulative impacts" per se.I
(Discussion of state EIS language is reserved for the next section.)

     Because of the direction being taken in the federal Coastal ZoneI
Management Program, a number of states have included cumulative impact
assessment requirements in their coastal and wetlands protection laws.
Recent hazardous substances pollution prevention legislation has also
addressed  assessment of cross-media impacts.   Water and  air quality
permitting regulations that address additive or nibbling activities to a
single resource are also beginning to require consideration of cumulative
impacts.   Statutory language in these types of environmental legislation
is highlighted in the list below.    Statutory language  in EnvironmentalI
Impact Statement laws and Growth Management legislation is discussed in
subsequent sections of this report.


                 SELECTED STATUTORY LANGUAGE

  North Carolina (CAMA)
  Cumulative impacts are listed as a reason for permit denial in the
  Coastal Area Management Act (CAMA), Section 113A-120 Grant or
  Denial of Permits (a)(9) and (10).  Paragraph (10) defines cumulative
  impacts as "impacts attributable to the collective effects of a numberI
  of projects and include the effects of additional projects similar to the
   requested permit in areas available for development in the vicinity."

  North Carolina (Water Quality Protection)
  The Water Control Law of North Carolina in Section 143-215.1 Control
  of Sources of Water Pollution: Permits Required; states in (b) (2): "The





                                                                 47

Commission shall also act on all permits so as to prevent violation of
water quality standards due to the cumulative effects of permit
decisions.    Cumulative  effects  are  impacts  attributable  to  the
collective effects of a number of projects and include the effects of
additional projects similar to the requested permit in areas available
for development in the vicinity.  All permit decisions shall require that
the practicable water treatment and disposal alternative with the
least adverse impact on the environment be utilized."

Mississippi
Permitting authorities are required to consider cumulative impacts
under Chapter 8, Rules, Regulations, Guidelines and Procedures of the
Mississippi Coastal Program, (MCP), Section 2, Part E Basis for
Decisions, (2) Decision Factors (b)(i), (d), (e), (f), (g). Paragraph (d)
says "Precedent setting effects and existing or potential cumulative
impacts of similar or other development in the project area" should be
considered. (e) and (f) address direct, indirect and intended or
unintended effects induced by the project if they can be reasonably
anticipated.

Louisiana
The state is directed to address cumulative impacts in the development
of Coastal Use Guidelines by subsection 214.27, C(9) of the State and
Local Coastal Resource Management Act (SLCRMA) which reads:
"minimize detrimental effects of foreseeable cumulative impacts on
coastal resources from proposed or authorized uses."  The promulgated
Coastal Use Guidelines that respond to that directive are 1.6 and 1.7.
Guideline 1.6 describes the type of factors used by the permitting
authority in evaluating a project. Guideline 1.6 (g), (k), (I), (n), (o), (p),
(q), (s) address cumulative impacts. Guideline 1.7 describes the type of
adverse impacts the coastal program hopes to avoid. Guideline 1.7 (j),
(o), (t), (u), address cumulative impacts.   Cumulative, secondary and
long-term impacts are specifically mentioned in both guidelines.

Wisconsin
Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources Bureau of Water Regulation
and Zoning is required by the policy statement in NR  1.95, Section 6
Implementation, 6(b) to consider limited cumulative impacts to
wetlands.    The  department shall also consider:  6(b) the cumulative
effects on wetlands of piecemeal alterations.




                                                                 4 81
  Oregon
  Removal-Fill Program Regulations, Fill Permit Policy Section 141-85-
  050  says:   (1) The  director shall evaluate  the probable  impacts,
  including cumulative impacts, of the proposed activity and its intended
  use on the water resources by considering:." Six items, (a) through (f)
  are listed.  All six can  be construed to require cumulative  impact
  assessment.   Direct and indirect impacts are mentioned, economic andI
  environmental consequences are mentioned.

  MarylandI
  Maryland's Non-tidal Wetlands Protection Act (COMAR .08.05.04.07)
  mandates  watershed  management  plans  that  address  protection,
  cumulative impacts, mitigation, water supply and flood management.
  Massachusetts (Toxic and Hazardous Substances)
  The Toxics Use Reduction Act, Chapter 265, Section 2 regarding
  approval of toxic reduction plans and permits states: "the department
  may  consider  the  potential  effects of such  plans,  strategies  andI
  technologies on public health and safety -and the environment that may
  arise through any environmental medium or route of exposure that is
  regulated by the department pursuant to any statute: and said
  department shall act to minimize and prevent damage or threat of
  damage  to the environment."  Chapter 21  I, Section 2, Definitions,
  defines Toxics Use Reduction as in-plant changes in production
  processes or raw materials that reduce, avoid, or eliminate the use of
  toxic or hazardous substances or generation of hazardous byproducts
  per unit of product, so as to reduce risks to the health of workers,
  consumers, or parts of the environment, without shifting risks between
  workers, consumers or parts of the environment."
     Going beyond noting the inclusion of such language, the question
remains  of whether  it makes  a difference.   Insofar as  questions  ofI
authority might go, it can be observed that explicit statutory language can
overcome the "lack of legal authority" obstacle to addressing cumulative
impacts.   If the language  is permissive to the effect that cumulative
impacts  may  be  considered,  such  consideration  is  left to  agency
discretion.  If consideration is mandatory, an agency could be challenged
in court if it failed to take cumulative impacts into account - assuming
that state law allows citizens standing to bring suit to enforce the
provisions of environmental  law and  regulations.   Authorizing languageI
alone, however, cannot guarantee that cumulative impacts are considered
or that the  intention  of the legislation  is enforced.       For example,
Wisconsin's NR 1 .95 specifically contains a policy that calls for





                                                                             49

I       ~~assessment of the cumulative impact of piecemeal alteration of wetlands
        but, state officials report that there is no established procedure for
        implementing this directive, and that, as a result, it is not really carried
        out at this time.
              On the other hand, North Carolina's cumulative impact assessment
        language has been the basis for permit denials and these denials have
        withstood  political  and  legal  challenges.    In  a  recent  case,  North
*       ~~Carolina's Division of Coastal Management denied a permit to the state
        Department of Transportation (DOT) for a new bridge due to anticipated
        secondary impacts. The new bridge was to replace an old one, and was
I     ~ ~significantly higher.   The higher bridge would have allowed greater boat
        access to the waterway and it was determined that this would in turn
        spur additional development. The plan for the new bridge had the approval
I     ~ ~of the County Commissioners and the Chamber of Commerce.   DOT  had
        already begun to purchase rights-of-way but the bridge was opposed by
        several state resource protection departments.   The  Division of Coastal
        Management cited "significant  indirect or secondary   impacts on water
        quality, area wildlife habitat and important wetlands". in denying the
        permit.    The  denial  letter  stated  " These  cumulative  impacts  will
        contribute to the continued degradation of the already stressed Parnilico
        River system." (Dew, Raleigh News and Observer, 7/11/89) Initially, DOT
3       ~~planned to appeal the denial but eventually, due to strong public opposition
        and CAMA's clear statutory authority, reconsidered and altered their
        proposal to accommodate the cumulative impact and secondary impact

        concerns.

U       ~Case  Law  Issues

              Although our interviews in Virginia have turned up no cumulative
I     ~     ~impact case law in this state, it is nevertheless useful to consider the
        types of legal issues which might arise if Virginia were to become more
3 ~~explicitly involved in addressing cumulative impacts.

              A  report prepared  for the State of Maine  Planning  Office is of
        particular assistance in this regard.   (Maine State Planning Offices, 1988)
        This report identifies three issues which could form the basis of legal
*       ~~challenges.

              (1) determining the appropriate geographic and temporal scope of
  5               ~~~~cumulative  impact review





                                                                   5 0I
     (2) equitable allocation of resource useI

     (3) forecasting potential cumulative impacts

To this list we would add the more general takings challenge possibility.

     An important aspect of defining the scope of action is determiningI
what other actions or projects should be considered in the analysis.
Connecticut, in their EIS requirements, states that all "past, present and
reasonably foreseeable future actions "should be taken into account by the
sponsoring agency" as part of assessing the cumulative impacts of the
proposed  action (Connecticut Environmental Policy Act, Section 22a-la-                 i
3b).  California law expands this to explicitly include projects which are
outside the sponsoring agency's control (California Code of Regulations,
Title 14, Section  15130).  Wisconsin's regulations include considerationI
of whether an action will establish a precedent for future actions or limit
future options (Wisconsin Administrative Code, NR 150.22(2)(a)4). In each
of these instances, applying these general specifications poses difficultI
administrative questions and raises possible legal' challenges.

     The North Carolina bridge case mentioned above could be considered 
to be a challenge based on the appropriate scope of review question. The
courts in that case affirmed that the Coastal Commission was able to
deny DOT a permit to build a highrise bridge based on area wide growth
inducing and secondary impacts.  In another case, A. Ballance, et al v.
Coastal  Resources  Commission  of North  Carolina,  the question  wasI
whether all potential .future piers be considered when evaluating a current
application for a permit to build a pier.   Because the North Carolina
statutory  language  is  clear  in  both  cases,  these  questions  wereU
determined to be part of the appropriate scope of review and were upheld
by the state court.

     In a case in California, Kings County Farm Bureau et al v City of
Hanford, the court held that the city had unduly limited the geographic
scope of its analysis. The court found the city's cumulative impact
analysis legally deficient "(1) when projects are omitted that it were
'reasonable  and  practical'  to  include,  and  (2)  when  the  analysisI
understates "the severity and significance of the cumulative imnpacts."
(Remy, Thomas and Moose, 1991, p 225).3

     Another way to view the cumulative impact question is as one of
equity in treating precedent setting permit applications.   Many actions, if
considered one at a time, would not be environmentally significant, but in





                                                                            5 1
I~~conjunction   with  other similar actions could  significantly degrade  the
        environment.   When  an action is permitted to one property owner (i.e.,
        building a dock), then every similarly situated property owner might claim
I      ~~a right to build a dock under an equal protection principle.  Many docks
        might result in a cumulative degradation of the water resource and
5       ~~property   values   for  all   owners   might   ultimately   diminish.

              Denying everyone outright to avoid setting a precedent has been
        upheld in North Carolina's courts, again in A. Ballance, et al v. Coastal
        Resources Commission of the State of North Carolina.   The CRC issued a
        permit to a developer to build a pier.  Several citizen's challenged the
I      ~ ~permit based, among other things, on the fact that the pier "could set a
        precedent whereby other boat docks would lead to a cumulative loss of
        this important fishery habitat." The court agreed with the challenge and
U      ~ ~denied the permit based on cumulative impacts (State of North Carolina,
        County of Wake, Alton Ballance, et al v. Coastal Resources Commission of
3       ~~the State of North Carolina, May 29, 1991).

              The most vulnerable legal aspect of cumulative impact assessment
3       ~~may be the adequacy of its technical and scientific support.  Many authors
        argue that scientific methodologies are not yet well developed in the
        cumulative  impact  assessment  field.   If a  permit  applicant  can  find
S      ~ ~technical fault with the methodology used when  denying a development
        request, there may be grounds for a legal challenge.  In a California case,
        Citizen's to Preserve the Ojai v. County of Ventura, however, the plaintiff
I      ~ ~citizen group challenged the adequacy of an EIS because the County's Air
        Quality Management Plan did not include off-shore impacts of an oil
        refinery. The County claimed there was no adequate scientific model in
I      ~ ~existence to conduct the necessary analysis.  The court's decision stated
        that "assuming that a sophisticated technical analysis for such impacts
        was not feasible, the lead agency was at least bound to conduct some
        reasonable, albeit less exacting, analysis, if such could be performed."
        (Remy, et al, p 226).
              Legislation that provides for protection of a -resource from adverse
        cumulative impacts has also been challenged in some courts as a
I      ~ ~regulatory taking of property without just compensation.   In 1 988, South
        Carolina adopted a Beach Front Management Act to preserve and restore
        their beaches and protect public safety that had been jeopardized by the
        accumulation of beach front development. The law stipulated that when a
        property was over two-thirds destroyed by natural causes within a
        certain distance to the beach, an owner could not rebuild the property.
        After his property was destroyed by Hurricane Hugo, a property owner




                                                                                     5 21
challenged this provision as a regulatory taking. In John V. Esposita, et al
v.  The  South  Carolina  Coastal  Council,  decided  this  summer,  the  courtI
ruled that protecting the beaches was a legitimate public purpose and that
the property had  not been  taken.I

        The Maine Report offers the following conclusions and guidance for
addressing  these  difficult political and  legal  issues.   We  quote:I
             Defining a scope of review to provide for adequate assessment is one of the
      major challenges in addressing cumulative impacts. Cumulative impact assessment
      goes beyond traditional environmental review of individual projects to includeI
      both temporal and spatial considerations. Moreover, cumulative impacts can
      encompass a variety of direct, indirect, synergistic or growth-inducing effects.
       Designing precise guidelines to cover all possible situations is difficult and leadsI
      to reliance on standards of "reasonableness and practicality." However, statutory
       language can provide guidance by requiring consideration of the temporal scope
      of review by explicitly mandating consideration of "past, present, and reasonably
      foreseeable projects," similar to NEPA's requirement. By using "reasonably
      foreseeable future projects,' a broader scope of review is ensured than the more
       narrow requirement of 'existing and proposed,' which may overlook important
       developments not yet at the level of a proposed project. Spatial reviews are best                      I
       guided by ecological considerations, such as watershed boundaries, but are often
       delineated by the phrase "in the area." To ensure that all relevant factors are
       considered in assessments, and to stress their importance, indirect or growth-
       inducing effects may be addressed separately, such as in New York State's EIS and
       California's CEQA requirements.

              Related to defining review boundaries, is forecasting the potential for
       cumulative effects. Ecological thresholds of tolerance, beyond which degradation
       should not be permitted, can provide guidance for the management of future 
       impacts. However, given the current status of scientific knowledge and the
       complexity of ecological systems, identifying absolute thresholds is not yet
       possible. State management programs have employed a variety of techniques -
       monitoring past and present effects, potential build-out, alternative developmentI
       scenarios and planning techniques - to provide insight into future impacts.
       These measures can assist management by highlighting problems which could
       be mitigated by adopting new policies.
              Equity concerns for the allocation of resources are handled in a variety
       of ways. Under Florida's consistency doctrine, the question of allocation is
       partially addressed by restricting activities which may lead to cumulative 
       impacts. Frequently, allocation issues are resolved by the establishment of
       resource protection criteria as public policy and the use of planning tools such
       as protection zones or performance standards to implement these policies.I
       Allocation of resources is accomplished by subjecting all landowners to the same
       restrictions. One planning tool, the transfer of development rights, can provide
       an effective method of protecting resources by providing a mechanism for
       development potential in less sensitive areas. (p. 107)

These  comments  appear to be  realistic and  to offer sound  suggestions.I





                                                                            5 3

     I,                    ~~~~ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS LAWS

              In many people's minds, cumulative impact assessment is associated
        and  virtually  synonymous  with  laws  requiring  Environmental  Impact
I     ~    ~Statement preparation.  As was indicated above in Section II, NEPA was
        one of the first of the environmental laws to call for and to define
*      ~~cumulative  impacts.


        National Environmental Policy Act

              NEPA and the CEQ guidelines require federal agencies to examine
        cumulative impacts beginning with the initial environmental assessment
        and scoping process and continuing through any subsequent EIS. The CEO
        guidelines mandate that all major Federal actions be reviewed for their
        direct, indirect and cumulative impacts. (40 CFR Ch. V, Section 1508.25)
        Direct effects are defined as those resulting from and concurrent with the
        proposed action.  Indirect effects are those removed in space or time from
t     ~ ~the proposed  action.   These  include growth  inducing  and  transmedia
        effects. A cumulative impact is defined by NEPA guidelines as one "which
        results from the incremental impact of the action when added to other
I     ~ ~past, present and ,reasonably foreseeable future actions regardless of
        what agency (Federal or Non-Federal) or person undertakes such other
        actions.   Cumulative  impacts  can  result from  individually  minor  but
        collectively significant actions taking place over a period of time." (40
        CFR Ch. V, Section 1508.7).

              NEPA encourages a tiered EIS approach (40 CFR Ch. V, Section
        1502.20).  Tiering refers to the process of preparing a sequence of EIS's
II     ~for complex  actions,  starting  with  broader  issues  and  successively
        becoming more focused.  It should be noted that the NEPA definition of
        actions includes plans, programs and policies.    By tiering, each EIS is
I      ~ ~addressing the most relevant issues that are "ripe" for decision at each
        level of review.  The CEQ guidelines suggest that when preparing broad
        EIS's, agencies evaluate proposals based on their similarity, (e.g.,
        geographic   region,   timing,   impacts,   alternatives,   methods   of
        implementation,  media  or subject  matter).   Tiering  means  evaluating
        programs in advance of individual projects.  In this way, it is intended to
        deal in advance with cumulative impacts.   The project-by-project process
        has been one source of criticism of the EIS process.





                                                                    5 4
State Environmental Impact Assessment Laws

     Although many major actions fall under the federal EIS requirement,
a number of states initiated their own EIA requirement during the 1970's
to cover significant state or local actions.  (Note:  States use a variety of
terms - EtA, EIR, EIS - to describe their environmental documents.   To
avoid frequent shifts we  have c hosen to use the 'EIA' term throughout
when  referring  to states.)   A  1987  study  by  the  Council  of State
Governments indicates that thirty-five states have adopted EIA5
requirements similar to that of NEPA (CSG Backgrounder, 1987).   Virginia
is one of the states to do so though, compared to NEPA and to some states,             -
the reach of Virginia's law is relatively limited.  Neither the statute nor
the  procedures  to  implement  it address  cumulative  impacts.   Also
coverage is limited to major state facilities as discussed in Section IV.

     In order to choose states whose "little NEPA" requirement we would
survey, we selected the top ten states based on the Renew America (a. k.a.
Fund for Renewable  Energy and the Environment)  State of the States                   (
report which ranks state environmental programs according to their
effectiveness.  We  assumed that states with the best overall rating wouldj
also likely have the best EIA programs. Interestingly, only eight of the top
ten states had EIA requirements, and there was a wide range in the extent
and manner in which these states addressed cumulative impacts. Seven ofj
these eight do explicitly mention cumulative impacts in either their
statutes or regulations.   When  we contacted them and asked their self-
evaluation,  none  of the  states  indicated  that  they  had  what  they              '
considered to be a firm grasp on cumulative impacts, notwithstanding
their EIS requirements.   Like Virginia, they too would be interested in
ways to make improvements.
     From our reading and interviews, three elements appear to be key in
the ability of EIA regulations to effectively assess, mitigate or avoid
cumulative impacts.  Paired with this is the backing of state courts.  Fi rst
is the extent of the state's authority to address  cumulative  impacts.5
Second is how a state defines the scope of the actions subject to the EIA
requirements. This determines how comprehensively cumulative impacts
are examined.   Third, the role of the EIA in the decision process willa
influence the extent to which cumulative impacts are actually avoided or
mitigated.







   I                ~~~AUTHORITY TO ADDRESS CUMULATIVE IMPACTS

              Wisconsin, California, Connecticut, Michigan, Massachusetts and New
        York  are  states  which  explici tly  require  that  cumulative  impacts  be
        assessed within an EIA, but to varying degrees.

 I            ~~~Most of the states have adopted NEPA-like definitions of cumulative
        impacts, but California has developed a definition which incorporates
        synergistic effects as well as nibbling and cross-media effects.
        California's Code of Regulations Title 14, section 15355 defines
        cumulative impacts as:

              Two or more individual effects which, when considered together, are considerable
              or which compound or increase other environmental impacts: a) The individual
              effects may be changes resulting from a single project or a number of separate
              projects; b) The cumulative impact from several projects is the change in the
              environment which results from the incremental impact of the project when
              added to other closely related past, present and reasonably foreseeable probable
              future projects.  Cumulative impacts can result from individually minor but
              collectively significant projects taking place over a period of time.

 j            ~~~By  being  slightly  more  descriptive  in their definition,  California
        points agencies toward the types of cumulative impact they must examine
        in the environmental impact report and provides direction for the courts
        regarding  what  constitutes  an  adequate  document.    Our  California
        informants felt that the courts have generally 'provided strong backing on
e       ~~this California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) requirement.
              Illinois and Florida were the only states ranked in the top ten
        programs which did not have an EIA requirement, although Florida does
        have a similar policy called a Regional Impact Assessment which focuses
        on  sociological  and  infrastructure  impacts.    North  Carolina  mentions
        indirect effects in addition to direct effects in its EIS regulations.
              New Jersey had an administrative EIA requirement based on an
It     ~executive  order.    According  to  a  New  Jersey  state  official,  this
        arrangement has functioned as effectively as other states with statutory
        authority in addressing the more clearcut direct effects, but he was not
U       ~~~satisfied  that  cumulative   impacts  were   dealt  with   regularly  or
        adequately.

 t            ~~~While it is difficult to assess the role played by statutory language,
        it does appear that states which explicitly use the term "cumulative
I      ~ ~impact" and which define it more thoroughly are more likely to find agency
        officials or courts taking cumulative impacts seriously.





                                                                       5 61


                           SCOPE OF ACTION

     Assessing  cumulative  impacts  involves broadening  the established 
limits of assessment as has been indicated at a number of points above.
Therefore, defining the scope of action to be studied in an EIA process is
critical to  properly  assessing  cumulative  impacts.   If an  "action"  is
defined  narrowly  or  if exemptions  are  extensive,   it is unlikely that
indirect and less obvious effects will be taken into account.j

a)    Types  of Actions  Requiring  An  EIA

     NEPA  has a very encompassing definition of an action.   The CEQ
guidelines define an action, or project in CFR Ch. V, Section 1508.18, as:

     new and continuing activities, including projects and programs entirely or
     partly financed, assisted, conducted, regulated, or approved by federal agencies;
     new or revised agency rules, regulations, plans, policies or procedures; and
     legislative proposals.
      It goes on to say:3

      Federal actions tend to fall within one of the following categories: Adoption of
     official policy, adoption of formal plans, adoption of programs and approval of
      specific projects.
      With the exception of California, the states we examined limit state
EIA requirements to actions conducted by the state.   Connecticut limits
their EIS requirement to state initiated projects and state funded
projects (Connecticut Environmental Policy Act, Section 22a-1c), but the
other states require EIA's for state approved permits and projects as well.

      In order to address less significant projects and to avoid becoming
overburdened by cumbersome EIA requirements, Wisconsin has categorized
actions into four types from the most significant to the least.   Type  I
actions are "major actions which would significantly affect the quality ofI
the human  environment."   Type  II actions have the "potential to cause
significant environmental effects and may involve unresolved conflicts in
the use of available resources." Type III actions are ones that "do not have
the potential to cause significant environmental effects, normally do not
significantly affect energy usage and normally do not involve unresolved
conflicts in the use of available resources."   Type IV actions are routine,
ancillary actions, actions 'which individually or cumulatively do not
significantly affect the quality of the human environment, do not


                                                                                    Ia-





                                                                             5 7
I       ~~significantly affect energy usage and do not involve unresolved conflicts
        in the  use  of available  resources."  These  are  primarily  ministerial
        actions, such as issuing fishing licenses. (Wisconsin Administrative Code,
        Department of Natural Resources, NR 150.03).
              Under this system, Type IV actions do not require any environmental
        investigation. Type III actions require public notice of the action, and if
        there is sufficient response or controversy, an action can be reclassified
        as Type II.  Type 1I actions require the preparation of an Environmental
        Assessment - an abbreviated EIA. All Type I actions require a full EIA and
        if the Dept. of Natural Resources, upon review of an EA, finds sufficient
        reason, it can require an EIA for a Type II project as well.
              New York also classifies state actions into categories requiring
        different levels of examination.   Only actions listed as Level  I always
        require an  EIA (6 NYCRR  Part 617.12).   Unlisted actions require the
ft      ~completion of an environmental assessment form to determine whether an
-       ~~EIA should be prepared.  In addition, the New York law provides that all
        actions are treated as Level I actions when they are located in designated
        critical environmental areas (New York State Dept. of Environmental
        Conservation, p.B-2). This could be an important feature in a state like
        Virginia concerned about is coastal areas, the Chesapeake Bay and other
        sensitive sites.
              New Jersey sets their EIA policy by the cost of the project.   Any
I      ~ ~project with construction costs over $1 million requires an EA, and any
        project over $5 million or disturbing five or more acres of land requires
I- ~~an EIA (State of New Jersey, Executive Order No. 215).

              If Virginia were interested in adding EIA requirements only for
        certain highly significant projects, the idea of defining "levels" might
        have applicability.


        b)   Addressing  Phased  Actions

 I            ~~~In order to facilitate financing and project management,  businesses
        and government agencies sometimes phase a project.   For instance, the
        DOT may plan to expand a highway from two lanes to four, and may divide
        the project into ten-mile segments.  If individual EIA's were prepared for

        each segment, cumulative impacts might not be readily apparent.





                                                                   5 81

     Connecticut mandates that if an action is part of a sequence ofj
planned activities (connected actions in NEPA terminology), then the
entire sequence must be the action which is evaluated in the EIA
(Connecticut Environmental Policy Act, Section 22a-1c).  The general ruleI
used to determine whether an action requires an EIA is whether the action
is part of a larger plan or does not serve a purpose in and of itself, then an
EIA must be prepared for the entire program.
     In California, local government comprehensive plans are also subject
to  EIA  requirements  (Remy  et al, p. 40).   These  EIA's  serve -*as
programmatic documents and can be referenced in zoning and other private
project decisions in a tiered fashion.  Local governments have the option              3
of combining the plan and the EIA into one document.

     In its definition of 'action,' New York includes "agency planning andN
policy making activities that may affect the environment and commit the
agency to definite course of future decisions" and "adoption of agency
rules, regulations and procedures, including local laws, codes, ordinances,j
executive orders and resolutions that may affect the environment." (6
NYCRR Part 617.2b). New York provides for a programmatic, or generic
environmental impact statement similar to the tiering process  in NEPA
and California.   The generic EIS follows the same format as the site-
specific EIA, but it is broader in scope and more conceptual in nature. 
Generic ElS's can help link the assessment of separate actions in a
geographic area, a sequence of projects by one sponsor, or separate
actions by different sponsors having common  impacts (New York StateI
Dept. of Environmental Conservation, p. B-39-40).

     Generic  EIA's  provide  sev eral  advantages  over  site-specific  orI
project- specific EIA's in assessing cumulative impacts.  The "big picture"
view of generic EIA's is supportive of the examination of indirect and
secondary  impacts.    The  New  York  format  also  encourages  the
establishment of thresholds, criteria and  conditions for future actions,
which can be quite beneficial for effectively avoiding cumulative impacts.3
Generic EIA's prepared in the initial stages of a program enable mitigation
measures and alternatives to be developed at a time when there is still
flexibility.  The early EIA also provides baseline data for reference andI
scoping of supplemental EIA's.  Finally, from an efficiency standpoint, a
generic EIA abbreviates future site-specific or project-specific reports.

     It should also be noted regarding cross-media impacts that, like
NEPA, some states have a "single EIA" policy. Where projects involve more
than one approving agency or when implementation is phased, one agency





                                                                            5 9
V       ~~is designated the lead agency for purposes of EIA preparation.  The lead
        agency's responsibility includes seeing that the EIA addresses all issues
        not just those pertinent to the resource or media which fall under its own
        permitting authority.

                     ROLE OF THE EIA IN THE DECISION PROCESS

              For an EIA to have an effect on cumulative impacts it must influence
        the decision to move forward with the proposed project or how the
g       ~~project is implemented.  In a nice turn of phrase, the CEQ calls for NEPA
         "ot to generate paperwork - even excellent paper work - but to foster
        excellent action." (40 CFR Ch. V, Section 1500.1). To combat the tendency
        to view EIS only as "information" documents, some states have sought
        ways to increase the consideration given to environmental impacts.
              California's Code of Regulations Title 14, Section 15091 requires
I     ~     ~formal  findings relating  EIA  identified impacts to the project approval
        decision. Agency determinations must be based on "substantial evidence."
I     ~     ~Judicial support is felt to have been strong in California based, at least in
        part, on their clear and explicit regulations which aid in disclosing the
if ~amount of consideration given to cumulative and other impact factors.

              To assure that high quality work goes into each EIA, some states,
        such as Connecticut, require that the EIA be submitted to a review
I)     ~committee for approval and recommendations (Connecticut Environmental
        Policy Act,  Section  22a-la-5).   This  review  is concerned  both  with
        procedural and substantive matters and is believed to cause project
        sponsors to better address the environmental ramifications of proposed
*       ~~projects.

                Flriawhich  does  not have a traditional  EIA requirement does
        require Regional Impact Assessments for development projects. The state
I      ~ ~has denial authority based  on these assessments.   Any  project which
        would have a significant effect on the health, welfare or safety of
        citizens of more than one county must obtain a development order. To do
I      ~ ~so, the sponsor must prepare a RIA and submit it to the Bureau of State
        Planning.  Although the RIA is concerned primarily with infrastructure and
        socio-economic conditions, the environmental effects of the project are
        considered as they relate to the health, welfare and safety of the citizens.
        When asked whether the ability to deny projects based on cumulative
I       ~~impacts had actually been utilized, state officials replied that no orders
        have been denied based upon the cumulative impacts of a project (Alto,





                                                                      6 01

1991). It is difficult to say whether this indicates a discrepancy between
theory and practice or whether it indicates that the law has been
successful in discouraging submittal of seriously detrimental projects.

     Several states complained that the lack of denial authority in their
EIS's causes a lack of motivation for environmental agencies to address or
enforce cumulative impact requirements (Birch, Nasca,1991). Courts seem
to have difficulty understanding concepts like secondary or cumulative
impacts according to one New York informant.3

     No published studies have come to our attention which
systematically  evaluate  the effectiveness  of state  EIA  programs.   At a
recent conference, Robert Olshansky from the University of Illinois (1990)
made the following observations about the California process and how it
relates to that state's planning and land use decision making.  We  suspectI
that these same observations might have validity generally.

     On the negative side, CEQA (1) encourages incremental planning, (2)1
     encourages reactive planning, (3) facilitates NIMBY rejection of all major
     projects, (4) sometimes generates too much information, (5) sometimes
      makes the project planning process interminable, and (6) continues theI
     trend toward using development fees to pay for planning, thereby compromising
     the public perspective of planning departments. CEQA requires consideration
     of cumulative impacts and long term environmental goals but, in reality, 
     does not deliver.
      On the positive side, CEQA (1) mandates public participation, (2) makes
      decisions on controversial projects more publicly visible, (3) generates
      information, (4) emphasizes the importance of clear communication of
      information, (5) empowers local planners, by improving their position
      to negotiate conditions of approval, and (6) provides an extra level ofI
      assurance that General Plans are founded on adequate information.


                        PLANNING APPROACHESa

      One of the more frequent criticisms of EIA requirements is that they3
emphasize project-by-project assessment or incremental planning which
makes cross-project cumulative impact assessment difficult if not
impossible.   The  concept of a tiered EIA system  begins to address the 
cumulative impact question more effectively by anticipating their
occurrence. It is but a short step from a programmatic EIA to a plan - in
fact, California allows local governments to combine these two
documents as long as the merged document meets all the requirements of
the separate reports.I





                                                                                             6 1

                 Planning seeks to work backwards from identification of a desired
          future condition - a desired cumulative impact in a sense - to
          consideration  of projects  which  will achieve  the  plan.    Private  initiatives
          as well as public agency actions can then be judged based on consistency
ï¿½         ~~with the plan.

                 A number of authors have attested to the importance of planning in
I       ~    ~cumulative  impact assessment.   The  State of Maine  Report  (1988) referred
 -        ~~to earlier describes the merits of a planning  approach  this way.
   I                    ~~~~~~Whether a state employs a regulatory or a planning/regulatory system to
                 address cumulative impacts will determine how troublesome the issues of
                 allocation and thresholds will be. Regulatory programs which decide permit
                 applications on an individual basis violate the underlying tenet of cumulative
                 impacts assessment which seeks to consider impacts comprehensively and before
                 ecological stress is apparent. At some point under a regulatory approach limits
                 of tolerance will be reached, prohibiting further development. Determining what
                those limits are and justifying them, however, raise difficult legal and technical

   5                   ~~~~~~To a certain extent, comprehensive planning techniques can remedy this
                 dilemma. By incorporating predetermined resource values into comprehensive plans,
                 resource use decisions can be guided by ecological priorities. Specific thresholds of
                 tolerance do not have to be proven, as may be required in a strictly regulatory system.
 3             ~    ~~~~Local plans in California and North Carolina establish resource protection val~es in
                 special management areas. North Carolina not only specifies protection areas but
                 details permissible and nonpermissible uses so that applicants and permit reviewers
 I            ~     ~~~~are well aware of what is acceptable for a given area. New Jersey's coastal program
                 also establishes resource values in a planning context but does so at the state level.
                 Comprehensive planning provides protection against cumulative impacts by
                 establishing guidelines before submission of a permit application.
                       Planning approaches can also address the small-scale, incremental development
                 which contributes to the cumulative impact problem but may escape review under
 a           ~       ~~~regulatory programs.  However, simple implementation of comprehensive plans may
                 be too general to provide adequate protection, unless modified to address specific
                 resource concerns. (p.109)


I         ~Statewide Growth Management Planning
                 According to Judith Innes from the University of California at
          Berkeley, state growth management plans "reflect a public recognition
I,      ~that  many   functions   of  government,   from   water  quality  control   to
          transportation,  play  out  and  interact  on  the  land.    They  establish  the
          principle that both state and local governments and many public agencies
          share an interest in all the uses of land across the state." (Innes, 1991, p.




                                                                 6 2
3) As such, growth management plans can assess and prevent
accumulating impacts on a broad scale, and incorporate input from a large 
number of players in arriving at a consensus view.   Among  the topics
typically addressed  by these plans are agricultural/forestal  preservation,I
water quality, natural resource protection, open space and energy
conservation.    Future  funding  is sometimes  conditional  on  localities
compliance with the state plan.  Development decision making, at least for 
regionally significant projects, is typically coordinated with both local
and higher level review.5

     A recent survey of state growth management legislation (Newmann,
1991) found that nine states have adopted state growth management 3
legislation. These are:

     *  Florida              * Georgia          * Hawaii
     *  Maine                - New Jersey       - Oregon
     ï¿½  Rhode Island         * Vermont    a *Washington                               i

States with Growth Strategy Commissions but who have not yet adopted
legislation  include:5

     *  California          0 New York          *  Massachusetts
     *  Pennsylvania        * Maryland          * West  Virginia5
     * Virginia

     Because  Virginia's  Commission  on  Population,  Growth  and
Development will be reviewing the efforts of other states in greater
detail, here we will only report selected findings specifically related to
cumulative impacts.
     Oregon began statewide land use planning in 1972.  They have the
longest experience with this practice.   Many  states that have adoptedI
growth management more recently have used Oregon as a model. Their
method is based on the development of a series of statewide goals that
have the force of law. Local governments are charged with development of
comprehensive plans, and the zoning and land division ordinances needed
to put the plan into effect, consistent with the statewide goals.   LocalI
plans require approval by the state planning office. Once a comprehensive
plan is approved, all land use activity in that jurisdiction must be
consistent with the plan - essentially local decisions must tier off theI
state goals. Coordination of plans between cities and surrounding counties
is required.  State agency and special district plans must be coordinatedI





                                                                            6 3

I       ~~with local plans.   A  major feature of Oregon's program  is active and
        extensive citizen involvement.

 ï¿½           ~~~Examples of the directives to address cumulative impacts  in the
        Oregon statutory language include: Goal 6 'To maintain and improve the
j       ~~quality of air, water and  land resources  of the state, all waste  and
        process discharges from future development, when combined with such
        discharges from existing developments shall not threaten to violate, or
S     ~ ~violate applicable   state or federal environmental quality statutes, rules
        or standards.. . . such discharges shall not (1) exceed the carrying capacity
        of such resources, considering long range needs, (2) degrade such
        resources-, or (3) threaten the availability of such resources." (Oregon,
        1990, p. 7)

 I           ~~~In Goal  16 which protects estuary and wetlands  resources, it is
        required that localities write their comprehensive plans to "Consider and
ï¿½       ~~describe in the plan the potential cumulative impacts of the alterations
        and development activities envisioned. Such a description may be general
        but shall be based on the best available information and projections."
        (Oregon, 1990, p. 15)
              Washington State is one of the most recent states to adopt growth
I      ~ ~management legislation.  It too requires localities to develop coordinated
        comprehensive  plans that are approved  by the state.   State agency
3 ~~activities must then be consistent with local plans and vice versa.
        Section 38 of the legislation requires identification of natural resources
        of statewide significance and development of minimum standards to
3       ~~protect such resources.  (Washington, 1991, p. 36-37)

              The Washington law also specifically requires attention to
*       ~~cumulative impacts that may accrue due to the planning program itself.
        Section 20 calls for what are termed Environmental Planning Pilot
        Projects.   "These projects should be designed and scoped to consider
I      ~ ~cumulative  impacts  resulting  from  plan  decisions,  plan  impacts  on
        environmental quality, impacts on adjacent jurisdictions, and similar
       factors in sufficient depth to simplify the analysis of subsequent specific
        projects being carried out pursuant to the approved plan." (Washington,
w       ~~1991, P. 19)
              Vermont began statewide land use planning in the 70's with Act 250
        but has quite recently supplemented its legislation to address cumulative
I       ~~impacts.   Act 250  legislation embodied  a planning program  regulating
        critical areas and large scale development.   Vermont's recent statewide




                                                                   6 45
planning legislation, Act 200, has grown out of what has been described as
the inability of Act 250 to protect the state from cumulative impacts of 
smaller scale development decisions which escape review under Act 250.

     Vermont has grown very rapidly over the last three decades and
discovered that there can be serious negative consequences to persistent
growth unless development is sensitively managed.   The state has lostJ
large amounts of prime agricultural soils, both ground and surface water
quality have been degraded and man-made infrastructure systems are
overtaxed.   The Vermont legislature developed Act 200 as an additional1
statewide growth management policy to try to overcome the rapidly
accumulating impacts associated with growth and development of small
as well as large projects in the state. (Cowert, 1985)
     Before Act 200 was  adopted, Vermont  introduced legislation that3
would amend Act 250 to require areas of rapid growth to consider
cumulative  impacts  on  natural  and  man-made  resources.    Carrying
capacity studies would be required in rapidly growing areas and past,I
present and  potential future development would  be considered.   This
legislation was not passed because the state opted instead for a stronger
state growth  management  planning  initiative that it was  argued would              '
better protect their state's character and accomplish the same purpose as
envisioned in the cumulative impact proposal.   The proposed cumulative
impact assessment legislation (Vermont, H295, 1985) is interesting as a
general model even though not approved. The language which is of interest
is the Bill's Statement of Purpose and the provision for the designation ofï¿½
"rapid growth  areas."   In these,  resource capacity  studies would  be
preformed.  Act 250 would be amended to require the consideration of
cumulative development and subdivision impacts on resources, taking intoI
consideration the results of any rapid growth study.  A rapid growth area
is defined in the Bill as "one or more towns which are experiencing growth
at such a volume or rate, or both, that cumulative demands may surpassI
the existing limits of the area's natural or human-made support systems."

     Growth management tools used by localities are fairly well knownI
and fall into several categories.   These may  include traditional zoning,
performance standard zoning, designation of urban  growth  boundaries,
concurrency  requirements,  permit  requirements  for potentially polluting
actions, etc. Another tool used for growth management is the preparation
and adoption of plans for specific local needs.  Commonly adopted plans               '
include flood plain and natural disaster protection and mitigation plans,
and open space and recreation plans.   Resource protection and growth
management are sometimes accomplished through outright acquisition of





                                                                             6 5
5       ~~critical land.   Governments  use financial incentives  including taxation,
        impact fees, easements and transfer of development rights, to direct
        growth'.   And  finally,  public spending,  including  capital  budgets  and
I     ~    ~transportation  plans  significantly  impact  the  direction  growth  takes
        within political boundaries. A discussion of these tools can be found in
        'Managing  Growth:   Small  Communities  and  Rural Areas"  by Timothy
        Beatley and David Brower (1988).
 if          ~~~It is possible that Virginia's Commission on Population Growth and
 -      ~~Development will recommend some form of statewide planning.  If that is
        the case then a sounder basis will be provided for considering a variety of
        cumulative impacts in Virginia.


I       ~Planning  Initiatives  Based  on  Natural  Resource  Boundaries

              In contrast to statewide growth management, environmental
I      ~ ~planning initiatives are frequently delineated by the natural boundaries of
        the resource to be protected.   Using this method, the naturally occurring
        ecosystem is the focus of protection rather than the state.  In resource
        based plans accumulating inputs to a particular natural system are
        inventoried and considered together and thus the detrimental cumulative
        impacts of inputs to the resources are more identifiable.
              Resource or ecosystem based plans can cover extensive land areas
        and  require  broad  based  coordination  efforts.   Planning  initiatives to
        reduce pollution to the Great Lakes are an example of an international
        resource based plan.  Closer to home, the interstate agreement to reduce
        pollution and improve water quality in the Chesapeake Bay is a broad
        based plan that includes many jurisdictions and a variety of pollution
        reduction  and  prevention  strategies.    Generally,  natural  resource
        protection plans are focused on more manageable areas - frequently
        regions within a single state. Coastal zone, floodplain, wetlands and most
5       ~~river basin management plans are sub-state regional plans that focus on a
        particular resource of concern.

 ft           ~~~Resource based plans can be organized to attempt to assess all types
        of inputs to a region or they can address only the detrimental inputs of a
        single type to a resource. North Carolina's whole basin approach to water
        quality management is a planning tool that addresses water quality
        specifically by accounting for and considering at one time all point source
3 ,~discharges into a common receiving water body. North Carolina's Coastal
        Areas Management Act (CAMA; NC Code General Statute 11 3A-1 00 to





                                                                6 61
113A-134.10) on the other hand, is a land use planning tool that attempts5
to assess all the impacts of growth in a particular region.
     Federal coastal zone management and 'no net loss" wetlands policies 
have led to wetlands protection planning initiatives in various states that
attempt to analyze and prevent cumulative loss or deterioration of
wetlands.   (See Maryland Non-Tidal Wetlands Protection Act discussedI
below, and Oregon's Wetlands Conservation Plans; see also Brower and
Carol Manaaina Land Use Conflicts which describes a variety of Special
Area Management Plans.)
     Other federal and state planning initiatives that have a cumulative5
impact assessment component include local floodplain management plans
required by the National Flood Insurance Program, disaster mitigation and
recovery plans encouraged by the Federal Emergency Management Act andI
Forest Management Plans developed by the USDA Forest Service.  (See
'Inventory  of  Federal  Agency  Activities  on  Cumulative   I mpact
Assessment".   This report discusses procedures,  planning techniques,I
methodologies, research, court cases, and related literature for all
Federal Agencies' activities related to cumulative impact assessment
through 1988.)
     The EPA is currently encouraging geographic area based initiatives
for environmental protection-and has indicated that proposals that have
this component are likely to receive more consideration for limited funds.
Partly because of this emphasis, a number of new permitting and planning3
programs around the country have a strong geographic area basis - most
often a watershed.   Watershed based plans from Maryland and North
Carolina that may provide models for assessment of cumulative impacts 
to natural systems are discussed below.


Watershed Based Plans
     One of the most frequent foundations for resource based planning is
the watershed or basin plan model.   Considering complete watersheds
allows  for analysis  of all inputs  to a common  resource  and  thus 
cumulative  impacts of all types are more  readily apparent.   Notable
watershed  planning efforts in neighboring  states are North  Carolina's 
"Whole Basin Approach to Water Quality Management" and the Maryland
Watershed Management Plans mandated by their Non-Tidal Wetlands
Protection Act of 1989.1





                                                                             6 7
 I           ~~~The TMDL (Total Maximum Daily Load) coordinator of EPA's Region 4,
        has suggested that North Carolina's new Whole Basin Approach to Water
        Quality Management is an outgrowth of EPA's new geographic area
        emphasis.   There are both permitting and planning components to this
        model.   A basin wide plan for water quality management is drafted for
        each of North Carolina's 17 river basins. The basins have been put on a
        schedule with the first plan to be completed by 1993.   All the plans to be
        finished by 1998.
              Under this system, NPDES permits in each basin are reviewed and
        renewed at one time, every five years.  Modeling, monitoring and public
I     ~ ~participation  activities  are  organized  around  this  five  year  review
        schedule.   Cumulative impacts of land use non-point source and point
I       ~~source discharges are studied together.  "Linkages between aquatic and
        terrestrial systems are addressed and all inputs to aquatic systems and
        potential interactive effects are considered."  (Creagar, et al, 1991, p. ii)
        This procedure has been developed to take advantage of a growing body of
        baseline data, as well as new assessment methodologies and management
        strategies, to be incorporated into the plans over time.
              Maryland's Non-tidal Wetlands Protection Act calls for the
-~~     preparation  of watershed  management  plans.   "The  planning  process
I       ~~includes mapping and formulation of technical management plans that will
        address protection, cumulative impacts, mitigation, water supply and
        flood management." (COMAR .08.05.04.07). The Water Resources Division
I       ~~of the Department of Natural Resources carries out this mandate.   The
        effort attempts to coordinate three water resource issues - water supply,
        floodplain management and non-tidal wetlands - into a single
        comprehensive plan.  Separate plans are initially created for each water
        related element and then merged into one comprehensive final plan. In the
3       ~~process, discrepancies in separate plans are addressed and reconciled.


*       ~Performance  Based  Plans

              Cumulative impacts can be addressed by establishing maximum
        limits for whatever activity is being regulated and then working
        backwards to individual permits.   These threshold or sustainability limits
        are generally defined as the sustainable level of a certain type or class of
        activity beyond which the quality of the environment is degraded. This isa
        level which allows activity up to a point but once the limit is reached, no
I       ~~additional activity can be permitted.   Theoretically, this approach should
        eliminate cumulative effects excesses, but we have learned that problems





                                                                   6 8
frequently arise in establishing the threshold limit, allocating the3
available capacity, determining when the threshold limit is reached and
addressing activities not subject to the limit.5

     Carrying capacity studies can be used to determine the maximum
population that could inhabit a given area or to determine infrastructure
limits, such as roads and wastewater treatment facilities which are
affected  by growth~.   For  instance,  North  Carolina  conducted  several
carrying capacity studies for cities and counties on the Outer Banks.  In3
Currituck County, North Carolina, five factors were analyzed to arrive at
the county's carrying  capacity:   availability and  suitability of land for
development,  hurricane  evacuation  ability,  road  system  adequacy  for              3
access and internal circulation, wastewater treatment and drinking water
supply  availability (Bell et. al.,1983, p. 1-6).   Besides  drinking water
supply, which  the studies decided  could  not be  determined,  the mostI
limiting factor was found to be existing wastewater treatment capacity.
At the time there were no wastewater treatment plants in the county and
the carrying capacity of 2,680 dwelling units was determined based on the
amount of available land suitable for septic tanks.   By  increasing the
county's  infrastructure,  in this case  building  a wastewater  treatmentI
plant, the carrying capacity could  be  increased  indefinitely.   Thus  the
threshold of sustainability is not an absolute or fixed value intrinsic to
the area.
     Despite the imprecision  of the results of such  carrying  capacity
studies, the concept of carrying capacity can  still be effective in theirU
actions.   Additionally,  infrastructure limits may  in fact be  lower than
ecological limits, in which case the human population would be held to a
sustainable level if the decision was made not to increase the capacity.
(Dickert, Tuttle, 1985, p. 41)

     Establishing maximum limits based on ecological considerations is
difficult for two reasons.  First, no two ecosystems are exactly the same,
therefore each has its own unique maximum limits.  Second, there are noI
discreet limits as there may be in engineered infrastructures.   Ecological
tolerances are expressed as continuums instead of definitive points.
Because  of  these  two  difficulties,  determining  ecologically  based 
threshold limits requires large amounts of data and research.   With such
information studies can be conducted as illustrated by two University of
California, Berkeley researchers who studied a coastal wetland watershed 
in Monterey County, California. They had the benefit of extensive research
which had been conducted previously on species variations and severalI
decades of aerial photographs were available.   Four major studies were





                                                                             6 9
3       ~~conducted:   a hydrologic analysis,  an  upland  erosion  and  deposition
        analysis, a time series analysis and a measure of impervious surface and
        bare ground.   Using all of this information, it was determined that the
ï¿½     ~ ~amount of bare ground from clearing and fill was  the most  influential
        factor on water quality. Land disturbance targets were then expressed as
3       ~~a percentage of available area and were formulated for each of the 37
        subwatersheds in Elkhorn Slough.   These levels were then compared to
        actual land disturbance values to establish guidelines for development.
I       ~~(Dickert & Tuttle, 45-59)
              In the absence of concrete, scientifically established limits, it has
3 ~~been suggested that panels of experts be used to estimate threshold limits.
        This approach may in many cases be the best alternative because rarely are
        ecological studies undisputed or exact.  Estimating and debating threshold
I     ~ ~limits also openly addresses the political nature of regulations.  Panels, of
        course, have been used in regulatory negotiations in Virginia. For example,
3       ~~the Instream Flow and other Roundtables.

              Once the difficult task of setting threshold limits for an area is
3       ~~accomplished,  implementing  them  creates  another difficulty:   allocating
        the available resources. Whereas the formulation process is hampered by
        financial and technical requirements, implementation is impeded by
3       ~~political, legal and  philosophical  obstacles  of the types  discussed  in
        Section 1I. To address these, economic incentive mechanisms have been
-      ~~developed.  One of the most notable is the emissions trading program under
I       ~~the Clean Air Act.

              Emissions trading essentially establishes a limit for the amount of
        an air pollutant allowable in a designated area.  Although these limits are
        adjusted through a political process, they are rooted in scientific
        reasoning based on the effect of the pollutant on biological resources.
        Theoretically, once this limit is reached, no new sources of that pollutant
        are allowed in the airshed unless offsets are created within the same
I       ~~airshed.  What is unique about emissions trading is its attempt to fairly
        distribute the available capacity of air pollution by making emissions
        permits tradeable. Emission sources are able to buy and sell permits such
I      ~~that the person to whom the permit is most valuable is able to compensate
        the seller for their interest foregone.

 I            ~~~The  Dillon  Reservoir  in Colorado  provides  an  interesting  water
        quality example.   Point source water polluters are allowed to increase
        their discharges above the applicable limit by taking measures to reduce
        non-point source pollution at a ratio of 2:1. For example, by reducing 1000





                                                                 7 0
pounds of phosphorous runoff from a farm with buffer strips or snowI
fencing, an industrial plant could increase its phosphorous discharge over
its permitted limit by 500 pounds.   This results in less pollution for less
money because it is often cheaper for the industrial plant to reduce non-I
point source pollution than to reduce its own pollution (Hahn & Hester,
1989, p. 393-396).


                      PERMITTING  PRACTICES3

     It is at the permit stage that cumulative impact considerations
become translated or not into permit issuance, denial or conditions.  It is
perceived inadequacies at this permitting stage which have generated
much of the concern and interest in looking into better ways to deal with
cumulative effects.
     To address these difficulties, several states - with cooperation and
support from EPA - have developed pilot programs to test alternatives toI
the usual ways of doing business. New Jersey and Massachusetts are in
the  process   of  instituting  multi-media  whole  facility  permitting
procedures. The Amoco facility at Yorktown is part of a similar approach
and  pilot program.   Illinois is now  using an early multi-agency permit
conference to head off cross-media and cumulative effects that could i
result  from  traditional  separate  agency,   site-specific  permitting
procedures.


Facility-wide   Permitting3

     Pollution prevention initiatives in several states are beginning to
grant a single multi-media permit for discharging facilities rather than
separate permits for water, air and waste disposal.   Several goals are 
being addressed by these initiatives:

     1 .    Reduction of overall pollution by coordinating inspection, 
          planning and  permitting activities'.I

     2.    Developing a more holistic approach to pollution prevention
          that encourages source reduction of waste materials thereby
          improving the occupational health in pollution-generating         
          processes and decreasing waste discharged to the environment.





                                                                              7 1
 5           ~~~3.   Eliminating separate regulation of various media thereby
                    eliminating the tendency to reduce discharges in one media by
   5                ~~~~~increasing discharges in another.

              4.    Increasing efficiency of permitting procedures and staff time.
                    Reducing duplication required by single media permitting. (New
                   Jersey)

       1                               ~~~~~~~New  Jersey

 3           ~~~New Jersey recently passed The Pollution Prevention Act which
        calls for phased development of a Facility-Wide Permit Program. The
        goals of the Act are to achieve a 50% reduction in the use of hazardous
I     ~ ~substances at industrial facilities and a 50%  reduction in the generation
        of hazardous substances as non-product output. Air, water and land
        discharges are considered simultaneously by a multi-agency permitting
        team. The crux of this legislation is the development of pollution
        prevention requirements and permissible emission/discharge limits for

I       ~~major industrial facilities through a pollution prevention plan.
              The pollution prevention plan is to include an investigation of source
I       ~~reduction opportunities.  The facility is encouraged to explore all options
        for reducing, reusing and recycling in their production process.   Pollution
        prevention technologies are to be preferred over treatment and disposal
3       ~~technologies.  Source reduction and recycling opportunities are to be fully
        exhausted before reuse, treatment or disposal techniques are approved.

 I           ~~~Priorities for implementing  source  reduction measures  are to be
        established by ranking the processes and sources which generate non-
        product outputs.   An implementation schedule is to be developed which
I     ~ ~becomes  an  enforceable  permit condition.    Discharge/emission  limits
        must also comply with existing single-media regulations.   The objective
3 ~~of the permit limits will be to reflect the implementation of source
        reduction options and elimination of cross-media transfers to the extent
        practical.

              New Jersey's program is currently in a pilot stage where three
        volunteer industries are working in conjunction with the Department of

        Environmental Protection.




                                                                    7 21

                           Massachusetts

     In 1989, Massachusetts  adopted  the  Toxics  Use  Reduction  Act
(TURA).   Like New  Jersey, the purpose of this Act is to reduce the
generation of toxic waste by 50% by 1997. The Massachusetts law seeks
to achieve this goal by reducing, avoiding or eliminating toxic substances
without shifting the associated risks between workers, consumers or9
parts  of  the  environment.    Cross-media  cumulative  impacts  are
specifically forbidden by this legislation.

     TURA has set guidelines for achieving these goals through cross-
media coordination, inspections and pollution prevention initiatives.
Section 3, (C) authorizes the Department of Environmental Protection to
seek unified reporting and enforcement authority from EPA on federal
toxic laws and regulations.  Paragraph (D) says:I

     the department shall develop and implement, by January 1, 1992, guidelines and
     regulations on inspections which (1) ensure that, where appropriate, inspections
     are multi-media in approach; (2) ensure that, where appropriate, the inspectionsI
     are preformed by teams of inspectors representing existing programs within the
     department; and (3) minimize duplication of inspection and enforcement efforts
     being conducted with other agencies.
     Paragraph (E) requires any toxic user found to be violating any toxic
standard  to  adopt  pollution  prevention  techniques  to  come   intoI
compliance.

     A precursor to TURA was the Blackstone Project which was proposed 
in 1987 and got underway  in 1988.   A joint-pilot project involving the
Department  of  Environmental   Protection  and  the  Department  of
Environmental Management, its goals are to improve environmental
protection through a combination of multi-media compliance inspections
and enforcement rooted in waste prevention and expanded technical
assistance.   Having been underway for at least a couple of years, this
project is able to report some preliminary results.
Findings to date from the project include:
      1.    Multi-media inspections have been found to be faster and more
           cost  efficient for the same  quality inspection than traditionalI
           single media inspections.

      2.    These inspections aappear to be more effective thanU
           traditional methods for detecting illegal or unregistered
           waste streams.I





                                                                             7 3

             3.   It was felt that technical advice and assistance for all
                   regulatory programs was more effectively disseminated
                   through the multi-media approach.
 *           ~~~4.   Source reduction opportunities become more easily identified.

             S.    Cross-media professional staff development was enhanced and
   I.             ~ ~~~staff time was used more efficiently.
              Because of these successful experiences and the new TURA law,
I     ~~Massachusetts is expanding the program from one region to the whole
        state and from one type of industry to many.   One could speculate that
        while the current emphasis is on inspections and compliance, this multi-
        agency approach could also spread to the full range of permitting
        activities. EPA is interested in encouraging such efforts.


        Basin-wide   Repermitting
              Single-media point source discharge permitting takes place
        originally on a project-by-project basis.  In contrast, if all projects in an
I      ~ ~affected  area were  assessed  together,  better information  about  total
        systemic loads and accumulating effects could become available.   North
        Carolina and Michigan use a basin-wide approach for permit renewals in
I     ~ ~their NPDES programs hoping to achieve this bigger picture. In the land use
        area, Petaluma, California has been cited for its once a year development
        approval process motivated in part by similar considerations.   Besides
        improving assessment of cumulative impacts, it is also hoped that such
        approaches will help increase efficient use of resources and staff time.


                                       Michigan

              Michigan's Surface Water Quality Division of the Department of
        Natural Resources has developed a schedule for NPDES permit renewal that
        is tied to river basin watersheds.    The schedule is repeated every five
        years. This system was developed to 1.) provide a uniform statewide total
5       ~~annual rate of permits being processed; 2.) provide a relatively uniform
        annual rate of permits being processed by each district; 3.) group permits
        being processed by hydrologic basin.





                                                                     7 4

     The  basin-wide approach  established   a predictable schedule for5
permit issuance.   This pre-determined schedule is known  to applicants,
the public and staff far enough in advance to allow timely and systematic
studies of watersheds so that current data will be available when needed.
This schedule also provides a method of considering clusters of
dischargers so that all facilities which are allocated portions of the
assimilative capacity of the same receiving water segments can be
evaluated simultaneously.~ 

     Since this procedure was instituted, studies to support cumulative
impact assessment have been tied to the five year schedule.   Stream
monitoring  surveys  are conducted two  years  before  a basin's permitsI
expire.    Pretreatment  facilities are  audited  one  year  before  permits
expire.   As a result, needed  monitoring information is available at the
time applications come in for renewal.  State officials report that throughI
this coordinated approach to permit review, critical areas can be
identified and whole basin planning is advanced.


                            North  Carolina3

     North Carolina has also developed a Whole Basin Approach to Water
Quality Management and EPA has designated it a model program.   The firstV
phase of its implementation, which has already begun, is the rescheduling
of NPIDES permitting activities and associated routine support activities
(field  sampling,  modeling,  wasteload  allocation  calculations,  etc.)  toI
renew simultaneously on a basin-by-basin schedule. Eventually, it is
intended that the North Carolina program will integrate and coordinate all
activities in the Water Quality Program by river basin - not just renewals.
Included will be permitting, monitoring, modeling, non-point source
assessment and planning. Through simultaneous water quality and aquatic
resource assessment, the state hopes that basin-wide water quality
management plans and strategies can be substantially advanced.u

     There are three major benefits North Carolina hopes to achieve
through   this  approach:   1 .)  improved   efficiency;  2.)  increased
effectiveness, 3.) greater consistency and equity.    They report that:
      By reducing the area of the state covered each year, monitoring, modeling and permitting
      efforts can be focused; as a result, more can be achieved for a given level of funding andI
      resource allocation. The whole basin approach is consistent with basic ecological
      principles of watershed management, leading to more effective water quality assessment
      and management. Linkages between aquatic and terrestrial systems are addressed (e.g.I
      contributions from nonpoint sources) and all inputs to aquatic systems, and potential





                                                                                  7 5
 3            ~~~~interactive effects, are considered.  Whole basin management will facilitate the
               incorporation of nonpoint source pollution assessment and controls, since these diffuse
               pollutant sources extend to the watershed boundaries and accumulate from a basin's
               headwaters to its mouth. The whole basin plans will provide a focus for management
               decisions. By clearly defining the program's long-term goals and approaches, these
               plans will encourage consistent decision-making. Consistency, together with greater
               attention to long-range planning, in turn will promote a more equitable distribution of
 I           ~ ~~~assimilative capacity, explicitly addressing the trade-offs among pollutant sources
               (point and nonpoint) and allowances for future growth. (Creager, et al. p.iii


         Coordinated Pre-Permit Review
 I            ~~~Illinois has  developed  an  informal  program  that coordinates  the
         permitting activities of the various media for major projects.   The stated
         purposes of the procedure are to reduce the burden of permit requirements
         on the applicant and to improve Illinois' Environmental Protection
         Agency's  review  of  the  environmental  impacts  of  the  project.    A
I       ~~coordinated permit review committee made  up of section heads from the
         divisions of water pollution, air pollution, land pollution and water supply
         meets  twice  a  month  to administer  this  process.    According  to the
I      ~ ~chairman  of the  committee,  one  of the  most  lasting  benefits  of the
         process is improved communication between agencies and increased
*       ~~coordination of their actions.

               The review is a five step process that begins with an informal
         presentation of the applicant's plans.   Actions that require permitting and
I      ~ ~~cross-media  interaction are identified from this presentation.   Based  on
         the presentation, agency representatives decide whether the applicant
         will need a permit from their division.    A project leader is selected from
         the agency that carries the greatest permitting burden.   This gives the
         applicant a single point of contact for all subsequent permitting
3        ~~activities.

               Concurrent review and coordinated issuance of all permits is a
I      ~ ~major component of this procedure.   This concurrency reportedly reduces
         potential political pressure on a single agency which might result when
I        ~~other agency permits are issued earlier.
               The coordinated permit review process has been developed by the
         Illinois' Environmental  Protection Agency as an internal procedure.   Since
         all the regulatory divisions are part of the same agency and under one
         director, it was determined that the procedure could be adopted internally,
I      ~ ~rather than as a promulgated regulation.    Such  a regulation was  once
         proposed but was dropped when it was felt to be unnecessary.





                                                                   7 61


                   ORGANIZATIONAL STRUCTURE

     Organizational structure can play a significant role in how a state's5
environmental programs address cumulative impacts, especially cross-
media  impacts.   An  effective organizational structure which  facilitates
communication,  coordination  or joint action can  assist in coordinatingI
permit reviews and improving consideration of trans-media effects.  Good
coordination also improves consistency in permit decisions.  In addition,
organizational structure can promote more efficient use of departmentalU
resources and make funds more available for technical support and other
important functions.  An improved sense of overall mission and teamwork
can boost staff morale.
     Having cited these factors, it should also be noted that there is noI
single organizational structure that is universally better than any other.
Neither is organizational structure the panacea for all environmental
problems.  As Mark Mahoney, author of an organizational evaluation studyI
commissioned by North Carolina, states, good organizational structure is
nnecessary, but not sufficient." (North Carolina Governor's Task Force,
1 988, p. 2) Nevertheless, many states have found the structure of their
environmental programs so important that they have initiated costly
restructuring  programs,  even  during  economically  tight times.   North
Carolina and Pennsylvania are two such states.  The reports which they
prepared in studying alternative organizational structures serve as the
primary sources of our findings and extend similar earlier research by3
authors such as Haskell and Price (1973). Between the Pennsylvania and
North Carolina reports, they surveyed seventeen states examining the
advantages  and  disadvantages  of  various  types  of  organizationalI
structures.

     These  studies  characterize  state  environmental  programs  asI
reflecting one of four models of organizational structure:  what they term
the unconsolidated model, the health department model, the EPA model and
the superagency model.    Unconsolidated programs are those where each
agency is substantially independent. The Health Department model places
several, but not all, of the primary permitting departments  (air, water,3
land, groundwater or hazardous waste) in one location, traditionally the
Department of Health. The EPA model goes a step further and places all of
the primary permitting departments in one agency.  The superagency modelI
has all the primary permitting agencies under one roof but also includes at
least one  natural resource or development program.          Virginia comes
closest to the unconsolidated prototype though several agencies are





                                                                            7 7

I       ~~grouped under the Secretary of Natural Resources.  The Secretary's office,
        however, is not staffed or organized to play a major role in permitting
        activities and agencies are generally left alone to manage the resource
I     ~ ~assigned them.  The Secretariat was established fairly recently, it should
        be noted, and it may be that as the office evolves that a greater role in
*       ~~coordination will evolve.


3       ~Unconsolidated  Program  Model

              Unconsolidated programs are not without their advantages but they
        also possess several disadvantages compared to other organizational
        patterns when it comes to addressing cumulative impacts.   The primary
        advantages are the clear assignment of responsibility and the direct
I      ~ ~access to inhouse technical expertise.  From an applicant's point of view
        or the public seeking information, having separate agencies simplifies
        communication as long as only one permit is involved.  The fact that a
        state already has an unconsolidated structure and that it is familiar and
        understood is also an advantage compared to change. Many people working
3       ~~in such settings feel that any disadvantages of the unconsolidated format
        can be overcome by coordination and cooperation.

 I           ~~~Mahoney identifies a number of generic problems which arise from
        unconsolidated  environmental  programs.    Their  largest  hindrance  to
        addressing cumulative impacts would be their divided approach to
I      ~ ~regulatory activities.   One  agency  may  deny  a permit while another
        approves one for the same project, thereby encouraging the operator to
        increase the amount of pollution in the approved media and to decrease it
        from  the  denied  media.    There  is also  potential  duplication  and
        inefficiency. There is a tendency when programs are disjointed and
        detached for some activities to be performed by more than one agency.
        This wastes valuable resources which could be devoted to more
        comprehensive assessment. (North Carolina Governor's Task Force, p. 5)

              Also, in programs with little coordination, there is a tendency for
        agencies to avoid taking responsibility for controversial projects.   The
I      ~ ~end  result can  be a lot of finger-pointing while an  important project
        escapes  thorough  overall  examination.    This  stems  from  unclear
        responsibilities and a lack of full accountability when multiple permits
        are involved.




                                                                 7 81
     No states have reorganized into the unconsolidated structure but
several have changed from the unconsolidated pattern to one of the otherI
forms according to those sources.

Health  Department  Model 

     Environmental regulations began coming into existence in the 1960's
and because the main impetus at that time was human health, units
charged  with  environmental  regulatory  responsibility  were  generally1
placed in state departments of health.  Primary concerns were drinking
water and other areas where humans came into direct contact with the
environment.
     The health department model can be seen as suffering from many of
the same disadvantages as the unconsolidated program model according to
these authors.   Within the overall health department the environmental
agencies can still be disjointed and other important environmental
agencies are still outside the health department.  Health Departments also
tend to be one of the largest departments in the state, so environmental
programs  compete  with  and  can  be  overshadowed  by  other  healthI
programs.

EPA Model
     The EPA model calls for a single agency hous-ing all the major
environmental  regulatory  programs.    Consolidating  the  environmental
regulatory activities theoretically facilitates coordinating permits by
reducing the separation between agencies.   The economies of scale for
administrative services also increase when all regulatory programs are
housed  and coordinated  under one  roof. (Pennsylvania  Department  ofI
Environmental Resources: 1990, p. 3) It also creates a single focal point
for all environmental regulation so there is no question of what agency
should address controversial projects.  There may still be some confusion
as to which office within the department will handle the project, but the
EPA model allows disputes to be settled by a person close to the issue,
the agency  head or a secretary.        By contrast, in most states with
unconsolidated or health department models, the governor or the courts
would have to be the ultimate decision maker. 

     The disadvantages of the EPA model, besides the loss of technical
support functions for each sub-unit, include the negative perception theI





                                                                             7 9
I       ~~department  could  develop  'with  respect  to  economic  progress  and
         beneficial impacts.  If the department's activities only include regulation,
         then the agency may become viewed as an impediment to economic
         progress and find its influence counter- balanced by others in the
         administration. (North Carolina Governor's Task Force, p. 8)


I       ~Superagency  Model
              The superagency model diversifies the goals of the environmental
         department, but also dilutes them. Departments with natural resource and
U      ~~development  functions  could  be  viewed  as  having  conflicting  goals
         between development, regulatory, and management functions.  Such was
         seen as the case in Virginia prior to the creation of the separate
         environmental and economic development secretariats. On the other hand,
         this more inclusive approach is more comprehensive and acknowledges the
3       ~~close  proximity  of  natural  resource  management,  development  and
         environmental  regulation.   These  advantages  can  assist in managing
         cumulative  impacts.   Often  flora and  fauna  are  initial indicators  of
I      ~ ~disturbances in the ecosystem, so a close link between natural resources
         and  regulation can also help minimize impacts.   A  larger organization
         could mean larger budgets and larger projects. On the other hand, a larger
         organization  could  also  bring  on  greater  bureaucratization.    (North
         Carolina Governor's Task Force, p. 9)

 I            ~~~Moving toward the superagency or EPA models is what most states
         which  have  modified  their organizational  pattern  have  done.    Both
I        ~~Pennsylvania and North Carolina have done so recently.

3        ~~Other  Structural  Patterns

              Due to the orientation of federal environmental legislation, most
         environmental programs are structured according to media -- air, water,
         waste, etc. Each agency performs all the necessary functions to carry out
         its regulatory mission (modeling, field operations, monitoring, permitting,
         enforcement, etc.). While this may be effective in regulating the intended
         media, this type of management structure can be criticized as providing
         poor coordination between media and resulting in duplication of services.
         (North Carolina Governor's Task Force, p.12)

 3            ~~~One  option, which  has been  investigated by several states is to
         organize around  functional  lines.   This would  mean  the   creation of





                                                                   8 0

modeling  departments,  monitoring  departments,  and  so  forth.   It is
possible to have enforcement personnel grouped together in the Attorney
General's office, but other functions are not typically grouped in this way.
A  functional  management  structure has the advantage  of encouragingI
personnel to take a more comprehensive view of their activity, instead of
concentrating on just one medium and ignoring the others.   This could
serve to further consideration of trans-media effects and make for more
consistent results across media lines.

     Until 1973, Ohio was organized by function, but it was found to have
a number of disadvantages including the experience that it was difficult
for the public to identify who to go to when there was a problem.3
Functional   structure  also   presents  difficulties  in  implementing
regulations.   For instance, once a problem was  identified by the field
operations  group,  it would  have  to cross  departmental  lines to theU
permitting group thus resulting in delays and increased permit review
time.  Functional organization appears to be an interesting idea but one
which does not lend itself as an overall model for organizing
environmental protection efforts.  Its utility may be in selected functions.

     The alternative could be to create some hybrid between media andI
functional organization where some activities are organized along media
lines and others are grouped by function.  Iowa, for instance, has its fieldI
inspectors examine pollution control devices for all media instead of
having different inspectors for each  medium  as many  states do.   Th is
would not only help in identifying cumulative impacts, but it is reportedI
to  have  increased  job  satisfaction  for  the  inspectors  as  well.
(Pennsylvania Department of Environmental Resources, p. 6)ï¿½

     New York has initiated a similar program in their regulatory affairs
department.   Permit coordinators serve as single contact points for all
types of permits which an applicant may require. The permit coordinators
monitor the permits as they progress through the media-specific review.
Media-specific  personnel  are  responsible  for  performing  all  of  theI
technical analysis related to the individual permits, but the regulatory
affairs department has the final approval authority on all the permits. 

     Within a given organizational structure, program activities can be
centralized in a headquarters office, decentralized to field offices, or set
up according to a matrix organization.   Most environmental programs are
centralized and controlled from a headquarters office.   This has some
advantages with respect to cumulative impacts in that a centralizedI
agency may be more able to review all activities in the state and





                                                                                 8 1
I       ~~coordinate them and maintain consistency. This works especially well in
        small states where  the  number  of activities is limited.   For example,
         Delaware has only a few field offices and these report directly to the
        central office.
 I            ~~~Decentralized  programs  allow  regional  or  field  offices  more
         autonomy and enable more detailed study of activities within the region.
        At the same time, that they may sacrifice some of the state-wide
5       ~~coordination  of a  centralized  program,  decentralization  can  be  more
        convenient for clients and the public.   Because  they are smaller, field
        offices may be less bureaucratic.   The Virginia Water Control Board and
I      ~ ~the  Health  Department  are  examples  of agencies  assigning  important
         permitting roles to field offices.

 I            ~~~Some  states employ  a matrix organization where  regional offices
         have their own management, but individual media personnel also report
        back to the central office.  This approach utilized the advantages of both
        centralized and decentralized structures, but is susceptible to conflicting
        directives.   It can  be very confusing  for program  staff when  regional
3       ~~managers and  central office personnel want two different things.   New
        York and 'Michigan  use this arrangement with their field offices.   New
        York's program seems to work well, but Michigan's regional managers
U      ~ ~complain of not having control over the staff. (Pennsylvania  Department  of
         Environmental Resources, p. 4) in Virginia these conflicts are sometimes
         apparent in the split loyalties of Health Department sanitarians who are
I      ~ ~simultaneously in the employ of state and local government and under the
         supervision of a regional health official.

         Other Organizational Tools

                        Strategic Planning for the Environment

 I            ~~~Pennsylvania surveyed  other states and  concluded  that it lagged
         behind in implementing a strategic planning process for defining its
        environmental priorities and for communicating these priorities to staff
        and the general public. Georgia, Iowa and Wisconsin are cited as states
        which have developed, published and distributed strategic plans.

  I                 ~~~~~~~Georgia's Five-Year Strategy is developed at the executive level, with
              the section/work units asked to submit suggestions. Georgia's Five-Year Strategy
              lays out the agency's vision for the future, the specific goals for the various
 I           ~ ~~~~program areas, and highlights of last year's accomplishments. Iowa's Future
              Agenda is developed "Top Down," establishing flexible priorities which are




                                                                         8 21

     modified on a yearly basis. Iowa's Future Agenda is formally approved by its
     oversight Commissions. Wisconsin's Environmental Quality 2000 strategicI
     plan is developed by each division (equivalent to DER's Deputates). These
     strategic plans include a mission statement for each division, several major
     objectives, the goals required to meet these objectives, a summary of previous
     accomplishments, and future trends that influence this plan." (Pennsylvania
     Department of Environmental Resources, p. 8)

     Having such a strategic plan could provide a common  framework for 
environmental agencies to follow regardless of how they were organized.
The process of creating such a plan could bring agencies together for
fruitful discussion  about cumulative  impacts  on  the environment.   In a
state with a loose structure of the type found in Virginia, the Secretary of
Natural  Resources  could  utilize a strategic planning  process to achieve3
greater  unity  of  purpose  and  to  identify  functional  impediments  to
cumulative impact consideration.


                      Consolidated  Field  Offices3

      In states with unconsolidated organizational patterns, field offices
tend to be separate for each department and the regions they serve are
defined in different ways.   New York, Vermont and Wisconsin ~exemplify a
pattern of combined field offices.

      Michigan has three consolidated regional offices containing all
functions plus fourteen consolidated district offices containing the
functions  relevant  to  each  district.    In  Vermont,  the  majority  of5
environmental  protection functions share combined  facilities.   Wisconsin
has six large all-purpose regional facilities and smaller district offices
in each county.
      According to the Pennsylvania study, consolidated offices offer
several advantages:
            This structure offers the general public a local point of contact for any
      environmental problem. The general public doesn't have to understand the department's  
      complex structure to get a simple question answered. Also, by having staff together in
      one place, communication and coordination of environmental issues are enhanced (p. I11).3

For purposes of cumulative impact assessment and management across
agency and media/resource lines, shared facilities not only offer potential
economies  of scale but a potential synergy  in environmental  permitting.U
Last year, the Virginia Legislature asked the Secretary of Natural
Resources to report on the possibilities for the Water Control Board, theI





                                                                            8 3
I      ~~Air Board and the Department of Waste Management to share data bases
        and other services and facilities.  Consideration of consolidated offices
3       ~~might grow out of that study.


        *                               ~~~~~~~~Training

              Cumulative impact assessment and management involves breaking
        old habits and learning new approaches that are more inclusive and
        synthetic.   Most agency training budgets are oriented linearly within the
3       ~~agency's own customary realm.  Turf issues may be more common than
        common interests.

 3           ~~~Organizational  development,  team  building  and  problem-solving
        skills could be taught to personnel from a variety of agencies as a way of
        bridging between agency turfs and as a way of improving communications.
3       ~~Training Jo expand managers' scientific understandings outside their own
        area of traditional expertise could also assist in providing the base from
        which cumulative impacts could more adequately be assessed.   Training
I     ~~could boost morale and productivity and make resources go further.   A
        number of states have developed training priorities on a variety of topics.
        None that we contacted focused specifically on cumulative impacts but
        such an approach could be taken and a training program developed to meet
        this need.

                                 TECHNICAL SUPPORT

              In order to avoid potential charges of arbitrariness and either
        administrative or legal challenges to action based on a concern for
I      ~~cumulative  impacts,  it is essential that these  actions  have  the best
        available technical/ scientific backup.   Adequate technical support is also
        needed to provide agency staff the confidence needed to take cumulative
        impacts into account to a greater degree.
              Scientific methodologies for cumulative impact assessment are not
        the primary focus of the present study.  Nevertheless it is important that
        several aspects of technical support be addressed - namely, establishing
3       ~~baseline  data;  and  selecting  assessment  methodologies.    A  related
        technical issue, that of setting maximum carrying capacity limits and
        similar performance-based approaches was addressed earlier under

        planning and permitting approaches to cumulative impact assessment.





                                                                  8 4


Baseline Data

     Baseline data represent the current and historical condition of theI
environment necessary in order to determine if cumulative impacts have
already affected the area or resource and what tolerance for additional
impacts might remain. Baseline data also defines the seasonal and annual
variability in the resource in order to determine the nature and extent of
impact problems under different conditions possibly involving high and3
low  assimilative  capacities.    Baseline  data  is  also  essential  for
identifying trends and for comparing one location with another in order to
establish relative health or stress.  Data on a common geographic basis3
can point to actions which have already been permitted by all agencies and
which could have combined effects in a particular location or area.
Baseline data is thus fundamental in many ways.
     It is not surprising, given the costs of data, to learn that except in a3
few special instances, comprehensive monitoring of environmental
conditions leaves much room for improvement.   This places environmental
agencies in a difficult position when tight state budgets make it very
difficult to initiate extensive monitoring programs to build, the necessary
baseline data.  Monitoring and research studies are often among the first
activities to be cut when funds are reduced. The good news, however, is
that some states have, nonetheless, made the financial investment or have'
developed feasible methods to compile enough baseline data to begin
addressing cumulative impacts even when faced with tight. budgets.
     The advent of geographical information systems (GIS) has increased
the accessibility and versatility of natural resource data and promises toI
do so at reasonable costs to such an extent that some agencies are
beginning to be able to justify the considerable amount of time and effort
required to bring such systems on line.  For instance, the U.S.. Fish and
Wildlife Service has begun using aerial photographs covering three
decades to examine habitat changes in the Mississippi River Deltaic Plain.3
These aerial photographs are digitized into a GIS system and comparisons
are run to determine land loss, erosion rates, changes in vegetation, water
chemistry, water regimes, etc.  From these, the Fish and Wildlife ServiceI
has been able to identify areas of cumulative impacts and how habitats
have changed over time.3

     Maryland, through its Critical Areas Program, is in the process of
mapping all land uses in the 1000-foot critical areas bordering the3
Chesapeake Bay and eventually will do so for entire counties.   (Taylor,





                                                                            8 5
1      ~~1991)  With this system, Maryland hopes to be better able to identify
        changes in land use and the causes of those changes.

 I           ~~~As part of the Albemarle-Pamlico Study, North Carolina is not only
        mapping land uses, but water uses and water resources as well (Clark,
        1991). A model program conducted for Carteret County is now also being
        applied to all the counties bordering the Albemarle and Pamlico Sounds.
        Data is being compiled regarding natural resources, navigation channels,
3      ~~marinas, and point source discharges into Bogue Sound.  This information
        is run through a weighting program to create overlay maps showing water
        areas of high and low value. Performance standards will in the future be
I     ~ ~formulated for similar classes of water.  This technique is seen as having
        the advantage of integrating land and water uses, thereby addressing
3 ~~trans-media effects.

             Permits also offer historical information on changes to the
        environment.   The Chesapeake  Bay Foundation has recently initiated a
        project to track all Section 404 Dredge and Fill permits in order to
        monitor the loss of wetlands.   (Robertson,  1991) A drawback of using
5       ~~permits  to monitor changes  is that small  activities or other exempt
        activities do not require a permit, but may significantly contribute to
        cumulative impacts.   For instance, in Virginia, alteration of less than ten
I     ~~acres of wetlands has not in the past required a permit and therefore will
        not be included in the study.

 5           ~~~As innovative effort to develop baseline data using volunteers has
        been initiated in Northern Virginia. The Northern Virginia Soil and Water
        Conservation District has helped- start a grassroots citizen group which
        has accepted the responsibility of monitoring and planning in the Difficult
        Run Watershed.   (Jeffries, 1991)  As their motto suggests, "Volunteering
        is an action," the Difficult Run Project emphasizes active management.
        The watershed is broken down into fourteen subwatersheds, each with its
        own  planning committee.   Representatives from each subwatershed unit
3       ~~make up a steering committee to formulate water quality goals.  In turn,
        each subwatershed until develops water quality standards to meet those
        goals. Then, using land use inventories supplied by the Soil Conservation
I      ~~Service, the steering committee develops  a management  plan for the
        watershed.  The lzaak Walton League of America is training members to
        conduct  biological  monitoring  and  the group  is currently looking  for
        business sponsors to assist in physical/chemical monitoring. The group is
        also trying to establish a conflict resolution program to use when actions
I       ~~by  developers  or the  government  do  not comply  With  the  adopted
        management  plan.   The  entire initiative emphasizes  volunteer activism





                                                                       8 6 

and encourages government and professional agencies to stay in theI
background.    The  Alliance  for Chesapeake  Bay  also  is involved  with
citizens from Virginia in monitoring efforts. These approaches have
intriguing possibilities in both weak and strong fiscal economies.3

     EPA has also reported using volunteer senior citizens and retired
persons to carry out land use and industrial activity surveys in wellhead
protection areas.   Not only do these seniors provide free labor, they also
have memories of past activities which are invaluable in uncovering many
types of abandoned facilities.


Assessment  Methodologies

      In order to fully utilize available baseline data, various assessment3
methodologies can be used to interpret the data, to make forecasts, and to
identify areas where cumulative impacts might be a problem.   It appears
from our brief study that many assessment models have been created overI
the past ten to fifteen years, usually in response to a particular problem
or issue.   These  multiple methods  are quite dissimilar as revealed  in a
study prepared for the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers which concluded that:
           There have been several extensive reviews of evaluation methods for
      assessing wetland values (U.S. Water Resources Council 1981), cumulativeI
      impacts (U.S. Army Institute for Water Resources 1981, Horak and others
      1983), and environmental impact analysis (Hollick 1981, Nichols and Hyman
      1982, Hobbs 1985). There has also been a study evaluating a particular CIAU
      approach developed for the Corps (Contant and Ortolano 1985). None of the
      reviews explain the wide diisparity among methods, nor do they form a basis
      for choosing one evaluation system or one model over another. As a result,
      different approaches are treated as equally valid, even though the procedures
      and models reflect substantially different theoretical premises and evaluation
      philosophies.p

            Cumulative impact analysis is, by definition and by virtue of its purposes,
      a complex analytical task that requires many methods and models...
      (Horak, et al, p. 38)3
      This study conducted for the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, then
meticulously  evaluated  64    CIA  methods  before  concluding  that  the3
Service really would be best advised to develop its own  procedure.   The
evaluation was based on eight criteria. The ability of each of the 64
methods to take account of:3

      1.    Emphasis on multiple project and actions
      2.    Consideration  of off-site impacts  and  effects 





                                                                                                  8 7

  1              ~~~3.    Interaction  and  synergism  among  actions,  impacts  and  effects
                  4.     Ability  to  aggregate  effects
                  5.     Consideration  of ecological  functional  aspects
                  6.     Consideration  of  ecological  structural  aspects
                  7.     Ability to  predict,  and

  1              ~~~~8.  Adaptability
                  After evaluating the 64 methodologies against these criteria, the
* ~~authors found that a broader view -- one that takes into account both
           ecological prediction and socio-economic trade-offs -- is needed.

    3                    ~~~~~~Many different approaches to CIA have been discussed. Each has its strengths
                  and drawbacks. None is ideal, nor is a comprehensive, rational analytical system
                  likely to be available in the near future, given the numerous gaps in our knowledge
  3               ~~~~~of ecosystem theory, economic forecasts, and environmental trends.
                         The ideal CIA model must assess the interactions and feedback mechanisms
                  between growth and environmental consequences, an assessment that stems both
                  from the original purposes of NEPA and from sound public-choice theory. (Horak, et.

3         ~~Their  specification  for more  adequate  methodologies  in the  future  include
           the following components:
  3               ~~~~~1. New concepts and perhaps alternative thinking processes (combination of reasoning
                     and imagination) are needed if we are to answer questions of "significance," "overall
                     effects," "transformation ," and others.
  *               ~~~~~2. Proposed methodologies should exhibit a synthesis of traditional causal techniques
                     and more holistic, alternative ways of accommodating extended time horizon,
  3                  ~~~~~synergism and new "calculus" for accounting for noncommensurables.
                  3. A good strategy at this point is to concentrate on case studies in order to illustrate
                     current challenges, on-going practices and how pragmatic questions are answered in
                     the field. In the context of realistic problems, it may be easier -- inductively -- to
                     arrive at agreed upon procedures. Operational models need to be developed through
                     interdisciplinary and interagency planning and funding. The cumulative issue is too
  3                  ~~~~~~large for one agency to efficiently and effectively manage.
                  4. It must be recognized that the search for cumulative impacts cannot really be a
                     categorical process of explicit lists and measurable indicators. Instead it is an
  S                ~ ~~~~~interactive process, requiring calibration mechanisms, feedback sensors, and a
                     perspective of dynamic evolution. What is called for is an institutional process
                     which legitimizes this evolution. The form of this structure is currently unclear
  3                  ~~~~~~but possibly an interagency vehicle could be used as an interim step. (Horak, et.al.,
                     p. 85)
           The search for more adequate cumulative impacts methodologies is
I        ~ ~~clearly  not  a  simple  linear  or  mechanistic  task.    It is part  of  a  larger





                                                              8 83
process of comprehensive, future-oriented planning and a broader questI
for accounting for a wide gamut of direct, indirect, secondary and
aggregative effects of a multitude of interacting actions on our
surrounding  environment.   If such  a task is achievable  at all, it isI
certainly not possible in the near future.

     On this note of reality, we now turn to recommending options whichI
the State of Virginia can consider as a way of advancing cumulative
impact assessment and management in the Commonwealth.3







I       ~~VI.   FINDINGS AND OPTIONS 8

 3           ~~~~Examining  the  ways  that  Virginia  environmental  agencies  are
        managing  cumulative impacts and  looking for places where  there are
        opportunities for improvements  is a little like describing  whether the
I      ~ ~glass  of water  is half  empty  or  half full. Virginia's  agencies  are
        -implementing a number of programs and permitting requirements-- from
        air quality to water quality to wetlands management--which are aimed at
I      ~~managing impacts on the natural environment and which work to minimize
        environmental degradation. In this sense the existing regulatory and
        management framework is managing cumulative impacts to a significant
        degree.   Furthermore, there have been a number of initiatives in recent
        years - some of which were discussed above - which clearly have
3       ~~substantial  potential for further minimizing  cumulative  impacts  in the
        future.   The  provisions of the Chesapeake  Bay  Preservation Act, for
        example,  represent one such  program.   We  have found that Virginia
I       ~~agencies  already have  many  of the basic tools and  mechanisms  for
        managing cumulative impacts.
 I            ~~~However,  we  also conclude from our overall analysis that while
        cumulative impacts 'are not going unaddressed, there are significant
        opportunities  for  improvement   in  how   Virginia's  environmental
I      ~~management framework addresses cumulative impacts.   While we  have
        identified a variety of types of cumulative impacts, concern seems to be
        greatest over additive cumulative effects (e.g., "the nibbling phenomenon")
        and cross-media or trans-media impacts involving more than one agency.
        The difficulties in managing these types of cumulative impacts are
3       ~~numerous and not hard to understand. In large part these deficiencies can
        be attributed to the highly unconsolidated, agency-by-agency orientation
        of the environmental management system where states reflect the pattern
I      ~ ~set by federal legislation.  It is important to reiterate that Virginia is not
        alone in this predicament, and our study has discovered few states that
3       ~~are addressing cumulative impacts in an effective fashion.

              The reader is also reminded that assessing the actual extent and
        nature of environmental change that is due to cumulative impacts was not
        part of the scope of this study.  Rather, the study proceeded on the basis
        that if a policy decision were made that Virginia should do more to
3       ~~manage  cumulative  impacts,  what  management  approaches  might  be
        available, what advantages might they hold over current practice and
        might they be feasible in Virginia given our current management

        institutions.




                                                                 9 01
     The analysis of programs and initiatives, primarily in other states,3
does suggest that there are things which Virginia's agencies and
departments should consider doing to strengthen their ability to manage
cumulative impacts.  Some of these changes are modest in scope and couldI
be  implemented  within  the  existing  framework.    Others  are  more
fundamental in nature, and longer in timeframe, and more detailed study
may be appropriate before actions are taken.

       OPTIONS FOR IMPROVING THE EXISTING FRAMEWORKI

Improving  Coordination  and  Interaction  Between  RegulatoryI
Agencies
     Our review of the state environmental management framework in3
Virginia suggests that its unconsolidated character may work against the
consideration of cumulative impacts. Particularly with respect to cross-
media cumulative impacts, the state should explore additional ways toI
coordinate and integrate the missions and permitting procedures of the
different  regulatory  agencies,  building  on  existing  procedures  for
promoting  coordination.  Some  states, such  as  Illinois, have  institutedI
special project review procedures which allow a mnore efficient and
comprehensive review of development proposals which may have multi-
media impacts. The State of Virginia already has a version of such a
procedure on the books, but it has never been utilized.  Efforts should be
made to explore how this existing authority/framework could be modified3
to provide a more effective integrated multi-permit review process.   The
Virginia Council on the Environment occupie s a unique role in the state
environmental management framework and would appear to be in the bestI
position, at least in the short term,   to coordinate and  integrate such
multi-media reviews.   The office of the Secretary of Natural Resources
might explore ways that the several agencies under that secretariat might1
function more in unison.

     In the longer term the state may wish to consider a major agency
reorganization which might promote better integration (see below).  In the
short term, however, a number of options are possible.   An interagencyI
permitting committee could be established to consider on a regular basis
larger projects and permit requests that span more than one type of
resource or issue or that are located in especially sensitive areas of theI
state.





                                                                            9 1
 *           ~~~Some  type of institutional mechanism  should also be explored for
        integrating the various plans and standards of different regulatory
        departments into a single and coherent environmental management
        program for Virginia.   There presently exist 'a variety of different state
        agency plans and very little coordination or integration among them.
        There  exists,  or will  soon  exist,  for   example,  a  state  floodplain
        management plan, state air quality plan, open space and recreation plan,
        biodiversity conservation  plan,  etc.   The  state  should  consider  the
I       ~~preparation of a Strategic Plan for the Environment.  The development of
        such a plan could be spearheaded and coordinated by the Secretariat of
        Natural Resources with the involvement and input of all of the other

        environmental agencies.

I       ~Expanding  State  Environmental  Impact  Review  Requirements

             Virginia environmental impact review requirements are currently
        quite limited in scope.   The  existing  law does,  however,  represent a
        significant first step in the direction of more effective management of
I       ~~cumulative impacts and should be viewed as an important foundation upon
        which to build. We can see a number of ways that the existing law could
        be substantially strengthened.

             Among other changes, the current law could be amended to
        specifically require the assessment and consideration of cumulative
I      ~ ~impacts.   Models for such  language are found in several of the states
        discussed above.   Such language should mandate a specific finding with
        respect to cumulative impacts, as well as a discussion of the actions to
        be taken to minimize or mitigate these impacts.   Incorporation of such
        language would have both practical and symbolic implications.

             The state should also consider amending the law so that it applies to
        a larger set of state projects and actions.   The recent memorandum  of
3       ~~agreement  expanding  state  environmental  impact  review  to  highway
        projects is a very positive step and efforts should be made to build on this
        foundation. Additional "memoranda of understanding" may be appropriate.
I      ~ ~Consideration  should  be  given to expanding  the environmental  review
        requirements to apply to certain types of state permits (permits for
        activities of a certain size or magnitude) or permits for activities in
        particular regions of the state.

 I            ~~~Consideration in the future should also be given to expanding the
        environmental review requirements to cover significant local land use




                                                                921
actions, including planning and zoning decisions, as well as other state
plans, policies and regulations.I


Incorporating  Cumulative  Impacts  Language  Into 
Existing Environmental Programs and Regulations

     There is general agreement that lack of explicit statutory authority
for Virginia agencies to consider cumulative impacts represents a
significant legal obstacle. Virginia should consider following the lead ofI
other states in adding cumulative impacts language to key permitting
programs. Among those where such language would seem to be the most
important:   the wetlands  program,  VPDES, and  the Air Board's  PSIDI


     While additional statutory language alone will not necessarilyI
ensure that cumulative impacts are better managed, it should be helpful in
several respects.  Among other things, such explicit language will tend to3
elevate the importance of cumulative impacts in the permit review
process and may substantially enhance the legal defensibility of decisions
based on cumulative impacts.

Modifying  Permitting  Procedures  to  Promote  Facility-wide,I
Cross-media Management
     Our analysis suggests that there is substantial merit in establishingI
permit review procedures which consider the entire pollutant impact of a
project or facility. Such a facility-wide, cross-media approach has been3
utilized effectively in' other states and at least one such pilot project is
underway in Virginia (the Amoco project described in Section IV).  The
advantages of such a permitting approach  are substantial and  includeI
efficiencies in inspection and a greater ability to identify source-
reduction  opportunities.5

     Facility-wide, cross-media permitting approaches will require
Virginia  regulatory  agencies  to  establish  new  inter-departmental
procedures, utilizing interdisciplinary teams in the review and evaluation
of polluting facilities.   Such  an  approach  will also  require additional
training for agency personnel.  Such training should focus on cross-media5
thinking,  cumulative  impacts  assessment  and  team  building.    The
Interagency Multimedia Pollution Prevention Project recently initiated is

a positive development and such efforts should be supported and further





                                                                            9 3
I      ~~expanded in the future.  Permit review schedules could also be modified to
        better consider cumulative basin-wide effects.


        Importance of Baseline Data and Enhanced Monitoring Capability
             Any effective attempt to address the problem of cumulative impacts
        in Virginia will require a credible database and monitoring system from
I     ~ ~which to judge the conditions of the environment, its constituent parts,
        and changes over time to these resources. The state should be working in
        both the short term and long term to develop a comprehensive data base
        and  monitoring  system.   At a minimum  this data base  should  bring
        together smaller and more isolated baseline and trends data generated by
I      ~~each separate management agency.  At a minimum this data base should
        contain information on:   water quality of streams,  rivers, groundwater,
        estuaries; condition of wildlife and habitat-, air quality; tidal and non-
        tidal wetlands; conditions of farmlands and forestlands; and land use
        changes; among other information. Where possible this information should
        be incorporated into the statewide geographic information system.
I     ~ ~Together these baseline data should provide a comprehensive picture of
        the status and condition of Virginia's natural environment.

 I           ~~~Data collection and monitoring systems will need to be established
        for certain resources and for certain geographical regions of the state
        before the real extent of the cumulative impacts problem can be assessed.
        Stream monitoring stations in the western part of the state, for example,
        which could provide important information on the incremental effects of
3       ~~sulphur dioxide and other pollutants are presently few in number.  In this
        era of fiscal austerity other non-governmental ways of establishing
        monitoring systems might be productively explored, such as, for example,
I     ~ ~the volunteer initiative currently underway in the Northern Virginia Soil
        and Water Conservation District.

 I           ~~~Each state environmental agency should identify baseline data and
        assessment models necessary for taking into account multiple projects
        and wider geographical areas of impact.   Each agency should prioritize
        these technical needs and identify steps to be taken to address them.




                                                                9 41

Increasing Resources and Funding for Cumulative Impacts
Analysis
and Management

     A consistent comment of individuals interviewed for this study was
that state agencies did not have the level of resources and personnel
necessary  to  effectively  address  cumulative  impacts.    The  generalI
perception is that state environmental agencies are underfunded and
understaffed and existing personnel are heavily committed to dealing with
day-to-day operations.   Earmarking and setting aside additional resourcesI
specifically for cumulative impacts analysis and management in each
agency could be very helpful.  Perhaps one or more individuals in each
agency or department could be assigned the responsibility of thinking
about and bringing-up in programmatic discussions and in specific project
reviews the  issue of cumulative  impacts.   Such  "cumulative  impactsI
officers" might inject a certain broader more integrated cross-media
perspective to the decisionmaking and mission of their respective
agencies.3

     Additional resources will also be necessary to develop the
capability in many cases to assess (e.g, through modelling, carrying
capacity studies, etc.) the likely cumulative impacts of certain actions or
activities. Developing this kind of technical assessment capability can be
expensive, and will often depend in turn on adequate support for scientific
research and monitoring activities as identified above.  Each state agency
or department should begin to assess its scientific and technical needs
with  respect to cumulative  impacts  analyses  and  management,    and
additional resources should be allocated accordingly.


Plugging  Existing  Loopholes3

     In reviewing the existing management and regulatory framework in
Virginia it is apparent that the state does have a number of programs and
permit requirements that are useful in managing and controlling
cumulative  impacts.   However,  for virtually any specific program there
are usually a host of exemptions or grandfather clauses which reduce the
actual degree of state control.  Several mentioned earlier in this report
include:   exemptions for agricultural and silvicultural activities under the
Bay Act and other environmental programs, withdrawal limitations for1
groundwater   management   areas,   exemptions   under   stormwater
management provisions, and so on.





                                                                            9 5
 *           ~~~One important element of a state strategy for enhancing cumulative
        impacts management may be to carefully examine the existing exemptions
        in these different regulatory programs and to eliminate or modify them, or
        phase them out, where they appear to be resulting in extensive cumulative
        impacts. A subsequent study should more thoroughly and comprehensively
*       ~~examine the range of exemptions and grandfather provisions and make
        specific recommendations about appropriate changes.   This type of more
        detailed programmatic analysis is beyond the means of the curr~nt study.

              In addition,   as we  have  noted  in our  review  of the  existing
        regulatory framework there are some laws already on the books which
I      ~ ~could be extremely useful in managing cumulative impacts but have not
        yet been  adequately  utilized.   One  example  is the state's expanded
        authority over surface water withdrawals.   While a potentially effective
        tool for managing certain types of cumulative impacts, no implementing
        regulations have been issued and no surface water management areas have
*       ~~been designated.

              In the course of reviewing the existing regulatory and management
3 ~~framework in Virginia we have also identified certain activities and
        resource lands currently not covered by state legislation.  These include,
        for instance,  activities affecting  non-tidal wetlands  (although,  as  has
I      ~ ~been  noted,  there  are  current  control  mechanisms  through  401
        certifications), and sensitive wildlife habitat areas, among  others.   An
        effective long term cumulative impacts strategy may require expanding
        the scope of environmental management to include these additional
        activities or habitats. This may be another appropriate subject for
3       ~~additional study.


  *               ~~~OPTIONS FOR MODIFYING VIRGINIA'S FRAMEWORK

        Reorganization and Consolidation of Environmental Management
I      ~~Functions

              Our review of other states suggests that there has been widespread
I      ~~interest  in  and  expression  of  need  to  establish  new  types  of
        organizational  arrangements.    State  organizational  structures  can  be
3       ~~categorized as one of four types, with progressively greater levels of
        consolidation and integration: unconsolidated model, health department
        model, EPA model, and superagency model. Generally, the experience of
3       ~~other  states  suggests  that' there  are  many  advantages  to  a  more
        consolidated approach.   These include certain economies of scale, better




                                                                  9 61
communication   and   coordination  in  permit  review,  and  greater
effectiveness at dealing with trans-media environmental effects.I

     Virginia's system is perhaps closest to the unconsolidated model.
Notwithstanding  the  advantages  which  may  be  found  in the  existingI
structure, more effective cumulative impacts management may require
that serious consideration be given to reorganizing and restructuring the3
system so that regulatory and management functions are better integrated
and consolidated.

     Virginia should also explore other potential organizational changes
which would facilitate more effective management of cumulative impacts.
Among   other  organizational  options,  the  state  should  consider:I
reorganizing at least some of its activities along functional lines (e.g.,
inspections); centralizing permit processing in headquarters offices;
consolidating field offices across agencies; and instituting a long-term
system of training for state environmental personnel which focuses on
cross-media thinking, cumulative impacts assessment and team building.3


Greater  Emphasis  on  Basin-wide  and  Regional  ApproachesI

     Where possible Virginia regulatory agencies should attempt to take
larger regional and basin-wide approaches.  Examination of experiences in
other states (e.g., North Carolina and Michigan) suggests that basin-wide
approaches to permitting are particularly appropriate for water quality,
for example, where the geographical level of analysis allows a better
consideration of the cumulative effects on the hydrological system.   Such
a basin-wide approach facilitates the development of more  unified and3
integrated plans for managing activities in a watershed--allowing the
development of basin-wide strategies with a much greater chance of
achieving  desired  results.   Where  possible,  then,  Virginia  regulatoryI
agencies should organize and coordinate their permitting systems on a
basin-wide or regional level. Agencies should continue to look for ways to
utilize natural carrying  capacity and  waste-load  allocation concepts  inU
their permitting systems, building on regional and basin-wide levels of
analysis.3

     Taking a more regional approach to evaluating development and other
proposals better also ensures that cross-jurisdictional impacts will be3
adequately considered.   Regional  permitting  systems  for facilities and
other proposals of a certain size has worked well in Florida and elsewhere

(e.g., Florida's Developments of Regional Impact program). While Virginia





                                                                            9 7
I       ~~has a history of reliance on local governments in the land use arena it
        does have a system of regional planning district commissions which could
        serve as the foundation for a more substantive review of larger
        development projects and proposals. In addition, in recent months several
        regional planning processes have been initiated in the state (e.g., the
        Thomas Jefferson Study to Preserve and Assess the Regional Environment
        and the Lower Rappahannock River Basin Project) and the state should
        make every every effort to encourage the development of these locally
I      ~ ~initiated regional planning approaches.   The preparation of special area
        management plans, already mentioned, is another avenue for basin-wide
*       ~~and watershed-based planning.


        Strengthening the System of Land Use Planning and Growth
I      ~Management

              Many of the cumulative impacts identified in this report are the
        direct result of patterns  of land  use  and  urban  growth.   Successful
        management and control of cumulative impacts in Virginia, then, may
3       ~~require a substantial strengthening of the existing system  of land use
        planning and management. These initiatives may be directed at both state
*       ~~and local levels as well as the regional level as suggested above.

              At the state level a plan for managing growth and development is
        now being called for by many groups. Such a plan would ideally involve
I      ~ ~consideration of the underlying carrying capacity of the state's natural
        systems and would identify appropriate statewide policies and programs
        for managing growth in order to sustain and protect these resources. Such
        statewide growth management plans have proven to be successful in many
        other states and would provide essential guidance for subsequent land use
3       ~~decisions at both state and local levels.

              This statewide growth management plan should also identify the
        necessary  elements  of an  effective  implementation  strategy,  including
        possibly  additional  state  agency  authorities  and  institutions.    For
        instance, if the state truly wishes to address the problem of- gradual loss
I      ~ ~of habitat and natural areas it may need to embark on a major state land
        acquisition program (as many other states have done, including major land
        acquisition systems in Maryland and  Florida, for example).   Sources of
        funding that have been discussed include a land transfer tax.
              Where appropriate, special area management plans should also be
        prepared for particular regions or sub-regions of the state, ideally





                                                                  9 8U

corresponding to the physical and biological boundaries of important state5
resource areas. Special area management plans have proven very useful in
other states and have provided opportunities to craft unique regional
management programs.  A pilot effort could be started in Virginia in orderI
to gain first hand experience with this approach.

     Efforts may need to be undertaken in the long run to expand the landU
use and growth management capabilities of local governments. Presently,
local governments in Virginia are constrained in the land use management
tools and techniques they have available to them as a result of the Dillons
rule. We are not in a position in this study to identify the specific tools
and techniques needed to more effectively control cumulative land-based
impacts, but subsequent analysis should examine this question.
Transferable development rights, for instance, might be a very useful tool
for managing cumulative impacts, but is not authorized for local use atI
the present time.

     Integration between state, regional (special 'area management plans)I
and local growth management  is essential.   Each  local plan should be
required to be consistent with the state plan and any regional/special
area management plans that may have been prepared. Regional or special
area management plans should be required to be consistent with the state
plan.   A  variety of mechanisms  exist for achieving  consistency  and3
addressing the concerns of local governments over what can be perceived
as a loss of control.

     It should be noted that many of these issues are currently being
considered by the Population and Growth Commission. The findings and
recommendations  of this study should be coordinated with, and whereI
possible build upon, the forthcoming recommendations of the Growth
Commission.3


Greater  Emphasis  an  Waste  Reduction  and  Pollution  Prevention3

     States as well as the federal government are beginning to look for
ways to reduce the generation of wastes in the first place, and not rely as
heavily on managing and regulating the flow and impacts of industrial and
other waste.   Experience suggests that source-reduction strategies may
be  much  more cost-effective in the long term  and  more  successful  inI
ensuring that long term cumulative environmental and ecological impacts
are minimized.    Virginia should consider strategies that contain pollution
reduction as an important component.   The recent controversy over co-





                                                                             9 9

I       ~~generation  plants  in the  western  portion  of the  state  suggests  the
        benefits of developing strategies which reduce the need for polluting
        activities from  the start.   A  state energy  plan  might be  one  way  to
        identify and fund initiatives which reduce the need for polluting activities
        such as electric plants. This same principle of pollution avoidance applies
*       ~~equally to all environmental areas.

              Implementing facility-wide, cross-media permitting procedures
        should help in identifying source reduction opportunities.  The Interagency
        Multimedia  Pollution  Prevention  Project  recently  initiated  by  the
3       ~~Department  of Waste  Management,  is also a positive start, as  is the
        pollution  prevention  policy  statement  recently  approved   by  the
        Department of Waste Management and Air Pollution Control and the State
*       ~~Water Control Board.


5       ~~Exploring  Interstate  Management  Initiatives

              Even if the state of Virginia were to assign cumulative impacts
        management its highest priority, because of the basic cross-boundary
        nature of air, water and other forms of pollution, such efforts could only
        be marginally effective.  This is particularly evident, for example, in the
I      ~ ~area of air quality where large amounts of pollutants float in from other
        states to the west and south of Virginia.   These  realities suggest the
        continued need for a strong national system for managing environmental
I      ~ ~wastes  and  the  need  for Virginia  to  be  actively  involved  in other
        productive  interstate initiatives.   For instance,  the  newly  reauthorized
3 ~~federal Clean Air 'Act contains a potentially useful mechahism for
        creating interstate acid deposition commissions.   Virginia should explore
        and participate in these potentially useful initiatives. The positive
3       ~~experience  with  multi-state cooperation  through  the  Chesapeake  Bay
        Agreements is another example of the benefits of these types of
*       ~~initiatives.

              The interstate nature of many of Virginia's environmental problems
        also suggests the importance of considering the impacts of actions here
        that  may  affect others  in other  states.   In time,  and  with  greater
        sensitivity given to cumulative impacts nationally, we can expect
        agencies and political officials in other states to consider in turn the
        implications of their actions on Virginia.





                                                                 1001

Addressing  Equity  Issues  in Allocating  Limited    Assimilative
Capacity
     Decisions based on greater concern about cumulative impacts will5
undoubtedly bump up against questions of fairness and how to equitably
allocate the limited assimilative capacities of the finite natural
environment.  If there is greater reliance on the carrying capacity of theU
natural system   (whether an airshed, groundwater aquifer, etc.)   and
determining thresholds beyond which further degradation will not be
permitted, some inequity will be perceived by those communities, regions
(or individual property owners) whose options are constrained as a result.
If it is determined that standards require that no additional point source
emissions can be tolerated will this mean that certain communities will
not have opportunities to expand their economic bases? And if so, is this
an equitable result, when  compared with the history of allowing similarI
point sources in other similarly-situated communities?

     Is a first-in-time, first-in-right standard the most equitable one, or5
ought the state to examine alternative arrangements for more equitably
distributing the benefits and burdens of the state's limited environmental
capacity.  One possible approach might be to determine whether there are
ways of "sharing the benefits" derived from the many actions which
degrade a regional or state environmental resource, such as an airshed or3
estuary.   Some  types  of tax-base  sharing  for these  types  of large
facilities might be appropriate, for instance.  An effort should be made in
the future to identify and  examine  the potential  range  of policies or5
institutions available to address the equity question.   Policy roundtables
have been at useful mechanism in the past for identifying and resolving
these types of equity issues.   The state might consider convening  aI
cumulative impacts roundtable which could help to define potential areas
of consensus among stakeholder groups.3






                                                                  101

VII.       REFERENCES

Alto, Thomas, July 9, 1991. Personal Communication, Florida Department
of Community Affairs, Division of Resource Planning and Management.

Bain, M.B. et al, 1986. "Cumulative Impact Assessment: Evaluating the
Environmental Effects of Multiple Human Developments," Argonne, IL:
Argonne National Laboratory, July.

Barry, Theodore and Associates, 1991. Oraanization Analvsis and Desian
Proiect,  Department  of Environmental  Resources  Commonwealth  of
Pennsylvania.

Bedford, Barbara L. and Eric M. Preston, 1988. "Developing the Scientific
Basis for Assessing Cumulative Effects of Wetland Loss and Degradation
on  Landscape  Functions:  Status,  Perspectives,  and  Prospects,"
Environmental Manaaement, Vol..12, No.5, pp.751-771.

Beatley, Timothy and David Brower, 1988.   Manaaina  Growth:  Small
Communities and Rural Areas, Maine Coastal Prgram and Maine Department
of Economics and Commercial Development.

Bell, Christopher R. et al, guided by David Brower, David Godshalk, and
Edward Kaiser, 1983, Currituck Countv Outer Banks Carrvina CaDacitv
Study, Department of City and Regional Planning, University of North
Carolina , Chapel Hill, N.C.

Birch,  Gary,  July  3,  1991.    Personal  Communication,    Wisconsin
Department of Natural Resources.

Brower, David and Daniel Carol, 1987.  Manaaina Land Use Conflicts:  Dase
Studies in Special Area Manaaement. Duke University Press, Durham NC.

Butler, Lynda L., 1990. "State Environmental Programs: A Study in Political
Influence and Regulatory Failure," William and Marv Law Review, Vol. 31,
pp.823-933.

Clark, Walter, 1990, "North Carolina's Estuaries: A Pilot Study for
Managing  Multiple Use in the State's Public Trust Waters," Albemarle-
Pamlico  Study  Report 90-10,  North  Carolina  Certer for Geographic
Information and Analysis.





                                                                 102

Clark, Walter, 1991, " The Carteret County Water Use Plan: Implementation
Tools for Prioritizing Use in Bogue Sound," A proposal to the Albemarle-
Pamlico Estuarine Study. UNC  Sea Grant College Program, N.C. State
University.

Clark, William C. 1986, "Cumulative Impacts of Human Activities on the
Atmosphere," in Canadian Environmental Assessment Research Council,
Proceedinas of of the WorkshoD on Cumulative Environmental Effects: A
Binational Perspective, Ottawa, Ontario.

Cohrssen, John J., editor, 1989, "Inventory of Federal Agency Activities on
Cumulative Impact Assessment and Summary of November 30, 1988
Interagency Meeting on Cumulative Impact Assessment," Council on
Environmental Quality, Washington D.C.

Collins, Richard C. and Bruce Dotson, 1989, "Sharing the Pain: New Laws
to Protect Instream Flow,"  Plannina in Virainia, p. 5-7

Commonwealth of Virginia, 1990. Reoort of the Virainia Nontidal Wetlands
Roundtable, report to the Governor and the General Assembly of Virginia,
House Document No. 54, Richmond, VA.

Conservation Foundation, 1988. Protectina America's Wetlands: An Action
Agenda. Washington, DC: CF.

Contant, Cheryl K. and Leonard Ortoloano, 1985, "Evaluating a Cumulative
Impact Assessment Approach," Water Resources Research, Vol.21, No.9,
pp.1313-1318.

Cowart, Richard H. 1986. "Vermont's Act 250 After 15 Years: Can the
Permit System Address Cumulative Impacts?"   Environmental  Impact
Assessment Review, Vol. 6, pp.135-144.

Cox and Herson, 1987. Control of Nonooint Source Pollution in Virainia:  An
Assessment of the Local Role, Blacksburg, VA: VPI&SU, Virginia Water
Resources Research Center.

Council of State Governments, June 1987. "CSG Backgrounder, # 068702".

Creager, Clayton, and Joan Baker.  "North Carolina's Whole Basin Approach
to Water Quality Management" (Draft), North Carolina Division of
Environmental Managment.





                                                                  103

DeGrove, John M., 1984.   Land Growth  and  Politics, Planners  Press,
American Planning Association, Chicago, Illinois.

Dickert, Thomas and Andrea Tuttle, 1985.  "Cumulative Impact Assessment
in Environmental Planning: A Coastal Wetland Watershed Example",
Environmental Impact Assessment Review, 5:37-64.

Eckberg, David K., 1986. "Cumulative Impacts of Hydropower Development
under NEPA,"  Environmental Law Review,  Vol. 16, pp.673-703.

Gosselink, James G. and Lynton C. Lee, 1987, "Cumulative Impact
Assessment in Bottomland Hardwood Forests," Baton Rouge, LA: LSU,
Center for Wetlands Research, October.

Haskell,  Elizabeth  and  Victoria  Price,  1973,  State  Environmental
Manaaement: Case Studies of Nine States, New York, Praeger.

Hershner, Carl, 1991. "Nontidal Wetlands: Ecological Functions and
Values," Gloucester Point, VA: Virginia Institute of Marine Science, draft.

Horak, Gerald, Evan Vlachos and Elizabeth Whippo Cline, 1983.
Methodoloaical Guidance for Assessina Cumulative ImDacts on Fish and
Wildlife. US Department of the Interior, Contract No. 14-16-0009-81-058.

Horton, Tom, 1991.  Turnina the Tide: Savina  the  Chesaoeake  Bav,
Washington, DC: Island Press.

Innes, Judith, 1991.  "Implementing State Growth Managment in the US:
Strategies for Coordination". Paper prepared as a chapter for Growth
Manaaement and Sustainable Development, ed by Jay Stein, Sage
Publications.

Jeffries, Norman T., July 25, 1991. Personal Communication, No. Va. Soil
& Water Conservation Dist.

Jensen, Jerome, Sama, Jeffrey, and Nasca, Jack, 1983. The SEQR Handbook,
New York State Department of Environmental Conservation.

Kusler, Jon and M. A. Kentula, 1989. Wetland Creation and Restoration: The
Status of the Science, Washington, DC: U.S. Environmental Protection
Agency.





                                                                  104

Maine  State  Planning  Office,  1988.   The  Cumulative  Imoacts  of
Develooment in Southern Maine: Manacement of Cumulative Imoacts: An
Analvsis of Leaal and Policv Issues.   Marine Law Institute, Center for
Research and Advanced Study, University of Southern Maine.

Mains, Geoff, 1987. "The Upper San Joaquin Basin Study: Costs/Benefits of
a Cumulative Impact Assessment Under the California Environmental
Quality Act," The Environmental Professional, Vol. 9, pp.49-58.

Nasca, Jack, July 11, 1991. Personal Communication. New York Dept. of
Environmental Conservation.

North Carolina's Governor's Task Force on Reorganization of Environmental
Functions of State Government, 1988. Ootions for Reoroanization of State
Environmental Proorams.

Olshansky,  Robert,  1990.   Presentation  at Association  of Collegiate
Schools of Planning Conference in Austin, Texas.

Pennsylvania Department of Environmental Resources (DER), 1990.
DER Oraanization Study. Task Reoort: Interstate Studv.

Peterson, E. B. et al, 1987, Cumulative Effects Assessment in Canada:  An
Agenda for Action and Research, a background paper prepared for the
Canadian Environmental Assessment Research Council.

Preston, Eric M. and Barbara L. Bedford, 1988.  "Evaluating Cumulative
Effects on Wetland Functions: A Conceptual Overview and Generic
Framework," Environmental Manaaement, Vol.12, No.5, pp.565-583.

Reiser, Alison and Josie Quintrell, 1986, The Cumulative Imoacts of
Development in Southern Maine: Manaaement of Cumulative Imoacts: An
Analvsis of Leaal and Policv Issues, Maine State Planning Office,
November.

Remy, Michael, Thomas, Tina and Moose, James 1991. Guide to the
California Environmental Qualitv Act. Solano Press Books, Point Arena CA.

Renz, 1984. "The Coming of Age of State Environmental Policy Acts,"
Public Land Law Review, Vol.5.





                                                                  105

Risser, Paul G., 1988. "General Concepts for Measuring Cumulative Impacts
on Wetland Ecosystems," Environmental Manaaement, Vol.12, No.5, pp.585-
589.

Robertson, James, June 20, 1991. Personal Communication, Chesapeake
Bay Foundation.

Ryan, James  E. 1977, Letter to Gerald  P. McCarthy,  Administrator,
Governor's Council on the Virginia, March 25.

Sonntag, N.C. et al, 1986, "Cumulative Effects Assessment: A Context for
Further  Research  and  Development,"  Ottawa,  Ontario:  Canadian
Environmental Assessment Research Council.

Taylor, Sara, June 24, 1991. Personal Communication, Maryland Critical
Areas Program.

U.S. General Accounting Office, 1988. Wetlands: The CorDs of Enaineers'
Administration of the Section 404 Proaram, July.

US Army Corps of Engineers, 1988.  An Evaluation Paradiam for Cumulative
Impact Analvsis. IWR Policy Study # 88-PS-3, Water Resources Support
Center, Institute for Water Resources.

Virginia Department of Waste Management, 1991. "Memorandum of
Agreement For the Review of Highway Projects Undertaken By the Virginia
Department of Transportation," June.

Virginia  Institute  of  Marine  Science,  1986,  "Assessment  of  the
Development of Cedar Island, Virginia," The College of William and Mary,
November 10.

Virginia Institute of Marine Sciences.  1990.   Cumulative  ImDacts  of
Shoreline Construction Activities on Tidal Wetlands, VIMS report Number
90-3, August, 1990.

Virginia Marine Resources Commission, 1986. "Barrier Island Policy and
Supplemental Guidelines," adopted June 24.

Zedler, Joy B., 1991. "The Challenge of Protecting Endangered Species
Habitat Along the Southern California Coast," Coastal Manaaement, Vol.
19, No.1, pp.35-53.





                                                                              106

VIII. TECHNICAL APPENDIX

      This appendix contains selected items which were collected as part
of conducting this study. They can be useful to the reader who wants to
examine these primary sources for a fuller understanding of a particular
program or law.

      A copy of this Technical Appendix volume is on file at the Virginia
Council on the Environment for reference use. Copies also have been
placed in the libraries at the University of Virginia and the Virginia
Institute of Marine Science.

The  following  items  are  included:

      Item Number Description

            I Virginia: Letter from Attorney Geneal's Office to Council on the
                          Environment regarding coordinated permitting (March 25,
                          1977)

           2              Virginia's Amoco - US EPA Pollution Prevention Project;
                          Yorktown, Virginia (September 1990)

           3              North Carolina: Coastal Area Management Act (CAMA) (1989)

           4              Mississippi: Rules, Regulations, Guidelines and Procedures of the
                          Mississippi Coastal Program, Chapter 8, Section II, Part E
                          (1988)

            5              Louisiana: State and Local Coastal Resource Management Act,
                          Coastal Use Guidelines. Title 43, Part I, Chapter 7, Section 701
                          (1980).

            6              Wisconsin: Department of Natural Resources Policy Statement on
                          Wetlands Preservation, Protection, and Management (NR1.95),
                          (1989).

            7              Oregon:  Administrative Rules for Oregon's Removal - Fill Permit
                          Program.   Fill Permit Policy 141-85-050 (1986).

            8              Maryland: Non-tidal Wetlands Protection Act, Annotated Code of
                          Maryland, Section 8-1201 (1990) and Code of Maryland
                          Regulations 08.05.04.01
                          (1 991 ).

            9              North Carolina:  Water Control Law, Section 143-215.1.

           1 0              Massachusetts:  Toxic Use Reduction Act (July 24, 1989)





                                                                                              107

                   1 1             Wisconsin: Environmental Analysis and Review Procedures
                                    (January 1987)
                   1 2              California:  Guidelines for Implementation of the California
    I                            ~    ~~~~~~~~Environmental Quality Act (1990)

*                 ~~~~~13           Connecticut: Environmental Policy Act
                   1 4             Washington:  Growth Strategies Act (March 11, 1991)
                   1i5              Michigan: Recommended Environmental Review Procedures
                                    (June 4, 1990)
                   1 6              Massachusetts:  Environmental Policy Act Regulations: Areas of
    I                            ~ ~~~~~~~~Critical Environmental Concern (December 21, 1990)
                   1 7              New York:  Environmental Conservation Law (June 1, 1987)

                   1 8              New Jersey: Executive Order No. 215, Environmental Assessment
                                    (September 11, 1989)
1~~~~~~ 19                          Oregon: Statewide Planning Goals (1990)
                   2 0              Vermont:  House Bill 295 (cumulative impact and master plan
    I                            ~ ~~~~~~~~review)  (I1985)
                   2 1              North Carolina: Whole Basin Approach to Water Quality
    *                              ~~~~~~~~~Management:  Program Description (no date)
                   2 2              Oregon: Wetland Inventory and Wetland Conservation Plans
    *                              ~~~~~~~~(September  1989)
                   23               Maryland: Guide for Developing Non-tidal Wetlands Watershed
                                    Management Plans (January 2, 1991)

1                 ~~~~~24           Colorado: Basinwide Phosphoros Management (July 1987)
                   25               Colorado: Application of Innovative Pollutant Trading for
    I                             ~ ~~~~~~~~~Reservoir Water Quality Management (no date)
                   26               New Jersey:  Assembly Bill 988, Pollution Prevention Act
                                    (June 13, 1991)
                   27               New Jersey:  Pre-Pilot Facility - Wide Permit Program (no date)
I                  ~~~~~2 8         Massachusetts:  Blackstone Project Executive Summary (July 23,
                                    1 990)
*                 ~~~~~29           Michigan:  Basin-wide Permitting (February 9, 1988)
                   3 0              Illinois:  Procedures for Coordinated Permit Review (1979)