at ELSEVIER QUESTIONNAIRE CHECKLIST FOR CUMULATIVE IMPACTS Larry W. Canter J. Kamath Environmental and Ground Water Institute Cumulative impact considerations have been required since 1979 in the environ- ‘mental impact assessment (EIA) process in the United States. Incorporation of these considerations has been minimal due to confusion over appropriate spa- tial and temporal boundaries in impact studies, lack of emphasis by project propo- nents and government agencies, and the absence of structured methodologies. The study described herein was conducted to delineate the types of cumulative impact methods being used in scientific studies and/or environmental impact statements (EISs) and to couple this information with existing EIA methodolo- gies to delineate a generic methodology that could provide a framework for cu- ‘mulative impact identification and assessment. Eight scientific studies were reviewed, and the utilized methods included five interaction matrices and/or com- posite indices, two geographic information systems, and one simple checklist Five EISs were also reviewed relative to how cumulative impacts were addressed and the methodologies utilized. The five EISs included oil and gas leasing and development in New Mexico, a housing/urban development project in McKin- ney, Texas, a program to install and operate terminal Doppler weather radar facilities at airport locations across the United States, a reservoir project in the Rogue River Basin in Oregon, and a surface lignite mine in Titus County, Texas. All five EISs addressed cumulative impacts to some extent —a simple checklist methodology was used for each, although the checklist items differed from study to study. Based on these findings, and considering extant EIA methodologies, a structured questionnaire checklist is proposed for usage in scoping curnula- tive impacts, addressing detailed impact issues and summarizing the results of ‘cumulative impact considerations in an impact study. The items in the proposed checklist will not all be applicable to all projects and impact studies. However, usage of this approach would provide a consistent beginning for systematically addressing cumulative impacts. Address requests for reprints to: Latry W. Canter, Environments! and Ground Water Insitute, University of Oklahoma, 200 Felgar Stret, Room 127, Norman, OK 73019, ENVIRON IMPACT ASSESS REV 1995%15:311-339 (© 1998 Elsevier Science Ine. 0195.9255/95/59.50 1655 Avenue of the Americas, New York, NY 10010 SSDI 0195.9255(95)00010.C32 LARRY W. CANTER AND J. KAMATH Introduction ‘The environmental impact assessment (EIA) process should incorporate con- siderations of the cumulative impacts of the proposed action. The action could bea policy, plan, program, project, or permit-initiated event. The requirement for addressing cumulative impacts has existed in the United States since the July 1, 1979 effective date of the Council on Environmental Quality (CEQ) regulations. Section 1508.7 of these regulations defines cumulative impact as the impact on the environment that results from the incremental impact of the action when added to other past, present, and reasonably foreseeable fu- ture actions regardless of what agency (federal or nonfederal) or person un- dertakes such other actions (Council on Environmental Quality 1978). Attempts to implement cumulative impact considerations has generated a number of questions regarding the scope of such impacts. Key pragmatic ques- tions when the proposed action consists of either a project or permit include the following: (1) Does the term “cumulative impacts” relate to the integrated impacts (over time) of the proposed action on each relevant environmental resource? For example, does this refer to the integrated effects of sulfur dioxide emissions on local vegetation over the life of a proposed coal-fired power plant? (2) Do cumiulative impacts refer to the summation of the impacts of the proposed action across all relevant environmental resources at a given point in time? For example, does this refer to the impacts of a proposed highway project on land uses, air quality, noise quality, and terrestrial vegetation when considered at various points in time over the life of the project? (3) Do cumulative impacts include all existing projects or impact-causing factors in the geographical areas (environs) of the proposed action? If so, what geographical area should be addressed? (This is a pragmatic issue in delineating the boundaries of the study relative to addressing cumulative impacts.) Should the analysis include the historical projects that are no longer in existence, but with the environmental effects of such projects still being experienced; should the analysis include projects that are currently in place along with the historical projects? How much effort should be expended to delineate potential future projects in the selected study area? (4) Should issues such as synergistic or antagonistic reactions related to en- vironmental effects be incorporated in the cumulative impacts consider- ations? An example might be the potentiation effects resulting from com- binations of high concentrations of sulfur dioxide and particulate matter in air.(QUESTIONNAIRE FOR CUMULATIVE IMPACTS 313 The previous questions illustrate that although the CEQ regulations included a definition of cumulative impact, this definition was not sufficiently thor- ough, thus prompting additional questions and considerations. Moreover, the term “cumulative impacts” is also utilized in the EIA process of other coun- tries and international organizations, and frequently the definition varies from that included in the CEQ regulations. ‘As environmental resources become more stressed due to excessive devel- ‘opment pressures, cumulative impact considerations become even more im- portant in the EIA process. However, because of the technical and policy com- plexities associated with addressing cumulative impacts, and the lack of initiative on the part of proponent agencies to thoroughly address this sub- ject, such considerations have never received the attention that they should in the EIA process. Many reasons could be noted as to why cumulative impacts have been only marginally considered in the EIA process in the United States. For example, Cada and Hunsaker (1990) articulated four reasons: (1) the absence of a coor- dinated land-use planning system; (2) limited development of policies and methodologies to address cumulative impacts; (3) impact study constraints relative to time and funding; and (4) limited guidance and initiatives from federal agencies. Still other reasons include the lack of clear delineations rela- tive to both temporal and spatial boundaries to be incorporated in the analy- sis, and the dilemma of dealing with multiple sources of baseline environmen- tal data and their potential inconsistencies (Anonymous 1993). Due to the lack of a uniform methodological approach for addressing cu- mulative impacts, the study reported herein was conducted to delineate the types of cumulative impact methods being used in scientific studies and/or environmental impact statements (EISs), and to couple this information with existing ETA methodologies to delineate a generic methodology that could provide a framework for cumulative impact identification and assessment within the EIA process. Accordingly, this article summarizes the results in terms of fundamental concepts, a review of eight selected scientific studies incor- porating cumulative impact methodologies, and a review of five EISs relative to how they gave attention to this topic. Based on this analysis, a question- naire checklist methodology is then described; this methodology contains a generic list of issues that could be addressed in scoping, detailed analyses, and impact summarization. Fundamental Concepts In ad, ‘tion to definitional issues, some fundamental terminology and con- cepts have been promulgated regarding cumulative impacts. For example, cu- mulative impacts can be classified as homotypic or heterotypic (Irving et al. 1986). In the first case, the impacts are by multiple developments of the same314 LARRY W. CANTER AND J. KAMATH type. An example would be multiple dams in a river basin. Heterotypic im- pacts are caused by a combination of two or more different developments or land uses. For example, the water quality in a river segment may decline be- cause of residential development, agricultural or forestry practices, and in- dustrial effluents. It has been suggested that cumulative impact analysis provides a frame- work for three vectors according to the CEQ regulations definition. They are (Stakhiv 1988): (1) the direct-indirect or traceable cause-effect sequence of im- pacts; (2) the collective or additive sequence; and (3) the more difficult, inter- active, synergistic sequence. Additive and synergistic considerations were also noted by Irving et al. (1986), along with antagonistic impacts. Specifically, three basic ways that cumulative impacts can occur were noted. The first is via an additive or incremental impact. That is, as the number of projects in- crease the total cumulative impact is equal to the sum of the incremental im- pacts of each project. An example might be the loss of resident trout habitat in widely separated basins where no interactions occur between projects. A second way that cumulative impacts occur is via supra-additive (also called synergistic) occurrences. Supra-additive impacts occur when the total cumu- lative impact to a species or resource is greater than the sum of individual impacts alone. Finally, infra-additive (also called antagonistic) impacts occur when a species or resource is exposed to a series of impacts wherein the total cumulative impacts to a species or resource is less than the sum of the individual impacts. Therefore, total impact can be expressed as follows: Total Impact = Sum of Project Impacts + Interaction Impacts The positive sign in the previous equation represents the supra-additive case, and the negative sign represents the infra-additive case. Depending on the type of impact response, cumulative impacts may also be classified as direct, indirect, or multivariate (Bain et al. 1986). Project ac- tivities (eg., construction and operation) affect resources through changes in environmental variables (the stimuli), which cause responses (positive or nega- tive). Direct responses refer to a simple stimulus and response relationship. Indirect responses are secondary or higher order relationships that act through intermediate sets of stimuli and responses. Multivariate responses are multi- ple stimuli with interrelationships that act in concert to produce a response. Direct responses are the easiest to understand and the simplest to represent and address in the EIA process. Both indirect and multivariate responses are more complex, less understood, and difficult to quantify. Consequently, their inclusion in impact studies has been limited, and there is little indication that this will change in the immediate future (Bain et al. 1986). This brief discussion of terminology and concepts indicates that cumula- tive impacts are, in fact, the consequence of many interacting factors, both in the past and the present, and their combined effects are not always well(QUESTIONNAIRE FOR CUMULATIVE IMPACTS 315 understood (Cocklin et al. 1992). Accordingly, these complexities must be taken into account in any methodology that might be proposed for address- ing cumulative impacts. Review of Case Studies Focused on Methodologies This section contains the findings of a review of eight case studies relative to the methodologies utilized to address cumulative impacts. These studies were selected after a computer-based bibliographical retrieval search conducted in the DIALOG system, The individual databases searched for relevant infor- mation included BIOSIS, ENVIROLINE, and National Technical Informa- tion Service. Over 100 potential references were identified, and from these, eight case studies focused upon methodologies were selected for comparative analysis. ‘The studies selected provide a range of illustrations of existing methodolo- gies, and a summary of the findings is in Table 1. Included is information ‘on target resources, procedures, and advantages and limitations of the cumu- lative impact methodology. Additional details are available elsewhere (Kamath 1993). The utilized methods included five interaction matrices and/or com- posite indices, two geographic information systems, and one simple checklist. Description of Case Studies ‘The first study in Table 1 used a modified cluster impact assessment procedure (CIAP) involving an interaction matrix to evaluate the cumulative impacts of 15 small-scale hydroelectric projects on aquatic and terrestrial resources in the headwater areas of the Salmon River, Idaho (Irving and Bain 1989b). The CIAP refers to an approach developed by the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC) to address small-scale hydroelectric development projects. ‘The basic CIAP consists of: (1) public scoping meetings; (2) interactive work- shops designed to identify cumulative effects, resources of concern, and avail- able data; and (3) the preparation of a NEPA document (EA or EIS). The Salmon River is part of the Columbia River system, which is the major river basin in the Pacific Northwest. The study focused on the cumulative impacts on the Chinook salmon (Irving and Bain 1989a). In the second case study, an impact scoring methodology was developed to assess the cumulative impacts of hydroelectric development on multiple resources in the Columbia River Basin. The methodology is a matrix-based procedure that uses models of the response of populations or resources to forecast induced environmental changes within project impact zones (LaGory et al. 1989). Cumulative impacts are calculated based on estimations of single- project effects first-order interactions among projects, shared project features, and an estimation of the impacts of existing projects. This methodology can assess cumulative impacts using quantitative as well as qualitative data.LARRY W. CANTER AND J. KAMATH 316 40) Buyjopou ami aseyd vorentaunsop (new) pe cor ‘no pure oyu; ytoq Surpurey sseyd uorTenyes> an used (861) su ——aanivesoTU ‘armbapent cqensp) 40 aiqedag aseyd stsxreuy pue ig Ary VOWS — PUR NO Pu aATIPPY -suoismypu09 yn yo souendaaoe ‘vorreuojuy sanemuenb seq pare sear wIquinjoD aapenenb ‘oq Supe seg art (6861) “te ‘yenbopeur yo aiqedeg ane woues wiquinjoy 19 “KID ‘suoysnjaa03 aq yo aoueidaoae sppury we> saoqtet ue s2D;pul MIN oTeMUOZUt uopenyeag “sissteue gum aseyd uoneivounsoq, 303 aqqurtea pure (srssreue avio usea ae wrep Aaypend —aatzeufen rpofoud apdngntn) (que) anny uowes ‘no] pu woReMosu yIoq BuNTpUEN aseyd uoreneact AID. vous §—oMMpT “ue (Q6RT) HEA pouraut ‘arenbapeuy fqyens 40 argede) Dawud siskreuy —-POUTPOIN YOUNG —aATY Howes — PUR BUIAIYSuODs MUTE, ‘AIO}OPOHATN ‘AB0}OpOU a er aEeAssouINY APMIS 956 2 jo aq mt paxdopy ainpsoora ABojopomary 382], JO HUY sodeiueapy. Sam@opopoyTa|Y edu] SAAETNUIND OF aATIE[DY pomaraoy SIPMg ase II Jo AreunuNg “T TAVL317 (QUESTIONNATRE FOR CUMULATIVE IMPACTS (gonuyuoo) ‘2aejnuina sprvamor dais 2u0 suo | 20upy pur sofuey> ‘quo auasoidos ue 11 “soeduy aanrejnuins Bupssasse spzenor dors ou0 {uo ‘sj souay pure soBuE ‘uo wosasdo3 weD 3 -suorsnysu0 ‘aun Jo aoueidaoce Jepuiy weo soopne pare saoqpuy qn ue sdou Suidaeyy jeotueI0qo9p sisfjeue jeonsneas sishteute SID sid uopeuuosur axgmeaguenb poyour uonenqeas yioq Buypuey stuauodwioo 30 aigedeD s2ounoso1 po1oo|ag sew parewome mysey soumeay ‘preuto owskyd og soypnsa wrosouuiyy ‘ined "18 spurpay —-sylodeauuyy, orBusyse A aifea prea euueH eanEH eq 20ypnig ou uF stoedusr (gg60) 12 ‘wosuyor yeuus0juy aqydesB095, uoHuysEA, DISA uy sosea iva Sapam 01 sisedui aqejnunno (8861) I@N.O 404 yoeordde ue sOUNA wae, used 24nd wowes a4 Ut sq In pue wig 01 sioeduyy emu au jo suone ur ‘SBO]OPONRW, aun yo sofeiueapy, ‘BOJOPOMNIW pas 2m ut pordopy ainpsoorg KBojOpOWAW ‘pomOsay e810 ‘pmig, Jo wy awa A 204 ‘pms ase Panuyjuod “V ATAVLLARRY W. CANTER AND J. KAMATH 318 ce) uoUIUONAUA ruowdoppxop ( dais) somnqume raford sod pur (€ dais) suo Ho a10ysyo soy syspeu pms su twoyuiayo pens oypsads 40) 90MmourE) sax) ue reaming wonidyosep wefosd — ALOMaWe [wOISKY urseg 224ny peaqieig 2p *saoimoser jeoiBoj002 ur sscqeme (1 aanar s20mm0sa1 (pun ‘pedunt 1721908 10) ABoIOPOUIEW Sunysiem soueyodut seiq wenn (oma) ano eueUOW, ‘areudosdde wo yA aanaaigo —suosTenyesa ausodwoy —— BULIO, saisogs94ny » 2orfe you pines OMT — FEM S900! 9 Wed ss900IG ——PEDYTELY ABoIO0g Peo mor sina “ROIOpONREWN {ABoj0pORW pen semory—~—sApmg —~—=«aAjuoWY APNG AND, aq ut padopy ampaoosa ABojopoyy BIEL jo Ba. panuyuod “t ATAVL(QUESTIONNAIRE FOR CUMULATIVE IMPACTS 319 The third case study addressed the cumulative impacts to elk and mule deer due to the 15 proposed hydroelectric projects in the Salmon River Basin (O'Neil and Witmer 1988; Witmer et al. 1987). The methodology is similar to one for assessing cumulative impacts on Chinook salmon. The fourth case study addressed the cumulative impacts to wintering bald eagles in two river basins in the State of Washington; the Hamma Hamma River Basin and the Snohomish River Basin (Witmer and O’Neil 1988). Three hydroelectric projects are proposed for development in the Hamma Hamma Basin, and seven such projects are proposed for development in the Snoho- mish Basin. A habitat approach involving a matrix was used in the analysis. ‘A geographic information system (GIS) can be a powerful tool for cumula- tive impact evaluation as it can help analyze temporal change, provide a re- gional context, and depict key relationships among variables. This approach ‘was used in the fifth case study involving wetland impacts in Minnesota (John- son et al. 1988). Thirty-one landscape variables in the wetlands study area were reduced to eight by principal component analysis. These eight principal component variables (wetlands extent, wetland proximity, agricultural/urban land use, soil pH, forested stream fringe, elongated headwater watersheds, erod- ibility and permeability of forest soils, and herbaceous marshes) explained 86.5% of the variance among the original variables. These components were used in a stepwise multiple regression analysis to identify the characteristics best related to the water quality data. The results showed that low wetland proximity values were significantly related to increased annual concentrations of inorganic suspended solids, nitrate, fecal coliforms, and specific conduc- tance. Decreased wetland extent values were related only to higher annual con- centrations of lead, chloride, and specific conductance. The results also showed that the cumulative effects on regional water quality depended on the location of the wetlands in the watershed. Geobotanical maps and automated mapping techniques were used in a study of cumulative impacts in the Prudhoe Bay Oilfield in Alaska. This case study demonstrates the flexibility of an automated geobotanical map database (Walker et al. 1986). The database has the potential for day-to-day planning and record-keeping within the oilfield. It also has many scientific applications. Bird habitat, ground-ice, plant distribution patterns, and many other features, can be related to the basic dataset. The dataset can also be readily expanded to include other factors such as geology and habitat attributes. However, maps can only depict relatively major physical changes to the terrain and not total cumulative impact. However, they can be used to depict the accumulated sum of development impacts and the associated visual impacts. The Flathead River-Lake system, located in northwestern Montana, is regu- lated by Hungry Horse Dam on the South Fork of the Upper Flathead River and by Kerr Dam on the Lower Flathead River immediately downstream from the natural outlet of Flathead Lake. Both dams, in providing hydropower, flood320 TARRY W. CANTER AND J. KAMATH control, and recreation, also impact certain aspects of the ecology of the sys- tem. The process of impact evaluation in this case study was based on mul- tiattribute tradeoff analysis and the calculation of an impact index. The meth- odology entails the identification of resources and their attributes impacted by regulation; simulation of the system’s water balance for each target hydro- graph submitted by Flathead Working Group (FWG) members to conserve or enhance their resources; valuation of resource impacts within each regula- tion scenario; and computation of impacts to allow ranking of scenarios, thereby achieving a compromise or least-impact regulation alternative (Jour- donnais et al. 1990). This approach allowed each member of the FWG to in- dependently evaluate relative tradeoffs implicit in each regulation scenario, in terms of its influence on specific components or attributes of resources for which he/she had management authority and in terms of the cumulative im- pacts on all resources. ‘The eighth case study involved a generic framework for biophysical impact analysis of offshore oil and gas development. The framework incorporated a systematic eight-step approach equally applicable to terrestrial and aquatic environments. The approach, developed for offshore oil and gas projects, ac- commodates direct and indirect effects, positive and negative impacts, and con- cerns at the individual, population, species, and ecosystem levels; it can also be used for additive, repetitive, chronic, and synergistic impacts. Figure 1 shows a diagram with eight steps for biophysical environmental impact analysis (Shirley et al. 1985). Lessons from Case Studies The following lessons can be delineated as a result of this review of the metho- dologies used in the eight case studies: (1) there is no universally adopted method for assessing cumulative impacts; (2) within the eight case studies, the most frequently used methods were matrices and/or indices; (3) in conducting cu- mulative impacts studies it is desirable to use a method that can incorporate both qualitative and quantitative information; and (4) the paucity and/or low quality of both baseline data and impact information may limit the effective- ness of the analysis. Finally, it should be noted that the eight case studies were primarily research studies; they do not represent typical cumulative impact analyses used in EISs. Review of EISs Focused on Methodologies As a part of the study reported herein, five EISs were selected and systemati- cally reviewed relative to how cumulative impacts were addressed and the methodologies utilized. The five EISs included oil and gas leasing and devel- opment on U.S, Bureau of Land Management lands in New Mexico (U.S. Bu- reau of Land Management 1991), the Stonebridge Ranch housing/urban de-oe 321 (QUESTIONNAIRE FOR CUMULATIVE IMPACTS T PROJECT DESCRIPTION (General Quantitative Project component} checklist Disturbance source| checklist 7 PROJECT ATTRIBUTES Detailed specific ‘quantitative Information Further detailed 2014 JO Ui uuonionsuoa ‘Suumnp sureinyjod jo suoysstur w31-40yS, ase spi pom 01 aBeurep 40 S807] peo] 1uawnpas ue yjouns paseaiouy iuanbasqns pue ‘qesowiat woreredan wi spounosoa afeurpp 40 $90] ‘seounosat [Bs9utus JO aBEUIED 10 SSO] ‘suon|pu0o 12m YY 10 “Buspooy “Furey 21 PUE A. IeOpEOG oF ‘suiansés super 22110 sopeds ‘paroduepua pue pousyeamyy ‘suieysisone ‘wsyedys pue ‘puepom ‘onenbe pure ‘qmugey 01 diysuonepes som) pue suoneindod snyUNWUHOD pu uoudsoune pupa Suppoye siorous ‘saves Suoyssiu9 IwEIN|IOd uonerusunpas ue uoysoxo uodn sisoyo pue yous 20e32g sonsuoieney> Pu “eO ‘81m punoi8 pur sorem a>e}Ins suyeuios (qss04) a¥ojoiuooyed pue eA pemniqnouse ‘stuO}pUE] yULOYIUsS Sa0unosa1 [wo/#OJ01K SSojoroo¥ou puw end sey spoimoso1 137844 sos pue wOsU puosiad pue “1usuifoduio ‘sonsusrseseys ployssnoy ‘uoneindod 5,ea1y unsuoW 9ANeN pue ‘jesmDaryszE BO|ODYoLE WOW! sounyea) oppu-uew pur jeaneN, pouno Appreapd pue sorrand og sKemyBIY PUB spEOA JO AOMIN co arsnpuy “PepoUILHOD “8'a) sasn puny ueumny “(padoj2xapiopun 40 “puryaSues ‘ts0s0j “3'9) asn puvy [eAMeN sordao04 pur aoanos usemiaq aouerstp ‘so1de004 ‘41 Jo suonersadee pure 40 pears stionuy Sa9|Al98 91M ‘Auages suransas soymouon20)205, soumosos yesniyn3, saounosau (ens, voneuodsues, sn pur 2810N sreduy weagiutig Aijenuaiog [pai9pisuo> 2q 01 s10198.1 aa1n0sey panuyyuod “t ATAWLQUESTIONNAIRE FOR CUMULATIVE IMPACTS 327 The 1991 EIS Supplement addressed and evaluated the cumulative impacts of the three Rogue Basin projects (two existing projects and two levels of al- ternatives for the Elk Creek Lake project) using mathematical models and checklists. The assessment used both qualitative and quantitative informa- tion, Wildlife impact evaluation was accomplished using the Habitat Evalua- tion Procedure of the USS. Fish and Wildlife Service. Economic effects due to the three projects have also been evaluated. In general, the 1991 EIS Sup- plement provided a systematic and quantitative basis for addressing cumula- tive impacts. Monticello B-2 Area Surface Lignite Mine The Monticello B-2 Surface Lignite Mine proposed by Texas Utilities Mining ‘Company (TUMCO) is a new source for discharging pollutants and the New Source National Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) permit is consid- ered to be a major federal action significantly affecting the quality of human environment. Therefore, this draft EIS was prepared to assess the potential environmental consequences of EPA’s New Source NPDES permit action (US. Environmental Protection Agency 1990). The surface lignite mine is located in northeast Texas near Mount Pleasant in Titus County; the study area encompasses approximately 13,650 acres with lignite reserves estimated at about 80 million tons. The recovered lignite is for use by Texas Utilities Electric Company (TU. Electric) at the Monticello Steam Electric Station (MOSES) in Titus County. The mining operation is planned to be by surface techniques utilizing draglines as the primary overburden- removal equipment. The lignite will be hauled from the immediate mining area to a train loading station, and from that point transported by train to the Monticello power station utilizing the T.U. Electric railroad system. The project will require the construction of site facilities such as haul roads, surface- water control structures, service roads, and transmission lines in support of the mining operation. This EIS used a qualitative checklist to address and assess cumulative im- pacts, and Table 3 summarizes the delineated impacts (U.S. Environmental Protection Agency 1990). Appropriate potential impacts were addressed, but quantification of impacts would definitely help in decision-making. In addi- tion, cumulative impacts in terms of other existing mines in the area, when coupled with the potential impacts of the Monticello B-2 mine, were not ade- quately addressed. Also, the study area in terms of cumulative impacts was not clearly delineated, Lessons Learned from EISs Several lessons can be enumerated from the review of the five selected EISs; they include: (1) although a checklist methodology appeared to have been used in each EIS, there was no uniformity in the impacts considered; (2) even though each EIS identified some cumulative impacts, the depth of coverage varied328 LARRY W. CANTER AND J. KAMATH TABLE 3. Cumulative Impacts Summary Table for Mining Project (U.S. Environmental Protection Agency 1990) Environmental Category ‘Cumulative Impacts ‘Topography Regulations require that post-mined lands be returned to their approximate original contour, no irretrievable commitment and no long-term cumulative impacts are ticipated. ‘mixes sand and gravel deposits in the overburden with silts and clays reducing its commercial value, constituting an unavoidable, tong-term, adverse impact and irretrievable commitment of rescources. Soils Replacement by reconstructed soils following mining will result in changes to the physical and chemical properties Of the surface soils. Adverse impacts include short-term increases in erosion rates until vegetation can be reestablished. Ground water Flow conditions and the localized area projected to ‘experience water level declines from dewatering and/or depressurization activites. Surface water Small incremental impacts on water quality and quantity resulting from the individual mining projects and duc to geographic separation between the projects, no adverse cumulative impacts are anticipated. ‘Vegetation Primary cumulative adverse impact results from the loss of habitat and naturally occurring drainage features, which require extended periods to fully reestablish following reclamation. Wildlife resources Primary cumulative adverse impact results from the loss of wildlife habitat. This toss is considered a major long-term adverse impact. ‘Aquatic resources Losses include decreases in some fish and tarval insect species. This minor net loss in the aquatic energy base is expected to be-a short-term impact. ‘Air quality Adverse cumulative impacts associated with fugitive dust from surface mines, lignite piles, and haul roads, and equipment exhausts are not expected due to the large character of such emissions. These large particles tend to settle out of the atmosphere within a short distance Geology Of their emission point. Sound quality Due to attenuation of sound levels with distance, no adverse cumulative impacts are anticipated resulting from noise. ‘Cultural resources A total of 354 recorded cultural resources sites will be affected and with survey, testing and/or mitigation of significant sites, recovery of cultural resouces data will lessen the adverse impacts. (continued)(QUESTIONNAIRE FOR CUMULATIVE IMPACTS 329 TABLE 3. Continued Environmental Category ‘Cumulative Impacts Post-mining landuse Even though post-mining land use is consistent with existing land use, the cumulative effect of mining/ reclamation over the life of TUMCO's mining is a long- term increase in improved over unimproved /natural conditions. Temporary adverse impacts on land use and productivity will occur until reclamation takes place. Socioeconomics ‘The TUMCO mining operations in the area cumulatively provide an important economic factor in a region that experiences a higher unemployment rate than the state as a whole. But, cumulative impacts are not expected 10 be greatly exceed existing employment levels because of local transfers of personnel Environmental category Demand for. public services should not exceed existing levels, Public health Due to limited impacts of the individual minimal activities on public health, no cumulative impacts with other TUMCO mining projects is anticipated. from cursory listings to quantitative calculations involving mathematical modeling (Elk Creek Lake project); (3) the study area for addressing cumula- tive impacts was often not clearly delineated; and (4) the most comprehensive study of cumulative impacts was in the Elk Creek Lake project 1991 EIS Sup- plement, and this was probably a result of the need to thoroughly address such impacts as delineated in a court ruling. Generic Methodology for the Assessment of Cumulative Impacts Based upon the findings from the reviews of the case studies and EISs, and also considering stipulated desirable features of a cumulative impact method- ology as delineated by Irving et al. (1986), attention was then given to the avail- ability of EIA methodologies that might be used directly or modified to ad- dress cumulative impacts. The desirable features of a methodology as delineated by Irving et al. (1986) are that the methodology should: (1) enable multiple developments or land-use practices to be addressed; (2) be practical with un- derstandable results that would aid in the decision-making process; (3) be adapt- able to allow for the large array of possible site-resource-impact combinations; (4) feature flexible boundaries in terms of time and space; (5) enable the aggre- gation or tallying of incremental and interactive impacts to give an estimate Of the overall impact to which a species or resource is being exposed; and (6) allow for differential levels of resolution (that is, the methodology should al- low for a more general, extensive analysis of the cumulative impacts of all330 LARRY W. CANTER AND J. KAMATH relevant developments, projects, or land-use practices, while still allowing in- tensive site and project-specific impact analysis). Information related to ex- tant EIA methodologies was reviewed in terms of their usage in the EIA pro- cess and decision-making (Lahlou and Canter 1993; Cocklin et al. 1992b). Based upon the previous considerations, it was determined that the most appropriate methodological approach should be one that would be simple and yet comprehensive enough to provide a broad perspective on cumulative impact analysis. Accordingly, a questionnaire checklist approach was chosen. Table 4 presents the proposed generic questionnaire checklist for identifying and/or summarizing the cumulative impacts of projects (Kamath 1993). The proposed generic methodology satisfies the features listed by Irving et al. (1986), except for the incremental and interactive impacts, which basically require quan- titative information, This checklist is an adaptation of a questionnaire check- list prepared by the U.S. Department of Agriculture (1990); it also includes environmental items incorporated in the classic Leopold interaction matrix prepared for the use by the US. Geological Survey (Leopold et al. 1971). The questionnaire checklist in Table 4 provides a systematic approach that should facilitate the planning and conduction of the cumulative impact as- sessment portion of an EIA study. It isa practical methodology as it has credi- bility and usability. Questionnaire checklists have been used for over 20 years in BIA studies. It has a structured approach for identifying key impacts and/or pertinent environmental factors. It facilitates an interdisciplinary approach during cumulative impact assessment planning and conduction; and, finally, the checklist can be modified depending on the project and site characteris- tics. The major limitations of this methodology are that it does not delineate interactions and linkages and does not require the quantification of impacts. ‘The questionnaire checklist could be used in conjunction with delineating the study boundaries for addressing cumulative impacts; depending upon the study area defined, site visits, as well as information gathering, may be neces- sary prior to applying the checklist in a preliminary fashion. Key considera- tions in defining study boundaries include natural interrelationships between biophysical environment features, man-generated interrelationships between socioeconomic environment features, and the geographical locations of ex- pected impacts. The temporal boundaries of the study should be considered in relation to historical, current, and projected developments and the previ- ously mentioned natural and man-generated interrelationships. Geographic considerations prompted by the checklist can be facilitated by the use of geo- graphic information systems. The checklist could be used for both the preliminary identification of poten- tial cumulative impacts, as well as in a subsequent detailed manner to more clearly delineate and quantify such impacts upon further information gather- ing related to historical and current projects in the study area, and informa- tion related to potential projects that may occur within the foreseeable future.331 (QUESTIONNAIRE FOR CUMULATIVE IMPACTS: (ponunsuod) cuter pe « apy IY weeID MF pu porETMBaI (60)x01 s91p0 pue $30 ‘S9OA) siEIIjod sre snopzEzey Jo SuOISETIND & gompendua 10 uowanow aye ‘Aupumny uy UoRBIOYE OF anp steUN UF sOsLEyD {siopo ajqeuoN20{G0 Layenb aye quoyqure Jo uonesoHo}ep oste> ue wonDedwos « Lanse usps « {aouspisqnspuy pure saprispus} gerens 2180]008 uo soimioe4y “usojpue] qwawsUON}AUD TwOISKet Huswwes ON safe HA HUBUIOD ON >aKeW =A “aodeneD [eIUaUONIAU, uu nso s199{04 JO ‘ur ymsoy 399f0Ne 309 THAN sppeduny aaneynun 2M TEA (€661 Wreuey) sisaforg Jo swoeduly TewwouosAUg aateIMUMD ay) BuIZITEMUINg 10/puL BUISSOIPPY 10} ISHYDIYD o1EUUOHSONd 20UDH “p ATAVLLARRY W. CANTER AND J. KAMATH 332 (panupsu02) SUaUIWOD ON 24K SOA, ‘ur ansoy sisafo1d JO sioeduiy 2anemMUIN 3Up TA {supede> ngpaey Buns edu « ieisom pyos 1aeoyroRs jo woreou=8 isouaysy uo yoedu jauoz uonsoiosd peaupon & oF woud {asoayeunied puv 291 ‘mous Suey jApooy PUEIUT 10 PUB|ION w UL UORINUIsUCD 10 wo yeu “sajoyoioq ‘syjem 01 anp) woReuMUTEIHOD OF a[qBI2UINA JoTeA PUOIE ayPUI & {ates a8seypas 10 wore a#seyoar oF 198d jsaisem Jo uoneoy{dde puey oF anp 876 punosB 03 sien jgates pumor8 Jo Ainuend pus Arend 2u7) soy se punNOss Jo UoI ‘suopeysap aunmesoduia “Od “ON "CO" ‘Ht ‘sy seq) suaiauresed Afenb s9yem TeuONUIALOD UO s1D2Z9 2IqBIDPISUOD » gsureans Jo uorranss {quewspunodiay 0} anp Aupiqimy puw eanyerodwsa) wr 28%ar0U qydorins gsuuaysds so1wm Bupqusp ziqeiod ot [stem aonjins Jo AInuend pur yen aya uj soBuey> « HWA syuaUIWOD ON eQKEW SOA ‘Auo#oqeD PemwouONAT ‘uy ymsoy 19F0 2K TAN panuyjuod “» TIGVL333 (QUESTIONNAIRE FOR CUMULATIVE IMPACTS (@anuyuoo) Usiso10y edu & jdox> yermnoyze Kuv 01 aBeurep a1w2x> 40 28e2108 2onpa! & {sopads Bupsixa Jo wouystusfdas peuss0 3y) 01 s9yANg v a1ea19 40 Base ayp OM somEds TUE|A mou 2oNPOLN {sofaads quajd poroduypus 40 121 01 edu « Jmygey weedy 01 edu « (sued spenbe pur “woyosoyul ‘sdosp ‘sse8 ‘sqrays na89A Jo Aujaponpoud 10 Kussoasp oy) 01 a8UEYD & ‘soon syouuen) {SHOEI & syuaumed ON 20K OK ‘uy asa s199f01 JO sedi] 26H UND SUN THAN SIMBUIWOD ON 2qKE] uy ymsey 109fOdd uy ‘Auo#oyeD yemouuounTy panuruod “> HAVATARRY W. CANTER AND J. KAMATH 334 (panusu09) iaaqjod « games (pye3y « seam Bupoijog ay JO KuD Uy sodIAs05 poiDife Jo MAU JO5 P3EN, {$901A198 [2907] e{ortas ayy 30) susoned yeunyyna Sunst¥a aBuEYD :sussped yermjn (:219 ‘soouersqns o1x01 ‘sreyorew aauonogpes “10 Jo asR2|94 “uoysoydxa 01 anp siuapIsde JO SIE « {sprezey yppeay qenurod 01 a[dood Jo axnsodx> « {spuBzEY yaqeay fenusiod 10 puezey yea & A1oyes puB YEOH, {stoa{go 40 sais pea1Sojoruooyed ue jemyno ‘yeoojosnyoue “yeoyoIsIY Jo uo}oNUIsap 10 01 19edUU « Ueo"ld Jo no) siyst {siusunuows 01 1oedu {saasasox pu spuepyzed or edu {saumeay (eoiskyd anbuun 01 edu juaisap advospuey oF edu {seisin pur smajs aquo0s 01 Ped isuosar 4 “suyyiy pur ujdues ‘Burunuens ‘Rune0q “Bum {ispuepam Jo uononussp 40 01 ioedult « inb apeds-uado pur enb ssousopjim o1 1oBdust SUaWIUOD ON 2QKEW SOR uy ynsoy st29for 40 stopdury aappynusn 242 (AN, ‘SHUDUIIUOD ON AQKEIN 59K, ‘aokayeD jenusuUONAUg tur ymsoy122FoId U2 LAN panupuod “’ ATSVL335 (QUESTIONNAIRE FOR CUMULATIVE IMPACTS (wanugsu02) iqwaukoydiua « {Buy Jo pampuers ayy uy s8ueY: {atwodut ed 29d wy soBUEy {Aarouose yeuo¥ios 10 7e90] Uo a 9s104PE rmowaag epjoyssnoy pur Bussnoy 07 af eae ayy ur sonsuayaeseyp amydesBouNp 01 2BueY> dod uvuny Jo uoRngustp 40 wo!E20} Jo Uo! ‘SWAWWOD ON 2GKEW SOK nsoq 199FO% SNP TAN ‘Rlo#ayeD [eyOUMONAUA panuyuod “> ATVILARRY W. CANTER AND J. KAMATH 336 heme ssourisp ajqesapssu0o 30 wafoud sroedust ayy Jo wanes fenyes80a8 amy pur ‘sioedus ui04-Suoy 30 wHoy-Ho4s aaey Keursiofoxd a, sefeos aond® pur au 2qy 0 UaA 2g ‘yuri ay sup 2q Kear "uoles2p{sU09 90 2/0N {ABioua Jo svoanos Supstx 10} puewiop Wl asEax0ur « {Braue 20 fang Jo asn jenuRAsans « A100, {seomosas yeMyEU Jo UoHIONISOP « {ssoanoses jesnyeu 2y2Idap « ss994noS94 [WINIEN, x0 Uf aFUEYD & wononusuos » {sjeusyeur pue ue Jo wourssou jo suionted 3 {spv01 sou uoMau uoHeLOdsuE 01 Daye isprezey oyren pu 1waplooe uy aseoi0uy SUDUHOD ON 9QKEWN SOA STUDWIOD ON aqKey S94 ‘okaeD yeueUTMONAT ‘uy yns9y s19f0Ld JO ur nsoyy 199fO1 24) THAN stomdury aaeymN 241 THAN, Panuuod “y AAVa (QUESTIONNAIRE FOR CUMULATIVE IMPACTS 337 ‘Summary ‘Cumulative impacts refer to the impacts of historical, current, and proposed projects on various features of the environment, including associated impacts from baseline conditions and future actions on the same environmental fea- tures. The main purpose for addressing cumulative impacts is to provide in- formation that will allow decision-makers to manage the rate of development or the total amount of development in any geographical area or region so that resultant impacts remain within prestated or preconceived threshold levels. Although CEQ has called for cumulative impact assessment in EISs, it has yet to become a standard feature of the EIA process. One important reason for the lack of incorporation is the absence of suitable assessment methods. ‘The study described herein was accomplished in three phases. The first phase consisted of a literature review to analyze the concepts and theoretical bases of cumulative impacts and to survey existing methodologies used for address- ing cumulative impacts. Eight scientifically based case studies were reviewed to identify methodologies used to assess cumulative impacts; it was found that no universal methodology is being used to predict and assess cumulative im- pacts. In the second phase, five EISs were reviewed to determine if they had addressed cumulative impacts as per the CEQ definition. It was seen that al- though the EISs had generally addressed cumulative impacts according to the CEQ definition, there was a general lack of detailed incorporation of cumula- tive impact concerns in the overall EIA process. ‘The third phase involved the development of the proposed generic checklist methodology. The methodology could be incorporated into the scoping pro- cess for a proposed project. It could also be used beyond scoping to more clearly delineate potential impacts and refine information needs and analy- ses. Finally, the methodology could be used to provide a convenient way to develop a summary of the findings of the cumulative impact considerations. Itis realized that all of the items in the proposed checklist will not be applica- ble to all projects and all cumulative impact studies. However, this checklist, approach would provide a consistent beginning for more systematically ad- dressing cumulative impacts. References ‘Anonymous. 1993, CEQ news and views Cumulative impact analysis. The National ‘Association of Environmental Professionals (NAEP) Newsletter 17(6):7. Bain, M.B. et al. 1986. Cumulative Impact Assessment: Evaluating the Environmental Effects of Multiple Human Developments, ANL/EES-TM-309, July, Washington, DC: US. Department of Energy. Cada, G.F, and Hunsaker, CT. 190. Cumulative impacts of hydropower develop- ‘ment: Reaching a watershed in impact assessment. The Environmental Professional 12:2-8.338 LARRY W. CANTER AND J. KAMATH Cocklin, C. et al. 19922. Notes on cumulative environmental change—Part I: Con- cepts and issues. Journal of Environmental Management 35(1):31-49. Cocklin, C. et al. 1992b. Notes on cumulative environmental change —Part II: A con- tribution to methodology. Journal of Environmental Management 35(1):51-67. Council on Environmental Quality. 1978. National Environmental Policy Act-Regu- lations. Federal Register 43(230):55,978-56,007. ERC Environmental and Energy Services Co. and Sterling Federal Systems Inc. 1991. Final Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement for the Terminal Doppler Weather Radar (TDWR) Site Determination Program, September, San Francisco and Palo Alto, CA. Irving, J.S., and Bain, M.B. 1989a. Assessing Cumulative Impact on Fish and Witdlife in the Salmon River Basin, Idaho, Conf-8910325-1, Washington, DC: U.S. Depart- ment of Energy. Irving, J.S., and Bain, M.B, 19890. Cumulative Impact Assessment: A Case Study, Conf-891098-3, Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Energy. Irving, J.S. et al. 1986. Cumulative Impacts — Real or Imagined? Conf-8603104-1, Washington, DC: US. Department of Energy. Johnson, C.A. et al. 1988. Geographic information systems for cumnulative impact as- sessment. Photogrammetric Engineering and Remote Sensing S4{11):1609-1615. Jourdonnais, J.H. et al. 1990. Assessing options for stream regulation using hydro- logic simulations and cumulative impact analysis: Flathead River Basin, U.S.A. Regu- lated Rivers Research and Management 5(3):279-293. Kamath, J. 1993. Curnulative Impacts: Concept and Assessment Methodology, MSCE Thesis, January, Norman, OK: University of Oklahoma. LaGory, KE. et al. 1989. A Proposed Methodology to Assess the Cumulative Impacts ‘of Hydroelectric Development in the Columbia River Basin, Conf-891098-5, Washing- ton, DC: US. Department of Energy. Lahlou, M., and Canter, LW. 1993. Alternatives evaluation and selection in develop- ment and environmental remediation projects. Environmental Impact Assessment Review 13(1):37-61. Leopold, L.B. et al. 1971. A Procedure for Evaluating Environmental Impact, US. Geological Survey Circular 645, Washington, DC: U.S. Geological Survey. O'Neil, T.A. and Witmer, GW. 1988. Assessing Cumulative Impacts to Elk and Mule Deer in the Salmon River Basin, Idaho, Con-8805180-1, Washington, DC: US. Department of Energy. Shirley, A.M. et al. 1985, An evolving framework for environmental impact analysis — Part I. Methods. Journal of Environmental Management 21:343-358. Stakhiv, E.Z. 1988, An Evaluation Paradigm for Cumulative Impact Analysis, 'BPA/600/J-88/505, Corvallis, OR: U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. ‘US. Ariity Corps of Engineers. 1991. Final Environmental Impact Statement, Supple- ‘ment No, 2— Elk Creek Lake, Rogue River Basin, Oregon, May, Portland District, Portland, OR.‘QUESTIONNAIRE FOR CUMULATIVE IMPACTS 339 USS. Bureau of Land Management. 1991. Albuquerque District Resource Management Plan Amendment/Environmental Impact Statement — Oil and Gas Leasing and De- velopment, BLM-NM-PT-91-009-411], June, Albuquerque, NM. US. Department of Agriculture. 1990. Checklist for Summarizing the Environmental Impacts of Proposed Projects, Stillwater, OK: Cooperative State Research Service. USS. Department of Housing and Urban Development. 1990. Environmental Impact ‘Statement — Stonebridge Ranch Development, McKinney, Texas, HUD-R06-EIS-90- ID, April, Fort Worth, TX. US. Environmental Protection Agency. 1990. Environmental Impact Statement— Monticello B-2 Area Surface Lignite Mine, Titus County, Texas, EPA 906/04-90- 003, April, Dallas, TX. Walker, D.A. et al. 1986. Use of geobotanical maps and automated mapping tech- ‘nigues to examine cumulative impacts in the Prudhoe Bay Oilfield, Alaska. Environ- ‘mental Conservation 13(2):149-160: Witmer, GW. et al. 1987. Cumulative Impact Assessment: Application of a Method- ology, Conf-8708124-1, Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Energy. Witmer, GW., and O'Neil, T.A. 1988. Assessing Cumulative Impacts to Wintering Bald Eagles and Their Habitats in Western Washington, Conf-8806163-1, Washington, DC: US. Department of Energy.