rojects require permits, and when they have the potential to affect fish and wildlife, specific permits are required.

To obtain a permit, the activity’s impact on the environment must first be determined through a study. But what does that study entail? What data is gathered? How is it gathered? And how does that vary from project to project? As one might surmise, the answers to those questions depend on a range of factors.

“Depending on the type and location of the project, permitting can include fish and wildlife studies to identify if threatened or endangered species are present and, if they are, what type of impacts to the habitat may occur,” says Susan Childs, regulatory and nontechnical risk director for Fairweather, a support services firm owned by Doyon, Limited. “Biological assessments that describe the species that do occur in the project footprint are also conducted to determine what the impacts to the species may be.”

Specific studies can include essential fish habitat, bird and nest surveys, marine mammal surveys, and specific species studies—for example, a caribou survey.

A driveway permit or alteration to an existing structure is unlikely to require extensive studies, but larger projects might, especially those in wetlands. A project’s impact on the environment is generally determined through a study of that environment.

“An Environmental Assessment (EA) is a National Environmental Policy Act process that looks at how a federal action project might impact the environment. It involves evaluating a proposed development or action before a decision is made and examines the activities to ensure that potential impacts are identified and mitigated,” explains Laura Young, business manager for Fairweather’s environmental consulting division Fairweather Science. “If there are significant impacts that cannot be mitigated, the development may require a more detailed Environmental Impact Statement (EIS).”

Assessments and impact statements are similar but, under the law, they are different creatures. Young explains, “Both processes look at the purpose and need, alternatives considered, environmental conditions and the affected environment, impacts of the alternatives and environmental consequences, and a consultation section with the agencies and stakeholders consulted. An EA may not consider wide, cumulative impacts or a geographic context. An EIS provides more detailed analysis that considers cumulative impacts and geographic context and involves a formal public involvement process. EAs require a public comment period as well, which is typically not as long as an EIS.”

EAs are generally completed for smaller-scale projects and EISs are required for larger projects with multiple components or more significant environmental impacts. Under the National Environmental Policy Act, an EA can result in a Finding of No Significant Impact.

Permitting is a result of the laws and protection acts put in place on both the federal and state level. “The big permitting laws include the Clean Water Act, the Endangered Species Act, the Bald and Golden Eagle Protection Act, the Marine Mammal [Protection] Act, and the Migratory Bird Treaty Act [of 1918],” says Adrian Gall, president and director of research for ABR Environmental Research & Services. “Those are the big federal laws that drive permitting requirements and there are also state laws essential to fish habitat and fish conservation.”

ABR is an employee-owned environmental consulting firm in Fairbanks. “There are a lot of different types of permitting, but we primarily focus on fish, wildlife, and wetlands. It is rare to find the actual animal in its habitat, so we consider the kind of animal that typically lives in this type of environment,” explains Gall. “We know that fish, mammals, and birds need a habitat to live in so we focus on determining the impact of the project and how it will modify or change the habitat. For example, how many miles of stream will be affected or how much acreage of a certain type of habitat will be affected, whether it’s a birch forest, wetland, pond, grassland, or tundra. We consider what kind of wildlife lives there, uses that habitat to pass through, or relies on the habitat for shelter. That is the most straightforward way to quantify the effects of a proposal of a development or other proposed action.”

Before joining ABR in 2005, Gall studied the population biology of nesting seabirds and the use of seabirds as indicators of marine conditions. In ABR’s environmental studies, Gall monitors the habitat usage and movements of seabirds, shorebirds, and marine mammals in marine and terrestrial environments.

ABR collaborates with clients to ensure proposed projects comply with the federal and state laws. Wetlands are a prime example. “Almost all ground in Alaska is wet unless you’re on a mountain,” explains Gall. “So if a client is digging the ground up in any way, it is a requirement for them to identify where the wetlands are and submit a permit request.”

For any type of wetlands project, determining if endangered species are in the area is critical. “If an endangered species is in the proposed action area, that triggers a need for consultation with the US Fish and Wildlife Service. This is more of an issue for marine or coastal development. For example, there is a lot of permitting action required for dock maintenance. If they have to do any water work, it creates sound, which can cause disturbance to marine life protected under the Endangered Species Act and the Marine Mammal Protection Act. So permitting for avoiding disturbance of marine mammals is a biggie.”

Data collected include information about stream-crossings, fish, wildlife, marine mammals, threatened and endangered species, environmental contamination, water sources, surface and groundwater, geology, geohazards and seismic conditions, noise, and air quality.

Before gathering any data, Fairweather must study which data is available. “A data gap analysis is usually completed to identify what data already exists or has been collected that could be used for the analysis,” says Childs. “A project footprint is identified and then surveyed, and specialists coordinate data collection studies.”

Examples of data collection include geotechnical core sampling to determine site condition suitability for development, wildlife surveys to determine if threatened or endangered species exist and to what extent within the project footprint, and archaeological and cultural resource determinations to identify cultural resources that may need to be protected or documented.

When an agency like the National Marine Fisheries Service or the US Fish and Wildlife Service assesses impacts on species and habitat, there could be situations where data does exist; in those cases the agencies could apply the precautionary principle that requires permittees to take a more conservative approach—which becomes the mitigation discussed during the process of permitting.

“We start every project with a desktop exercise to determine the project’s geographic footprint,” shares Gall. “Fortunately, we have a lot of resources available to us to assess the landscape within an area that’s proposed for development without ever setting foot on the ground. For example, there’s National Wetlands Inventory mapping that can give us a rough idea of what is or isn’t wetlands in a proposed work area. And we have range maps and information for what species you would expect to find in certain areas.”

The plot thickens if the area includes fish streams. Gall says, “If fish are in the area, we take a look at Alaska’s anadromous fish catalog. For information on marine mammals, we reach out to specific agencies like the US Fish and Wildlife Service or the National Marine Fisheries Service for marine mammals to find out what species would be of concern in those areas.”

ABR also turns to information available from the federal government. “The federal government resources make this work possible. Without the federal investment in those resources, our job would be a lot harder,” says Gall. “If the information provided by those sources is good enough, we might not need to go on site. But, if the proposed project covers a large area and the resolution of the information that you have available remotely isn’t great, then you have to go on site and do physical mapping.”

When data must be collected in the field, the research could take days or years, according to Gall. “It depends on the size of the project and the quality of information that’s available ahead of time. It can be very quick, or it can take years of study. We spent eight years continuously collecting data on the marine environment for a proposed large mining development on Cook Inlet,” recalls Gall. “Wildlife activity is highly seasonal, making it difficult to gather enough data. You need a couple of years of survey because you have a very small window to collect that information—and you often need permits to collect the information. In some situations, I have to get a research permit to start collecting the information for the research that is required for the environmental impact statement. Then there could be five years of data collection required before you can write it up. For big projects, it is often a multi-level process.”

The time required to complete the permitting process varies considerably. “If you’re putting in a gravel pad that is going to take up a tenth of an acre, that is a very different proposition to putting in something like Willow’s oil development on the North Slope which requires gravel roads, production facilities, drilling pads, and more,” says Gall. “If you want to know how long the process takes, there is no answer.”

Alaska resource industries take pride in doing development right. In his inaugural report on sustainability in 2023, Governor Mike Dunleavy defined what he called the Alaska Standard, “where the environment is protected, where the benefits of resource development are distributed to the people, and where the public interest is guarded.” State and federal environmental permitting processes stand as a pathway to achieve that standard.