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

    HT                                                  Alaska Award    NA370Z0221

    %l-

    r'"l q~                SPECIAL AREA MANAGEMENT

                                                                        UNDER THE

                       ALASKA COASTAL MANAGEMENT

                                                                           PROGRAM

                                                                                   Summary Report
                                                                                              to the
                                                                  District Planning Working Group
                    U. S. DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE NOAA
                    COASTAL SERVICES CENTER
                    2234 SOUTH HOBSON AVENUE
                   CHARLESTON, SC 29405-2413
                             ................ . . . ,l...............................

                       .......... .........

                                                                  Pxoperty of CsC Library

                    *.. .......... Hunt
                  'ii..........................................................

      393
      .A4
      H86....
      1994                                                                                  ....
         .A4~~~~~~~~~.........I..... .
          H86~~~..... lsk fieo teGvro
          1994~~~~~~~~~....... .... .

    This report was prepared with financial assistance from the Office of Ocean and Coastal
    Resource Management, National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, under the
    provisions of Section 309 of the Coastal Zone Act Reauthorization Amendments of 1990.
    The views expressed herein are those of the author and do not necessarily reflect the views
    of NOAA or any of its sub-agencies.

                                                               WALTER J. HICKEL, GOVERNOR

                             OFFICE OF TIlE GOVERNOR

                         OFFICE OF MANAGEMENT AND BUDGET
                    DIVISION OF GOVERNMENTAL COORDINATION

      El SOUTHCENTRAL REGIONAL OFFICE  CENTRAL OFFICE     PIPELINE COORDINATOR'S OFFICE
        3601 "C' STREET, SUITE 370  P.O. BOX 110030       411 WEST 4TH AVENUE, SUITE 2C
        ANCHORAGE, ALASKA 99503-5930  JUNEAU, ALASKA 99811-0300  ANCHORAGE, ALASKA 99501-2343
        PH: (907) 561-6131/FAX: (907) 561-8134  PH: (907) 465-3562/FAX: (907) 465-3075  PH: (907) 278-8594/FAX: (907) 272-0690

                                               July 17, 1994

          To:      District Planning Working Group

          Subject:  Summary Report on Special Area Management Planning
                     under the ACMP

          A report that summarizes the past year's research on Special Area
          Management Planning under the Alaska Coastal Management Program
           (ACMP) is enclosed for your review and comment.

          Please provide comments by August 12 on the recommendations to
          improve the planning process, plan content, and plan
          implementation. Any suggested improvements you can offer on the
          content or presentation of material in the report would be
          helpful.  I plan on revising the summary report and distributing
          it to all the coastal districts, Council members, ACMP working
          group and other interested parties.

          I will be scheduling a district planning working group meeting in
          Anchorage the week of August 22. Ms. Heather Brakes will be
          contacting you to schedule the time and place: At the meeting, I
          propose to discuss comments on the report and recommendations,
          agree on recommendations, and select priorities tasks to
          undertake. A schedule of FY95 tasks and products, based on our
          Section 309 grant agreement with OCRM, is enclosed.

          Your participation and recommendations throughout this project
          have been essential. I believe accomplishing the tasks outlined
          in the report will strengthen coastal management planning in
          Alaska. I will be out of the office July 15 - August 12. If you
          have any questions or concerns before I return, you can call
          Gretchen Keiser at 465-3541.

                                               Sincerely, .

                                               Sara L. Hunt
                                               District Program Coordinator

          Enclosures:    Report
                          Schedule

    01-A35LH

                          ALASKA COASTAL MANAGEMENT PROGRAM
                                      FY95 Schedule of Work Products

    SPECIAL AREA MANAGEMENT PLANNING GUIDANCE

    Preliminary draft regulations                                                S. Hunt, DGC    Dec. 30, 1994

    District/agency review of draft                          .                                      January 1995

    Draft planning manual, relevant chapters                       .                                Feb. 28, 1995

    District review of manual                             .                                         March 1995

    CPC approval to proceed with rulemaking                         .                               Mar 30, 1995

    Formal public review of draft regs                         .                                    Apr. 15, 1995

    CPC approval of regulations                                                                     June 15, 1995

    Final planning manual, relevant chapters                                                        June 30, 1995

    Final regulations submitted to Dept. of Law                     .                               June 30, 1995

                                            DISTRIBUTION LIST
                                       District Planning Working GRP
                                                   07/14/94

    Ms. Mary Bixby, Office of the Governor, Juneau
    Mr. Jon Boiling, City of Craig, Craig
    Ms. Susan Braley, Environmental Conservation, Juneau
    Ms. Janet Burleson, Natural Resources, Juneau
    Mr. Chuck Degnan, Bering Sts. Coastal Mgmt. Prog., Unalakleet
    Mr. Tony DeGrange, U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service, Anchorage
    Mr. David Dengel, City of Valdez, Valdez
    Ms. Nicole Faghin, Reid Middleton, Anchorage
    Mr. Lloyd Fantor, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Anchorage
    Ms. Sue Flensburg, Bristol Bay CRSA, Dillingham
    Ms. Linda Freed, Community Development, Kodiak
    Mr. Glenn Gray, Office of the Governor, Juneau
    Ms. Kerry Howard, Office of the Governor, Juneau
    Ms. Sara Hunt, Office of the Governor, Juneau
    Mr. Jon Isaacs, Isaacs and Associates, Anchorage
    Ms. Gretchen Keiser, Office of the Governor, Juneau
    Ms. Elizabeth Kerttula, Law, Juneau
    Ms. Gabrielle LaRoche, Commerce & Economic Development, Juneau
    Mr. Bob Laurie, Transportation & Public Faciities, Juneau
    Mr. Gordon Lewis, Community Planhing, Seattle
    Ms. Maureen McCrea, U.S. Dept. of the Interior, Anchorage
    Ms. Mary Pearsall, Kenai Peninsula Borough, Soldotna
    Ms. Frankie Pillifant, Office of the Governor, Anchorage
    Mr John Purcell, Lake and P.eninsula Borough, King Salmon
    Ms. Darcy Richards, Aleutians West CRSA, Anchorage
    Dr. Paul Rusanowski, Office of the Governor, Juneau
    Mr. Glenn Seaman, Fish and Game, Anchorage
    Mr. Thede Tobish, Municipality of Anchorage, Anchorage
    Ms. Christine Valentine, Office of the Governor, Juneau
    Mr. Rob Walkenshaw, Department of Natural Resources, Anchorage
    Ms. Nelda Warkentin, Community & Regional Affairs, Anchorage
    Mr. Wait Wrede, Lake & Penninsula Borough, King Salmon

                                            TABLE OF CONTENTS

    Table of Contents ..........................1

    Executive Summary .........................11

    Acknowledgements .........................vi

    Acronyms ............................vii

    Introduction ..1.........................

    Chapter 1. Project Purpose and Methodology................2

    Chapter 2. Federal and State Framework .................7

    Chapter 3. Comparison with Other States ................20

    Chapter 4. Analysis and Recommendations ................28

    Chapter 5. Summary of Recommendations ................43

    Bibliography ...........................49

    List of Figures
     Figure 1. Inland Coastal Zone Boundary In Alaska .............10
     Figure 2. Coastal Districts in the Alaska Coastal Zone Management Program....10

    List of Tables
     Table 1. District Planning Working Group Members .............6
     Table 2. Coastal District Organization..................10
     Table 3. Municipal Implementation of Coastal Management Plans ........12
     Table 4. ACMP Special Area Management Plans ..............13
     Table 5. Proposed Changes to Program Amendment Regulations ........41

    Appendix A. ACMP Statutes and Regulations (relevant sections)
    Appendix B. SAMP Questionnaire and Responses
    Appendix C. District Program Implementation Questionnaire and Responses
    Appendix D. District Planning Working Group Meeting Summaries

                                  i

                                                             EXECUTIVE SUMMAR Y

    This report summarizes the findings and recommendations of a research project about
    special area management planning in Alaska. The Division of Governmental Coordination
    (DGC), Alaska Office of the Governor received funds for this special project from the
    federal Office of Ocean and Coastal Resource Management, National Oceanic and
    Atmospheric Administration under the Coastal Zone Management Reauthorization Act
    Section 309 Enhancement Grants Program.

    Study Objectives

    The primary purpose of this project is to improve and update the Alaska Coastal
    Management Program (ACMP) special area management planning process and products.
    Specific project objectives are:

        * to revise, as needed, the ACMP regulations governing special area management
           planning;
        * to clarify the relationship between the use of area-specific management policies and
           Area Which Merits Special Attention (AMSA) planning and provide guidance on the
           appropriate approach to take;
     � to prepare a planning manual that describes the ACMvP planning process and
           required special area plan elements;
     *    to describe, in the manual, the relationship between ACMP planning and other
           planning efforts; and
     �    to describe, in the manual, the funding of special area planning under the ACMP
           and other possible funding sources.

    The second phase of the project during State fiscal year 1995 will include developing
    regulatory changes to the ACMP and planning guidance to improve special area
    management planning. Additional research and other actions to improve the
    implementation of district plans and special area management plans are listed in Chapter 5.
    This summary report presents recommendations to the district planning working group.

    Report Contents

    The information in this report is derived from the review of State and federal regulations
    governing coastal management; review of historic program files on Alaska coastal district
    programs; telephone interviews with staff of 14 coastal states; review of regulations,
    planning guidance, and special area management plans provided by the 14 coastal states;
    review of literature on coastal management and special area management; the results of a
    questionnaire on coastal district planning and two questionnaires on the implementation of
    coastal district programs and special area management plans; and the discussions and
    recommendations of a District Planning Working Group formed to assist with this project.

                                                11

    This report is comprised of five chapters. Chapter I explains the project purpose and
    methodology. Chapter 2 explains the framework for special area management planning
    under the federal Coastal Zone Management Act and the Alaska Coastal Management
    Program. Chapter 3 discusses the coastal management structure and approach to special
    area management planning employed in other coastal states. Chapter 4 analyzes the results
    of the research efforts recommends ways to improve to coastal district planning. Chapter 5
    summarizes the recommendations to improve special area management planning into
    categories: areas which merit special attention, plan content, planning process,
    recommended research, and public education and training. Under each category, avenues
    to accomplish improvements are grouped as regulatory revisions, planning manual guidance,
    grant management tasks, or recommendations to OCRM. Tasks to undertake during State
    fiscal year 95 are noted.

    Background

    A cornerstone of Alaska's coastal management statute and federally approved program is
    coastal land and water use planning at the local government level. Furthermore, districts
    are charged with identifying special management areas under Alaska Statute 46.40.030(7).
    Although the ACMP already provides for special area planning, the State's coastal program
    only minimally identifies what a good plan should include. Consequently, special area
    plans in the past varied considerably with respect to resource information, issues,
    conflicting uses analyses, enforceable policies, and implementation. Multiple plan reviews,
    difficult planning meetings, and questionable plan usefulness have, at times, resulted.
    Another issue is the relationship between ACMP special management planning and other
    planning efforts, particularly those at the local level. It has not always been clear that
    ACMP special area planning was the appropriate avenue for local planning efforts.

    Special area planning undertaken by coastal districts follows the ACMP planning process
    outlined in the ACMP Guidelines for District Coastal Management Programs 6 AAC
    85.120 - 180. The guidelines include specific requirements for public involvement and for
    coordination and review by federal, state and local governments. Required program
    elements that must be included in a special area plan are outlined in 6 AAC 80.160. Areas
    Which Merit Special Attention Inside Districts, 6 AAC 80.170. Areas Which Merit Special
    Attention Outside Districts, and in 6 AAC 85.010 - 110 Article 1. Program Elements.

    Findings

    In response to the questionnaires, some districts responded that AMSAs or special area
    management plans (SAMPs) provide greater "due deference" and local control for areas with
    high resource values and pressures of growth and development. Other benefits from
    participating in the development and implementation of a special area plan also identified
    were giving the area or resources special status that would be considered by state and
    federal agencies; providing more detail on resources, uses and activities; and improvements

                                                ii1

    to permitting. Another benefit is increased public participation and awareness of coastal
    management at the local level.

    The predominant concerns raised about coastal district planning include: 1) the need for
    more involvement of state and federal agencies during plan development; 2) the length and
    complexity of the plan amendment process- a deterrent to making plan revisions; 3) and
    myriad problems with plan implementation at the local and state level, including confusion
    about local, state and federal responsibilities, problems with policy interpretation, vague
    policy language, homeless stipulations, and monitoring and enforcement.

    The results of this research indicate the aspects of the planning process most often raised as
    problematic include lack of participation of State and federal agencies in the early phases of
    planning; late comments on the review of the public hearing draft; reviewers raising late,
    substantive concerns during the council review phase; problems with implementation at the
    local and state level; and the lengthy and complex plan amendment process.

    Once of the most critical issues with the ACMP in general is implementation, and
    monitoring and enforcement of the ACMP and district programs, including AMSA plans.
    While all implementation issues are not within the scope of this project, improved
    enforceable policy language, clarification of the authorities, procedures, and responsibilities
    for implementation, monitoring and enforcement at the local, State and federal levels would
    undoubtedly improve implementation. A requirement to periodically review and revise the
    district programs and special area management plans would help make the plans more
    effective. Streamlining the plan amendment process would provide more flexibility to the
    cycle of plan development, analysis of effectiveness, and revision.

    Recommendations
    Several recommendations to improve the plan content, planning process, and plan
    implementation are presented in Chapters 4 and 5. Through regulatory revisions,
    preparation of a planning manual, improvements to grant management, and clarification of
    implementation responsibilities, special area management planning as well as basic coastal
    district planning can be enhanced. The combination of these tasks will clarify, strengthen,'
    or provide guidance on:

        * Criteria for AMSA designation
        * Options for using AMSA plans or area-specific policies in the district program
        * Elements for plan content
        * Streamline and clarify the plan revision procedures
        * Encourage a strategic planning approach
        * Encourage periodic plan analysis and revision
        * Local, State and federal implementation
        * Clarify and provide guidance on the planning process
        * Encourage early, substantive involvement of the State and federal agencies and the
          public to identify the issues and determine appropriate management tool

                                                iv

        * Encourage substantive review of the public hearing draft phase

    Some of the additional research is suggested to clarify or resolve certain implementation
    issues: the responsibilities and authorities of the State agencies and local districts,
    consideration of a socioeconomic standard, consideration of a variance procedure, the
    extent of the problem with "homeless stipulations", and a study of the effectiveness of local
    implementation tools.

                                                 V

                                                            A CKNO WLEDGFMENTS

    I especially want to acknowledge the members of the District Planning Working Group for
    their invaluable contribution to this project. I am also grateful to my two colleagues at the
    Division of Governmental Coordination (DGC) who contributed to the research that
    supports this report. Ms. Christine Valentine spent many long hours reading the coastal
    district program files, summarized the results of the coastal district planning questionnaire,
    and also conducted two surveys on implementation of coastal district plans. Mr. Chas
    Dense spent many hours on the telephone interviewing several coastal states about their
    coastal programs and summarized the plethora of information the states sent to DGC. Ms.
    Heather Brakes was responsible for the onerous task of arranging the working group
    meetings. I am grateful for my ruthless editor, Ms. Gretchen Keiser, for her sage advise.

                                               vi

                                                           TABLE OF A CR ONYMS

    AAC          Alaska Administrative Code

    ACMA         Alaska Coastal Management Act

    ACMP         Alaska Coastal Management Program

    AMSA         Area Which Merits Special Attention

    AS           Alaska Statute

    CFR          Code of Federal Regulations

    CPC          Coastal Policy Council

    CRSA         Coastal Resource Service Area

    CZMA         Coastal Zone Management Act

    DCRA         Department of Community and Regional Affairs

    DGC          Division of Governmental Coordination

    DNR          Department of Natural Resources

    DPWG         District Planning Working Group

    ET AMSA    Extra-territorial AMSA (outside a district)

    FEIS         Final Environmental Impact Statement

    FY           Fiscal Year

    NOAA         National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration

    OCRM         Office of Ocean and Coastal Resource Management

    RPI          Routine Program Implementation

    SAMP         Special Area Management Plan

    USC          United States Code

                                             vii

                                                      CHAPTER I. INTRODUCTION

    This report summarizes the results of research about special area management planning
    supported by the Alaska Coastal Management Program (ACMP). The Alaska Division of
    Governmental Coordination (DGC), Office of the Governor received funds from the
    federal Office of Ocean and Coastal Resource Management (OCRM), National Oceanic and
    Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) to undertake a two.-year effort to analyze and make
    improvements to special area management planning. The 1990 reauthorization of the
    federal Coastal Zone Management Act (CZMA) created a new Section 309 Enhancement
    Grants Program which provides the funding for coastal states to make improvements to
    their coastal programs to address several nationally recognized coastal issues, including
    special area management planning.

    The first year effort during State fiscal year 1994 included:
           1) an analysis of 12 recent Alaska coastal district plans and special area management
           plans,
           2) review of coastal management regulations and planning guidance from 14 coastal
           statesi
           3) review of State and federal coastal management regulations
           4) review of literature on special area management planning and coastal
           management,
           5) analysis of responses to a questionnaire on special area management and coastal
           district planning,
           6) review of the results of two questionnaires on implementation of coastal district
           plans completed in a separate research project' (Valentine 1994), and
           7) the recommendations of a District Planning Working Group (DPWG) formed to
           assist the project.

    The second phase of the project during State fiscal year 1995 will include developing
    regulatory changes to the ACMP and planning guidance to improve special area
    management planning. Additional research and other actions to improve the
    implementation of district plans and special area management plans are listed in Chapter 5.
    This report presents recommendations to the district planning working group.

           'Coastal states interviewed include California, Connecticut, Maine, Massachusetts, Michigan, New
    Hampshire, New Jersey, New York, North Carolina, Oregon, Pennsylvania, Rhode Island, South Carolina, and
    Washington.

           2Christine Valentine, DGC staff person as a M.S. candidate at Oregon State University, conducted two
    surveys on the implementation of district coastal management plans. The first survey targeted state resource
    agencies and the second coastal districts.

                                                  1

                  CHAPTER 1. PROJECT PURPOSE AND METHODOLOGY

    This first chapter provides the backdrop for special area management planning and
    summarizes relevant sections of the federal CZMA and the Alaska Coastal Management
    Program.

    Need for the Project

    The Alaska Coastal Management Program (ACMP) authorizes special area management
    planning, but the statutes and regulations identify only minimally what a plan should
    include. Specific guidance is lacking about what to expect in the ACMP planning process
    or how to prepare a special area management plan. As a consequence, a special area plan
    developed under the ACMP, most commonly known as an "Area which Merits Special
    Attention" (AMSA) plan, vary considerably in quality of resource information; depth of
    issues and conflicting uses analysis; and specificity in coastal district goals, enforceable
    policies, and implementation. The usefulness of these AMSA plans during the ACMP
    consistency review process is quite variable.

    Another issue that surfaces during the planning process is the relationship between ACMP
    special management planning and other planning efforts, particularly those at the local
    level. According to the Alaska Coastal Management Act, coastal district planning must be
    based on existing local comprehensive planning, a new comprehensive resource use plan, or
    a comprehensive statement of needs and objectives governing resource use in the coastal
    area. In some instances, it is not clear whether ACMP special area planning is the
    appropriate vehicle for the local planning efforts undertaken by coastal districts. Non-
    traditional comprehensive land-use planning may better serve the purposes of the local
    government, unless the coastal district intends to develop specific special area policies (or,
    the enforceable standards used to review coastal projects), beyond what is already
    enforceable in their basic coastal program.

    A special area planning manual would help coastal districts undertake a more focused and
    predictable planning process and prepare more usable planning products. State and federal
    agencies would also gain a better understanding of the planning process and plan
    requirements. From the ACMP perspective, special area planning is primarily intended to
    develop an information and policy framework within which coastal project decision
    making can occur during the consistency review process. The special area planning manual
    would clarify the relationship among the different planning efforts and guide coastal
    districts toward the most appropriate vehicle for their planning needs.

    Project Purpose

    The primary purpose of this project is to improve the ACMP special area management
    planning process and products. Specific project objectives are:

                                                2

      1)   to revise, as needed, the ACMP regulations governing special area management
           planning;

      2)   to clarify the relationship between the use of AMSA planning and the use of area-
           specific management policies and provide guidance on the appropriate approach to
           take;

      3)   to prepare a planning manual that describes the ACMP planning process and
           required special area plan elements;

      4)   to describe, in the manual, the relationship between ACMP planning and other
           planning efforts; and

      5)   to describe, in the manual, the funding of special area planning under the ACMP
           and other possible sources.

    Definition of terms

    The following terms are used throughout this report. The definitions are for purpose of
    this report only.

    Stnecial area management plan: a plan which provides detailed resource inventory and
    analysis and enforceable policies beyond the general planning and regulatory system that is
    part of the coastal district management program or the Alaska Coastal Management
    Program. A special area management plan can include, but is not limited to an Area Which
    Merits Special Attention plan, a wetlands management plan, a recreation management plan,
    an erosion management plan, a watershed management plan, or a harbor management plan.

    Identify: to describe an area in a basic coastal district program for future planning and
    designation as an area which merits special attention. The identification must include a
    brief description of how a potential AMSA fits the criteria in AS 46.40.210, 6 AAC 80.158,
    and 6 AAC 80. 160 - 170.

    Nominate: to submit an area which merits special attention plan to the Coastal Policy
    Council for approval and designation. The AMSA plan must meet the requirements of
    6 AAC 80.160 if within a coastal district or 80.170 if outside a coastal district, and the
    general requirements of 6 AAC 85.020 - 180.

    Designation: approval of an AMSA plan by the Coastal Policy Council in accordance with
    6 AAC 80.160 or 80.170 and 6 AAC 85.

    District D~rogram: a coastal district's coastal management program, also referred to as a
    district plan.

                                                3

    Project Methodology

    Historically, coastal districts prepare a general coastal land use management plan. Then,
    subsequent planning efforts have focused on a special area within the district. Special area
    planning procedures and content are the same as the ACMP procedures and requirements
    for basic coastal district planning. Therefore, this project analyzes the overall ACMP
    planning procedures this report addresses.

    The methods used to analyze and recommend improvements to ACMP special area
    planning include the following:

    1. Review of State and Federal Laws
    The federal and State laws and regulations governing coastal management were examined.
    Chapter 2 provides an overview of these laws and their effect on the Alaska Coastal
    Management Program. In addition, literature on coastal management planning and special
    area management planning was reviewed to learn from the analysis of other successful
    special area management planning efforts.

    2. Review of Other States Coastal Management Programs
    Fourteen coastal states were selected for review of their coastal management programs,
    statutes, regulations, planning guidance, and where available, special area management plans.
    The states reviewed include California, Connecticut, Maine, Massachussettes, Michigan,
    New Hampshire, New Jersey, New York, North Carolina, Oregon, Pennsylvania, Rhode
    Island, South Carolina, and Washington. Selection was based on geographic distribution
    and a review of special area management planning descriptions previously submitted by
    coastal states as apart of the federal Section 309 (CZMA) program. Telephone interviews
    with coastal program staff were conducted during November 1993 - April 1994. Questions
    were asked regarding their criteria for special areas, how their state programs were
    structured to manage these areas, the use of area-specific policies in the state program or
    local programs to manage these special areas, and the use of special area plans in coastal
    land use decision-making. Information was sought on planning guidance offered in
    regulation, Section 309 special area management planning projects, and planning manuals.
    Materials reviewed are listed in the bibliography.

    3. Review of Coastal District Plans
    Historical program files on district coastal management and special area management plans
    were reviewed to identify recurring problems with the plan content or planning process.
    Materials analyzed include public hearing drafts, concept approved drafts, public comments
    on the drafts, DGC's preliminary and final findings and conclusions, and DGC responses
    to comments. Ms. Christine Valentine, a graduate intern working on a Masters of Science
    Degree in Marine Resource Management, Oregon State University, reviewed the program
    files and summarized recurring problems or any evident need for guidance. Conclusions
    from the review of the program files are discussed in Chapter 4 under applicable ACMP
    standards. The twelve land-use plans reviewed include:

                                                4

    Angoon Coastal Management Program (1992),
    Kasilof River AMSA public hearing draft (1992),
    Kenai Peninsula Borough Coastal Management Program (1990),
    Mitchell, Hood and Chaik- Whitewater Bays AMSAs (1992),
    Nushagak and Mulchatna Rivers Recreation Management Plan (1990),
    Point MacKenzie AMSA (1993),
    Port Graham/Nanwalek AMSA (1992),
    Port of Skagway and Skagway River AMSAs (1992),
    Sitka Public Use Management Plan (1993),
    Thorne Bay Coastal Management Program (1991),
    Valdez Duck Flats AMSA concept approved draft (1992), and
    Whittier Harbor Plan public hearing draft (1991).

    4. Questionnaire
    A written questionnaire on coastal district planning and special area management in Alaska
    was developed and distributed in Fall 1993 to the coastal districts, State and federal
    agencies, planning consultants, and environmental and industry representatives. Questions
    were asked about planning content, the planning process, adequacy and clarity of ACMP
    regulations (6 AAC 80 and 6 AAC 85), usefulness of coastal district programs and special
    area management plans, about plan implementation, and the need for and preferred content
    of a coastal district planning manual. About 135 questionnaires were distributed and 25
    people responded- an 18% response rate. Responses from 11 of the 34 coastal district were
    received- a 33% response rate. Also responding were six State agencies, three federal
    agencies, three industries and two other interest groups. Because of the higher district
    response rate, the survey results are weighted toward district perspectives. The
    questionnaire responses are discussed in Chapters 2, 3, and 4. The questionnaire and a
    summary of the responses are presented in Appendix B.

    Ms. Christine Valentine, in her research on the implementation of local coastal district
    programs in Alaska, also conducted two surveys. One survey targeted coastal districts and
    the other State agency implementors (participants in the ACMP consistency review
    process). Most surveys were conducted by telephone, although a few respondents submitted
    written comments. The first survey focused primarily on how the state uses and
    implements local coastal management plans and was administered to 25 state resource
    agency staff that implement the ACMP on a continual basis. Reposes were received from
    27 staff interviewed, exceeding a 100 percent response rate. The second survey,
    administered to 32 coastal districts, focused on the experiences of the coastal districts with
    the state consistency review process and plan implementation in general. A response rate
    of 59 percent was achieved, with 19 of the coastal district responding. Copies of the
    questionnaires and a summary of the results are included in Appendix C. Survey responses
    on the implementation of the coastal district plans are used to develop recommendations
    for improvements to the plans and planning process where appropriate.

                                                5

    5. District Plannine Workine Grout)
    Membership was solicited early in the project for a working group formed to actively
    participate in this Special Area Management Planning project. The District Planning
    Working Group includes coastal districts, State and federal agencies, and planning
    consultants (Table 1). The purpose of the group is to assist in identifying problems with
    the planning process, plan content, and plan implementation; help identify solutions; and
    participate in subsequent rulemaking; provide guidance on and reviewing a draft planning
    manual; and initiate other recommended actions described in Chapter 5. The working
    group discussed results of the questionnaires and the analysis of coastal district plans and
    identified potential solutions or needed improvements. A summary of issues and possible
    actions to resolve them, developed during working group meetings, can be found in
    Appendix D.

    Working group meetings were held in Anchorage on October 6, 1993; December 7, 1993;
    and May 31, 1994.

    It is important to note here that many working group members felt some of the most
    critical issues with the ACMP are implementation, monitoring and enforcement. Concerns
    about these overall program aspects were also prevalent in discussions at two recent coastal
    district conferences, one regional workshop held in Anchorage in January 1994, and the
    Statewide ACMP Conference held in Juneau in 1994. In the working group and
    conference discussions about coastal district planning process, content and implementation,
    several recommendations were made that could enhance overall implementation of the
    ACMP. Some of these recommendations fit within the scope of this project, while others
    require further research or action. These recommendations are discussed in Chapters 2 - 5.

                                                6

                                          Table I
                  DISTRICT PLANNING WORKING GROUP MEMBERS

    Members

    Coastal Districts
    Sue Flensburg, Bristol Bay CRSA
    Mary Pearsall, Kenai Peninsula Borough
    Dave Dengel, Valdez
    John Purcell/Wait Wrede, Lake and Peninsula Borough
    Darcy Richards, Aleutians West CRSA
    Thede Tobish, Anchorage

    State Agencies
    Susan Braley, Department of Environmental Conservation
    Janet Burleson/Rob Walkinshaw, Department of Natural Resources
    Sara Hunt, Division of Governmental Coordination
    Beth Kerttula, Department of Law
    Gabrielle LaRoche, Department of Commerce and Economic Development
    Glenn Seaman, Department of Fish and Game
    Nelda Warkentin/John Gliva, Department of Community and Regional Affairs

    Federal Aeencies
    Tony DeGrange, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service
    Lloyd Fantor, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers
    Maureen McCrea, Minerals Management Service

    Plannina Consultants
    Nicole Faghin, Reid Middleton
    Jon Isaacs, Jon Isaacs and Assoc.
    Gordon Lewis, Community Planning

    Participants

    Other Particit~ants
    Chuck Degnan, Bering Straits CRSA
    Carmen Denny, Division of Governmental Coordination
    Chas Dense, Division of Governmental Coordination
    Linda Freed, Kodiak
    Gretchen Keiser, Division of Governmental Coordination
    Louisa Rand Moore, Anchorage
    Frankie Pillifant, Division of Governmental Coordination
    Christine Valentine, Division of Governmental Coordination

                          CHAPTER 2. FEDERAL AND STATE FRAMEWORK

    Federal Coastal Zone Management Act

    The federal Coastal Zone Management Act (CZMA) of 1972 (16 U.S.C. $ 1451 et seq.) set
    the stage for "the effective management, beneficial use, protection, and development of the
    nation's coastal zone". With federal funds administered by the National Oceanic and
    Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), coastal states are encouraged to develop and
    implement programs for managing their coastal areas. The CZMA addresses the conflict
    between development and the protection of the coastal ecosystem and identifies planning as
    the key to more effective protection and use of the land and water resources of the coastal
    zone.

    The CZMA "encourages the preparation of special area management plans which provide
    for increased specificity in protecting significant natural resources, reasonable coastal-
    dependent economic growth, improved protection of life and property in hazardous areas,
    including those areas likely to be affected by land subsidence, sea level rise, or fluctuating
    water levels of the Great Lakes, and improved predictability in governmental decision-
    making." [CZMA % 303(3)]. Federal regulations 15 CFR Subpart C % 923.22-25. describe
    five different categories of areas that require special management attention that a state
    coastal program must address: geographic areas of particular concern, areas for preservation
    or restoration, other areas of particular concern, shorefront access and protection planning,
    and shoreline erosion/mitigation planning.

    Areas of particular concern can be either generic (such as all wetlands or port areas) or site-
    specific, or both. The CZMA focuses on areas that are of particular concern because of
    their coastal values or characteristic, or because they may face pressures beyond what the
    general planning and regulatory system in a state's coastal management program can
    address. Emphasis is placed on designating areas of particular concern where a state's
    coastal management program policies and authorities are not sufficiently comprehensive or
    specific to effectively manage particular resources and uses. Federal criteria for the
    inventory and designation of areas of particular concern include:

     �    areas of unique, scarce, fragile or vulnerable natural habitat; unique or fragile
          physical figuration; historical significance, cultural value or scenic importance;

     �    areas of high natural productivity or essential habitat for living resources, including
          fish, wildlife and endangered species and the various trophic levels in the food web
          critical to their well-being;

     �    areas of substantial recreational value and/or opportunity;

         areas where developments and facilities are dependent upon the utilization of, or
          access to, coastal waters;

                                                7

      �    areas of unique hydrologic, geologic or topographic significance for industrial or
           commercial development or for dredge spoil disposal;

      � areas or urban concentration -where shoreline utilization and water uses are highly
           competitive;

      *    areas where, if development were permitted, it might be subject to significant hazard
           due to storms, slides, floods, erosion, settlement, and salt water intrusion;

      � areas needed to protect, maintain or replenish coastal lands or resources including
           coastal flood plains, aquifers and their recharge areas, estuaries, sand dunes, coral and
           other reefs, beaches, offshore sand deposits and mangrove stands.

    A state's coastal program must include guidelines on the purposes, criteria, and procedures
    for nominating areas of particular concern. The areas must be described (in writing or on a
    map) in sufficient detail so affected parties can determine if an activity or project is inside
    the boundaries. The coastal program must also describe the nature of the concern and the
    basis on which designations are made, how the program addresses and resolves the
    concerns, and must provide guidelines on priorities of uses, including uses of lowest
    priority.

    Procedures must also be developed for designating special areas to preserve or restore them
    for their conservation, recreational, ecological or aesthetic values. States also have the
    option of including procedures for designating other areas of particular concern. Special
    planning attention is focused on shorefront access and protection and on shoreline
    erosion/mitigation. Special management attention for shorefront areas and erosion areas
    can be accomplished by designations as areas of particular concern or as areas for
    preservation or restoration.

    Section 309 Enhancement Grants Program

    In the 1990 reauthorization of the CZMA, Congress included a new Section 309
    Enhancement Grants Program. Each coastal state is encouraged to improve its coastal
    management program in one or more of eight identified areas: coastal wetlands
    management and protection; public access to the coast; protection from coastal hazards;
    management of ocean resources; reduction of marine debris; assessment of cumulative and
    secondary impacts of coastal growth and development; special area management planning;
    and siting of coastal energy and government facilities. States are encouraged to achieve these
    objectives by strengthening their coastal management programs with new laws, regulations,
    or other enforceable mechanisms.

    In its May 1991 guidance to coastal states on the Section 309 program, NOAA outlines the
    following criteria for selecting areas of the coastal zone subject to use conflicts that can be
    addressed through special area management planning.

                                                 8

         The area includes significant coastal resources that are being severely affected by
           cumulative or secondary impacts from coastal growth.

         There is a multiplicity of local and state and federal authorities, which prevents
           effective coordination and cooperation in addressing coastal development or an
           ecosystem basis.

      *    There is a history of long-standing disputes between local, state, or federal agencies
           over certain coastal resources which have resulted in protracted negotiations over
           the acceptability of proposed uses.

      �    There is strong commitment at all levels of government to enter into a collaborative
           planning process to produce definitive regulatory products.

    Alaska Coastal Management Program

    Summary
    In 1977, in response to the need to engage in comprehensive land and water use planning
    for all of Alaska's coastal areas at the local level, the Alaska Legislature enacted the Alaska
    Coastal Management Act (ACMA, AS 46.40). Copies of relevant statutes and regulations
    are included in Appendix A. A primary purpose of the Act is to provide for local
    involvement in coastal development issues. The Alaska Coastal Management Program
    (ACMP) provides for shared state and local management of coastal areas and resources.
    The ACMP is a "networked" program which designates a lead agency in the executive
    branch and relies on improving and coordinating existing State authorities.

    A sixteen member Coastal Policy Council (CPC) was created in the Act to provide
    guidance on the development of the ACMP. Over the years, the CPC has performed four
    primary functions: rulemaking, district program approval, policy direction, and program
    oversight. The Division of Governmental Coordination (DGC), Office of the Governor is
    designated as the lead agency for the Alaska Coastal Management Program [AS
    46.40.100(a)].

    Under the ACMA, coastal management plans with policies specific to a coastal district can
    be developed at the local level and then approved by the Coastal Policy Council. Once
    approved by the federal National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration and filed with
    the Alaska Office of the Lt. Governor, the local program is incorporated into the ACMP.
    All state and local activities and regulatory approvals must be consistent with the local
    program and the ACMP.

    The Coastal Policy Council developed regulations in 1978 (subsequently amended) that
    include standards for coastal development and guidelines for the development of detailed
    coastal management programs by local coastal resource districts. The ACMP final
    environmental impact statement (FEIS) states that these standards are the minimum

                                                9

    standards of review for local program development and for project consistency with the
    ACMP until more detailed standards are crafted in local district programs (Alaska 1979,
    p.55). The original ACMP envisioned an open planning and management process where
    interested parties could be brought together to resolve differences and achieve their goals
    for the use of Alaska's coastal resources. "District coastal management programs are
    intended to more equitably and efficiently apply the diverse array of existing federal, state
    and local authorities governing such competing interests." (Alaska 1979, p.81).

    Local governments were a strong influence in shaping the Alaska Coastal Management
    Act. Because of the immense size of Alaska and regional differences in geography, coastal
    resources, development and settlement patterns, it was apparent the standards of the ACMP
    had to be general. Refer to Figure I for an illustration of the vast coastal zone in Alaska,
    which includes about 34,000 miles of coastline. Local governments were given the
    responsibility to tailor their district coastal management programs and provide the
    specificity to meet regional needs.

    As a major effort at permit reform in 1984, the State developed regulations and the Council
    adopted the State consistency review process (6 AAC 50). The consistency review process
    provides for a coordinated State agency and coastal district review of proposed projects in
    the coastal zone, with agency permits issued shortly after the State's consistency
    determination is made.

    Coastal Districts
    Alaska differs from other coastal states because most of its land has not been organized into
    political subdivisions such as borough or counties. In Alaska, sixteen boroughs are the
    home of about 85 percent of the state's population, and include yet only about 40 percent
    of the state's land mass. The remaining portion of the state is classified as the unorganized
    borough. A 1988 report by the Alaska Department of Community and Regional Affairs
    estimates that 72 percent of Alaskan cities are located outside of the organized boroughs.
    Although some new boroughs have formed or expanded their boundaries since 1988, the
    figure is still high.

    Title 29 of the Alaska Statutes defines the authority of cities and boroughs to provide for
    planning, platting and zoning, and determines whether these powers are mandatory or
    voluntary (Alaska Department of Community and Regional Affairs 1987). Planning powers
    are mandatory for first and second class boroughs, home rule cities and first class cities in
    third class boroughs or unorganized boroughs, and for home rule municipalities and
    boroughs unless limited by charter. Planning powers are voluntary for second class cities
    in third class boroughs or in the unorganized borough, and in a third class borough on a
    service area basis only (Haines Borough is the only third class borough in Alaska).

    Coastal districts are the grass-roots of Alaska Coastal Management Program. To date, there
    are 35 coastal districts, including four existing coastal resource service areas, 12 boroughs,
    and 19 cities. Table 2 lists the coastal districts by category. Figure 2 graphically represents

                                                10

                                                                              Inland Coastal Zone
                                       So d    ~~~~~~~~~Boundary In Alaska

                                                                              UINLAND COASTAL ZONE

             St. Law,...

    BERING SEA    1

                                                            Aleutian Islands
              SCALE
        0    100  200  300 Miles                                                CAth 1

                                                Figure I

                                           Table 2
                           COASTAL DISTRICT ORGANIZATION

     Unified Home Rule Boroughs
     Municipality of Anchorage
     City and Borough of Juneau
     City and Borough of Sitka

     Home Rule Boroughs
     Lake and Peninsula Borough
     North Slope Borough
     Northwest Arctic Borough
     City and Borough of Yakutat

     Second Class Boroughs
    Aleutians East Borough           Bristol Bay Borough
    Kenai Peninsula Borough          Ketchikan Gateway Borough
    Kodiak Island Borough            Matanuska-Susitna Borough

    Home Rule Cities
    Cordova
    Petersburg
    Valdez
    Wrangell

    First Class Cities
    Craig                            Haines
    Hydaburg                         Kake
    Klawok                           Nome
    Pelican                           Skagway

    Second Class Cities
    Angoon
    Bethel
    Thorne Bay
    Whittier
    Saint Paul

    Coastal Resource Service Areas
    Aleutians West
    Bering Straits
    Bristol Bay
    Cefialiulriit

                                         CR~~~~~~SAUFORT SEA                                  Coastal Districts

                                                                                     Under The Alaska Coastal

                                                                                       Management Program
                                                metif   me~~~~~~~                             CITIES

                                                                                           BOROUGH, MUNICIPALITY,
                                                                                           AND CRSA BOUNDARY

    BERING SEA                                                               00V
                                                                  WHIT                 ~~~~~~~~AKUTAT  SMAOWAY

                                                                       TV ~~~CITY AND BOROUGH

                           ALEUTIANS ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~Willi.Ot#NA

                                              .."'O'   P~~~~~~~~~~AENTINSUWLTCA   NoaIAiS1l0.
                                                  ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~Alkai                  .
                    0 ~ ~~~~ ~~~~.  100G G ULF  OF AILASAAES
                                       NXISTO~~~~ ~ ~L~ B A                                    SAL

                              C~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~AdNA Ii.U

                                              LA~~~Fgr   my2

    the location and relative size of each coastal district. As defined in AS 46.40.210, coastal
    districts are any of the following that include a portion of Alaska's coastal area:

      �    a unified home rule municipality or an organized borough that exercises planning
           authority;
      *    a home rule or first-class city, located outside a borough, that exercises planning
           authority;
      *    a second-class city, located outside a borough, that exercises planning authority.
           The city must have a planning commission and, in the judgement of DCRA, have
           the capability to develop and carry out a coastal program;
      *    a coastal resource service area (CRSA) formed in the unorganized borough.

    The Alaska State Legislature provided for the creation of CRSAs to give residents in the
    unorganized borough the chance to undertake planning to manage their coastal resources.
    A CRSA is formed by a special election and is drawn along the lines of existing Rural
    Education Attendance Area (REAA) boundaries. Once a CRSA coastal management
    program is fully approved, the CRSA can participate in the consistency review process
    established in 6 AAC 50. Otherwise, the State resource agencies have the responsibility for
    implementation of the CRSA's coastal management program. Four coastal resource service
    areas occur for the purposes of coastal management: Aleutians West CRSA, Bering Straits
    CRSA, Bristol Bay CRSA and Cefialiulriit (Yukon-Kuskokwim area). Another two CRSAs
    (NANA and Aleutians East) have formed boroughs since the mid-1980s.

    AS 46.40.090 directs state agencies to implement district coastal management programs
    where a coastal resource district does not have and exercise zoning or other controls on the
    use of resources within its district. A coastal resource district which has and exercises
    zoning or other controls on the use of resources must implement its coastal management
    program. Municipalities and state agencies must also administer land and water use
    regulation or controls in conformity with approve district programs (AS 46.40.100).
    In State fiscal year 1992, coastal districts reported local implementation actions which
    include:

     *    adoption of new or revised zoning ordinances
     *    new or revised waterfront zoning districts
     *    comprehensive plan revisions
     *    amended land development code
     *    wetlands mapping and ordinance adoption
     *    improved permit filing systems

    At the local level, municipal coastal districts are implementing their coastal district
    programs in a variety of ways under their Title 29 local government authorities. A 1992
    survey by the Department of Community and Regional Affairs indicates active
    incorporation of coastal plans into local planning and decision-making. Of the 25
    municipal districts responding, over half have incorporated their coastal program in their

                                                11

    local comprehensive plan. Ten municipalities reported that their zoning ordinance
    formally incorporates their coastal management policies, while six reported that the local
    subdivision ordinance includes their coastal policies. About half of the municipalities
    responding routinely review zoning changes and subdivision plats for consistency with
    their coastal policies. Table 3 includes a description of the various municipal
    implementation actions taken by the reporting districts.

    InterDretation of Areas of Particular Concern
    A cornerstone of Alaska's coastal management statute and federally approved program is
    coastal land and water use planning at the local government level. Furthermore, districts
    are charged with identifying Areas Which Merit Special Attention (AMSAs) under AS
    46.40.030(7). AMSAs are analogous to the federal areas of particular concern the
    CZMA requires coastal states to identify. Three ways described in the FEIS for the
    ACMP to inventory and designate areas of particular concern on either a generic or a site-
    specific basis include:

      *    AMSAs inside a district boundaries,

      *    AMSAs outside a district's boundaries, and

     *    Special areas established by State agencies under authorities other than the ACMA
           (e.g., Critical Habitat Areas or State Parks).

    The ACMP encourages the designation of AMSAs when the criteria for their definition
    [AS 46.40.210 (1) and 6 AAC 80.160(b)] are met. An AMSA is defined as "a delineated
    geographic area within the coastal area which is sensitive to change or alteration and which,
    because of plans or commitments or because a claim on the resource within the area delineated
    would preclude subsequent use of the resources to a conflicting or incompatible use, warrants
    special management attention, or which, because of its value to the general public, should be
    identified for current or future planning, protection, or acquisition; ...

    Areas which merit special attention include:

     *    areas of unique, scarce, fragile or vulnerable natural habitat, cultural value, historical
           significance, or scenic importance
     *    areas of high natural productivity or essential habitat for living resources
     *    areas where development of facilities is dependent upon the utilization of, or access
           to , coastal water
     *    areas of unique geologic or topographic significance which are susceptible to
           industrial or commercial development
     *    areas of significant hazard due to storms, slides, floods, erosion or settlement
     *    areas needed to protect, maintain, or replenish coastal land or resources, including
           coastal flood plains, aquifer recharge areas, beaches and offshore sand deposits
     *    areas important for subsistence hunting, fishing, food gathering, and foraging

                                                 12

                                                                                                                               Table 3
                                                                                                             Municipal Implementation of Coastal Management Plans
                                                                                                                                          November, 1992

                                                               lmt CowAd  Old           540.                     Cons Pw   re"Pnt                                                                                                        alw    ena -.    Cat r
                                    LaoS                      rue    oad&   Sixo    ruledr M   Camp    rot               burP                                         Flot-               tur     Tlree            W%    Clw                   at se awr   n   Coo p
                  Maaja~rajky    P..Nl SteMa   in Z.COld  pood.   pad         WCd   pcdia DaOWa   F-a   pa...  patio. Wonca   lO.grt  Atohadr   IHoada    .. MOM Woorer    d~Wae.   sa.                   Mnka- CZan    eropto               ar             atadrpat

    MAutoio.- E..  1.u                                                   I       II                       I        I       I        II                                                                                                  I       P

    Coedo I" P-              ~                         I        I        III

    Ciuig                             I       I'

    Hyd-b"r

    K..9 ftrw*,aielaraOrh                              I                         I1                       I
    lVeld&orG.lWeplsashr~                              I                                                                   t

             KUM~~~~~~ I                                         I       1                                I                I                                                                                                                    I

    "Ofto9             A             id   I                                     I                 I                                                            I                            I                 I                I 0  1                              i

    Silk.                                                                I      II                       I                                                                                  III
             SWO-1 ~  ~     ~    ~                                               II                                II

     TOTALS                          IS      I         6        l     I          5        1      1        2      1         1        6        i         2        4        I         I        5        1         4        1       5      12   is          a         13       *I

     % S0 Teed lbarde a
     Clotriles  Repoollo          64%    44%       69%      46%      12%    72%    24%        49%    66%    52%    60%    24%           12%      12%       16%      4%        4%       20%       4%       16%      4%      24%    45%   60L    24%           12%        44%

     01.kk. lere     M las

     WYPE;P. T    Am.ulr S teein dtoa rM MPM   Arsa.M Kkeh  MlAokb-Sa.ke B&asort St Paut ltaruo  VS*"o
              DCilt Wm hmwphxo drawlr PA- b   n -Is dk  eSN" oAt h~AulNdmaho               I        I
            Ufrdarlw.t6dorr~            I       I        I.N.     I        I      I        I        I      I

      *    areas with special scientific values or opportunities, including those areas where
           ongoing research projects could be jeopardized by development or conflicting uses
           and activities
      �    potential estuarine or marine sanctuaries

    Alaska added three new categories in 6 AAC 85.158: subsistence areas, areas with special
    scientific values or opportunities, and potential estuarine or marine sanctuaries. Whereas
    the federal regulations describe a second category of areas subject to special management
    attention - areas for preservation or restoration - Alaska's regulations (6 AAC 80.160 and
    80.170) provide a blanket statement that a management plan for an area which merits special
    attention inside/outside a district must preserve, protect, enhance, or restore the value or values
    for which the area was designated.

    The federal regulations require areas of particular concern to identify priorities of uses
    subject to the special area plan, including uses of lowest priority. The AMSA regulations
    in the ACMP do not clearly address this aspect, although some ACMP standards (6 AAC
    80.040 Coastal Development, 6 AAC 80.060 Recreation, and 6 AAC 80.0120. Subsistence)
    include provisions for establishing priorities during planning. These standards, as
    appropriate, may be addressed in an AMSA plan or special area management plan. Review
    of the coastal district program files indicates that few districts have identified priority uses,
    although some have designated proper and improper uses that can occur in certain
    designated areas.

    A 1980 publication by the Alaska Office of Coastal Management Special Areas in the Alaska
    Coastal Zone: Abstracts of Proposals includes 395 proposals for special management areas.
    These potential sites were identified as a guide for coastal districts to use as they developed
    their district plans. To date, there are 23 special area management plans in Alaska, as listed
    on Table 4.

    Criteria for Funding Special Area Management Plans
    Historically, the State has provided state and federal funds to coastal districts to prepare
    various specialized plans (e.g., AMSAs, public use management plans, and wetlands
    management plans) which are incorporated as significant amendments to local district plans
    into the ACMP. The State, through a competitive grants process, funds special planning
    efforts which rank highly according to several criteria:

           an existing or anticipated coastal conflict of greater than local significance
           a plan which will provide a tool that will improve local or State implementation
           district readiness; capability and performance
           broad support at the local, state and federal level for the planning effort

    This grant selection process sets a high standard for encouraging the development of special
    area management plans.

                                                 13

                                                    Table 4
                          A CMP SPECIAL AREA MANAGEMENT PLANS

    Municipality of Anchorage
    Anchorage Wetlands Management Plan, 1982'

    City of Angoon
    Chaik/Whitewater Bay AMSA, 1992 (outside district)
    Hood Bay AMSA, 1992 (outside district)
    Mitchell Bay AMSA, 1992 (outside district)

    Bristol Bay CRSA
    Nushagak/ Mulchatna Rivers Recreation Management Plan, 1990 (also a DNR Management Plan)

    City of Cordova
    Eyak Lake AMSA, 1986

    City of Haines
    Port Chilkoot/Portage Cove AMSA, 1982

    City of Hydaburg
    Hetta Cove/Eek Inlet AMSA, 1983 (outside district)
    Hydaburg River/Tidelands AMSA, 1983 (partially inside/outside district)
    Jackson Island AMSA, 1983 (outside district)
    McFarland Islands/Dunbar Inlet AMSA, 1983 (outside district)
    Meares Passage/Arena Cove AMSA, 1983 (outside district)
    Saltery Point/Crab Trap Cove AMSA, 1983 (outside district)

    City and Borough of Juneau
    Downtown Waterfront AMSA, 1985
    Juneau Wetlands Management Plan, 1993*

    Kenai Peninsula Borough
    Port Graham/Nanwalek AMSA, 1992

    Matanuska-Susitna Borough
    Point MacKenzie AMSA, 1993

    City of Skagway
    Port of Skagway AMSA, 1991
    Pullen Creek AMSA, 1983
    Skagway River AMSA, 1991
    Yakutania Point AMSA, 1983

    City and Borough of Sitka
    Sitka Public Use Management Plan, 1993*
    Swan Lake AMSA, 1985

             These plans were adopted as significant amendments to the coastal district program and are not areas which
    merit special attention.

    SDecial Area Manazement Planning Process
    ACMP regulations 6 AAC 80.160 and 80.170 include the criteria and process for
    identifying, nominating and designating areas which merit special attention inside districts
    and outside districts. AMSAs may be developed as a component of a district program or
    subsequently as a significant amendment to a district program, and must follow the
    procedures for program approval described in 6 AAC 85. Approval of the district program
    (or amendment to a district program) is based on AS 46.40.30, AS 46.60 - .070,
    6 AAC 80.020 - 80.110 and 6 AAC 85. The organization of these AMSA requirements are
    like a Chinese puzzle box, leading back and forth from one section of regulation to
    another. The need for reorganization of these regulations was noted in questionnaire
    responses and is addressed in the recommendations in Chapters 4 and 5.

    The current procedures for district program development or amendment and AMSA
    designation are:

    AMSAs Inside Districts
    An AMSA inside a district must include descriptions of the following (per 6 AAC 80.160):

      *    basis or bases for designation
      *    maps of the geographical location, surface area or bathymetry of the area
      *    written description of the boundaries
      *    justification of the size of the AMSA
     *    dominant physical and biological features
      *    existing ownership, jurisdiction, and management status
     *    existing uses and activities
     *    present and anticipated conflicts among uses and activities
     *    management plan that includes
            *    description of and rationale for proper and improper uses and activities
            *    enforceable policies
            *    authority responsible for plan implementation

    The management plan must preserve, protect, enhance, or restore the value or values for
    which the area was designated.

    AMSAs Outside Districts
    The Coastal Policy Council must authorize planning for an AMSA outside a coastal district
    (sometimes called an extra-territorial, or ET AMSA) before the sponsor of the ET AMSA
    may conduct the planning effort. A sponsor can be a coastal district or any other person.
    This process has been used infrequently, with six AMSAs designated outside the Hydaburg
    coastal district in 1983 and three AMSAs designated outside the Angoon coastal district in
    1992.

                                                14

    The criteria for ET AMSAs are described in 6 AAC 80.170. The sponsor's
    recommendation to the Council for consideration and approval to proceed with planning
    must include a description of

        * basis or bases for designation
        * maps of the geographical location, surface area or bathymetry of the area
        * written description of the boundaries
        * justification of the size of the AMSA
        * resource values and use conflicts
        * purpose and objectives to be met through AMSA planning
        * tentative schedule of planning tasks and reviews
        * list of affected parties
        * how these parties would be involved in plan development
        * justification that the AMSA is the preferred planning and management mechanism

    Once the Council approves planning for an ET AMSA, the sponsor must prepare a public
    hearing draft which includes the elements described earlier for an AMSA inside a district
    AND:

     *    an evaluation of the potential impacts of the designation on the social, cultural,
           environmental, and economic features of the area and adjacent areas and
     *    a description of how the proposed management plan will be implemented.

    The review and approval process for ET AMSAs is similar to the process for district
    programs or amendments, except additional public notice is required and the comment
    period for responses to DGC's preliminary findings and conclusions is 60 days instead of 45
    days. Time limits are not specified for DGC's preparation of preliminary findings and for
    Council approval after comments are received on the preliminary findings. Obviously, an
    ET AMSA would not be adopted by a district.

    The procedures for developing and approving a significant amendment (including and
    AMSA) or district program approval outlined in 6 AAC 85 include:

    1) Development of a public hearing draft:
        * Public involvement in the development of program elements
        * At least two public meetings must be held

    2) Contents of the district program or AMSA plan:
        * Needs, Objectives, Goals
        * Organization
        * Boundaries
        * Resource Inventory
        * Resource Analysis
        * Subject Uses (uses and activities in 6 AAC 80)

                                               15

               * coastal development
               * geophysical hazards
               * recreation
               * energy facilities
               * transportation and utilities
                 fish and seafood processing
               * timber harvest and processing
               * mining and mineral processing
               * subsistence
     �    Proper and Improper Uses (must address uses of state concern)
     �    Enforceable Policies (must be consistent with standards in 6 AAC 80)
     � Areas Which Merit Special Attention (identify or designate)
     �    Implementation (Local, State and federal methods, monitoring and enforcement and
           appeals)
        * Public participation (document public participation in program development)

    3) Review of public hearing draft:
        * A minimum 60-day review
        * Review by all parties with a significant interest
        * Public notice of availability of the draft
        * Public hearing
        * Meetings (interagency, coordinated by DGC, if necessary)

    4) Concept approved draft:
        * District incorporates comments on the public hearing draft, as appropriate
     9    District governing body conceptually approves the district program and adopts it by
          resolution

    5) Coastal Policy Council review and approval:
     *    District must submit concept approved draft, recording or transcript of public
          hearing, list of names and addresses of those who testified, and all materials on
          which it based its decision (comments on public hearing draft), and produce
          sufficient copies of the concept approved draft to allow distribution by either DGC
          or the district.
     *    30 days after program submittal, DGC prepares findings and conclusions regarding
          Council approval
     0    Concept approved draft and DGC's findings and conclusions are distributed for a
          45-day review. Comments must be received within the 45 days to be considered.
     0    Within 25 days of receipt of comments, DGC submits its response to comments and
          revised findings and conclusions to the Council and parties who commented on the
          original findings
        * Within 45 days after the comment period on the original findings and conclusions
          the Council must approve or disapprove the district program, in whole or in part.

                                               16

     *    Procedures for mediation of a district program disapproved, in whole or in part, are
           included in 6 AAC 87.170.

    6) Effective date and local adoption
      *    The coastal district must adopt the district program or amendment within 90 days
           of council approval, by ordinance or resolution, as appropriate.
     *    Although not described in 6 AAC 85, the district program or amendment must be
           approved by OCRM for incorporation into the ACMP either as a significant
           amendment or a routine program implementation. This step should occur before
           filing with the Lt. Governor's Office and before adoption by the coastal district so
           any changes required by OCRM are adopted by the district. The district program
           cannot be used for review of federal permits or federal actions until approved by
           OCRM.
     *    Following local adoption, the district program or amendment is filed with the Lt.
           Governor's Office and becomes effective on that date.

    State Aopproval of District Proaram Amendments
    Special area management plans or AMSA plans are considered significant amendments to
    the district program, unless the AMSA is included in the original district program. The
    district must obtain Council approval for any significant amendments to its district
    program [6 AAC 85.120(c)]. Significant amendments include:

           major revisions, additions, or deletions to policies, implementation methods, or
           authorities included in the approved district program
           altering the district boundaries, other than by technical adjustments
           designating or altering an AMSA
           restricting or excluding a use of state concern not previously restricted

    Any changes to a district's approved program that are not significant are considered to be
    routine program implementation actions. For consistency purposes, DGC notifies the
    public of routine actions before they take effect. The Council must concur with the
    DGC's determination that a program change is routine. The routine program change
    (called a routine program implementation, or RPI) is submitted to OCRM for approval,
    adopted by the district by ordinance or resolution, as appropriate. The RPI then is filed
    with the Lt. Governor's Office.

    According to 6 AAC 85.185, a State agency or other interested party can petition the
    Council to amend an approved district program if there is substantial evidence that a use of
    state concern, as defined in AS 46.40.210(6), is arbitrarily or unreasonably restricted or
    excluded by the program. To date, this has not occurred. 6 AAC 85.185 describes the
    criteria for submittal and the procedures for review of a petition and amendment of the
    district program. The district can pursue mediation or adjudication under 6 AAC 85.170 if
    dissatisfied with the Council's decision. The Alaska Superior Court can enforce the
    Council's decision [AS 46.40.060(c) and 40.100(e)].

                                                17

    Federal ApDroval of State Program Amendments
    Once a state's coastal management program is approved by NOAA, revisions that occur
    may either further refine the program (called routine program implementation) or
    substantially change the program boundaries, subject uses, national interests, or procedures
    for designating areas of particular concern and are called significant amendments (15 CRF $
    923.82 - 923.84). A significant amendment to a state's program is subject to National
    Environmental Policy Act procedures. Virtually all changes to the ACMP have been
    treated as RPIs, including the 1984 ACMP regulations 6 AAC 50 on consistency review
    procedures. A RPI entails a 30-day period for review and approval by NOAA. While the
    federal regulations are clear about the threshold for processing a state program amendment
    as a significant amendment, they do not outline a threshold for when a minor change needs
    to be approved as a RPI.

    The NOAA and the ACMP should develop a memorandum of agreement on minor
    program changes that could be categorically approved by NOAA. The federal agencies,
    including NOAA, would have the opportunity to review state or district program changes
    and could flag concerns that indicate the higher threshold of a RPI was warranted. Such an
    agreement would eliminate about six weeks of the Alaska program amendment process (30-
    day review, and administrative time to prepare public notices, prepare and distribute
    materials).

    Area-Specific Policies vs. Areas Which Merit Special Attention
    Coastal districts are directed to conduct a resource inventory and analysis (6 AAC 85.050
    and 85.060). This analysis enables the district to determine what coastal issues need to be
    addressed through policy development. In some cases, the analysis may conclude that
    certain areas within the district (e.g., harbors, beaches, anadromous streams, subsistence
    areas, villages, wetlands) differ in the value of coastal resources present, available
    information to support specific policy development, and the types of existing or potential
    uses and activities that can occur. District coastal management programs must include
    policies that are specific and enforceable (6 AAC 85.090). The Coastal Policy Council has
    approved several coastal district programs or program amendments that include detailed
    enforceable policies specific to the values, resources, and use conflicts within certain
    subareas of the district. This approach maximizes the use of information inventoried during
    district program development and enables the district to develop area-specific policies - in
    essence, a strategic planning approach. Some examples of district programs or district
    program amendments that include area specific policies follow.

     *    Aleutians East Borough coastal management program (1992) includes general use
          policies that apply throughout the borough and special habitat policies that apply to
          special habitat areas identified and mapped in the borough's coastal program.

     *    Cefialiulriit CRSA coastal management program (1984) includes enforceable policies
          which apply only within village boundaries.

                                                18

        * Juneau Wetlands Management Plan (1993) classifies certain wetlands into four
           management categories and includes specific enforceable policies that guide their
           protection, development and restoration. This plan also establishes a mitigation
           bank.

        * City of Nome coastal management program  (1984) includes both district-wide policies
           and policies that apply within six subareas.

        * Sitka Public Use Management Plan (1993) identifies site-specific recreation or
           subsistence use areas as special management areas subject to specific management
           guidelines or enforceable policies.

    Federal regulations governing the designation of special management areas in a state's
    coastal management program emphasize that the need to designate special areas is directly
    related to the degree of comprehensive controls applied throughout a State's coastal zone
    [15 CFR 923.20(b)]. Hence, where a district's coastal management program contains
    specific information and policies about resources and uses, the designation of areas of
    particular concern may not be necessary. In some cases, it may be more appropriate for a
    district to revise its basic coastal plan to develop the specificity on resources and uses
    district-wide rather than undertake specialized management planning for a particular area.

    An April 1986 Attorney General opinion discusses the relationship of specific policies
    within certain locations within a coastal district to the use of AMSAs as a planning tool
    (Alaska Department of Law 1986). The opinion concludes that "the use of specific policies
    for specific areas within a coastal district is implied in the purposes of the ACMP and is
    inherent to land use planning." AMSA designation allows the use of greater specificity in
    resource assessment and in management policies than is generally required for a district
    program. The Attorney General opinion recommended revising the ACMP regulations to
    clarify the use of area-specific policies and AMSA planning since the regulations do not
    provide guidance on when it is appropriate to develop an AMSA rather than area-specific
    policies in a district program.

    In summary, certain changes to the ACMP regulations governing coastal district planning
    and special area management planning would clarify and streamline the procedures for plan
    development and amendment, clarify the use of area-specific enforceable polices, and
    strengthen the criteria for AMSA designation. These recommendations are discussed in
    Chapters 4 and 5 of this report.

                                                 19

                         CHAPTER 3. COMPARISON WITH OTHER STA TES

    Organization

    The review of several states coastal management programs reveals some key differences
    from Alaska's coastal management program. One significant aspect is the political
    subdivision of the states. While most coastal states are organized into counties, townships,
    or boroughs, only 39 percent of Alaska is organized into boroughs. Because Alaska is not
    organized so the entire coastal zone is subject to local zoning controls, reliance on its nexus
    of State and local implementation techniques is essential. For some regions in Alaska, the
    Alaska Coastal Management Program offers the only opportunity for meaningful
    participation in State and federal decision-making.

    The coastal states vary in whether the development of local coastal management programs
    are mandatory or voluntary. Several coastal states have enacted other planning laws,
    directing local comprehensive planning and zoning to achieve specific state goals. For
    example, the State of Oregon adopted Senate Bill 100 which mandates comprehensive land
    use plans by all cities and counties. As a result, every city and county has a state approved
    land use plan that provides direction on where and how development may occur (Oregon,
    no date).

    Maine adopted a Mandatory Shoreland Zoning Act which establishes minimum standards
    for management of the shoreland zone. All municipalities are required to adopt zoning
    ordinances that meet the minimum standards of the Act. Comprehensive planning is also
    required under the Maine Comprehensive Zoning and Land Use Regulation Act.

    New York's coastal management program, through the Waterfront Revitalization and
    Coastal Resources Act of 1981 and Waterfront Revitalization and Coastal Resources
    regulations (New York, no date), implements its local programs through Local Waterfront
    Revitalization Programs (LWRP) (New York 1990). Local conditions and needs are
    addressed in local programs which supplement state Coastal Policies.

    Burby (1993) examined the impacts of state requirements for local comprehensive plans on
    local government's management of development. He concludes that while state planning
    mandates are effective in producing plans, they only have a modest effect on local
    development management. His recommendations underscore the need to increase planners
    commitment to state policy objectives and strengthen the link between plans and their
    implementation. Incentives for implementation as well as plan preparation should be
    provided.

                                               20

    Areas of Particular Concern

    California includes a variety of geophysical characteristics and land uses in its interpretation
    of areas of particular concern. The most common types are environmentally sensitive areas
    (ESHAs). Because the California Coastal Act (CCA) requires detailed planning and policy
    development in coastal district programs (CDP) to protect coastal resources, California
    considers their CDPs to coincide with special area management plans.

    The California Coastal Act and California Coastal Commission Administrative Regulations
    (CCR) allows local governments to submit coastal plans in separate geographic subunits
    (CCA Section 30511 and CCR Section 13506). The Commission must determine that the
    areas may be considered for potential cumulative impacts of development separately from
    the rest of the jurisdiction. By inference, these separate geographical areas could be
    considered special areas subject to a special area management planning process.

    Areas of Particular Concern (APC) are called Sensitive Resource Areas (SRA) in
    Connecticut. The only Areas of Particular Concern noted in the supplied information are
    tidal wetlands and shellfish beds. A list of important coastal resources, including basic
    policies for managing those resources is included in the Connecticut Coastal Management
    Act (CCMA) and subsequent regulations. Generally, statutory policies for important
    resources provide the basis for managing coastal resources. In addition, local coastal
    programs may develop plans at sufficient detail to address areas of particular concern
    without the need to develop a Special Area Management Plan. Though not identified as
    areas of particular concern, municipalities with lands adjacent to Long Island Sound are
    legislatively required to consider ecosystem and habitat restoration or protection. The goal
    is to reduce hypoxia, pathogens, toxic contaminants, and floatable debris within the sound
    (Hart 1993).

    Areas of Particular Concern in Maine are the shoreland zone from normal high water of
    saltwater bodies, wetlands, lakes, and ponds, inland for 250 feet and within 75 feet of a
    stream. These areas are subject to the Mandatory Shoreland Zoning Act which establishes
    minimum standards for management and requires all municipalities to adopt zoning
    ordinances that at least meet the minimum standards. No other areas are identified as
    Areas of Particular Concern (APC).

    Massachusetts has a sophisticated and well-documented program that addresses Areas of
    Critical Environmental Concern (ACEC). The Massachusetts ACEC program has
    identified a purpose, goals, and a set of premises; developed a formal adoption process;
    adopted regulations directing the development of ACEC plans; and assembled a Geographic
    Information System (GIS) database. An excellent publication, Areas of Critical
    Environmental Concern, Program Guide is devoted to describing the state's ACEC program
    and provides summary information on each of the 22 designated areas (Massachusetts 1993).
    Besides ACECs, Massachusetts has done special area management planning for other areas
    including municipal harbors, Buzzards Bay, and the Massachusetts Bay Estuary Program.

                                                21

    Michigan has five types of areas of particular concern (APC). They include erosion areas,
    flood hazard areas, shoreline environmental areas, critical sand dunes, and underwater
    preserves. Although APCs can be nominated by the public, all APCs to date have been
    designated by the legislature. Michigan's coastal zone management program consists of six
    statutes that address either different areas of particular concern or management of state
    resources.

    The New Hampshire program document identifies six general types of areas and two
    specifically named areas as geographic Areas of Particular Concern. The program also
    creates a designation for Areas for Preservation or Restoration which are areas of particular
    concern with unique features that may require preservation and restoration.

    New Jersey's Areas of Particular Concern apparently are called Environmentally Sensitive
    Planning Areas (ESPA). Although ESPAs are defined to have one or more features from a
    list that includes coastal wetlands and prime forested areas, ESPAs are specific, identifiable
    areas that are incorporated into the State Development and Redevelopment Plan.

    New York's areas of particular concern are identified as Significant Resource Areas (SRA).
    These areas are designated after meeting certain criteria and a specified process has been
    completed, including public involvement. Coastal policies in the Waterfront Revitalization
    and Coastal Resources Act (New York's coastal program legislation) provide guidance for
    each of three recognized types of Significant Resource Areas: significant habitats, significant
    scenic areas, and certain agricultural lands. Regulations for adding two more types of SRA
    are being developed. They are areas of concentrated development and outstanding natural
    coastal areas.

    North Carolina's areas of particular concern are called areas of environmental concern
    (AEC). AECs are identified by definition, such as sand dunes, coastal wetlands, and high
    hazard flood areas rather than legal definition. Formal regulatory Rules provide
    comprehensive direction on the management of AECs.

    Certain valuable coastal resources, such as estuaries and sand dunes, are addressed in
    Oregon's local city and county comprehensive plans. When approving the Oregon Coastal
    Management Program, the federal government considered the local comprehensive plans
    adequately addressed the intent of areas of particular concern so did not require APCs to
    be specifically identified (Oswalt, 1993).

    Pennsylvania seems to follow the format and terminology of federal Coastal Zone
    Management Act requirements for areas of particular concern. Two types of geographic
    areas of particular concern (GA-PC) are identified in Pennsylvania's program.

    Rhode Island's coastal resource management program incorporates a state permit for nearly
    all activities along the coastal shoreline (Willis 1993). The program was adopted in 1978
    and revised in 1983. Specific identification of Areas of Particular Concern in Rhode

                                                22

    Island's program document were not obtained. However, at least four Special Area
    Management Plans have been developed and adopted for specific coastal areas. These
    include plans for Providence Harbor, the Salt Pond Region, the Narrow River, and the
    Pawcatuck River Estuary and Little Narragansett Bay which was cooperatively developed
    with Connecticut.

    Geographic Areas of Particular Concern, known as "areas of critical state concern", are the
    cornerstone of South Carolina's coastal zone management program. South Carolina's
    coastal zone management program as it relates to critical areas seems to closely parallel the
    Geographic Areas of Particular Concern requirements of the federal Coastal Zone
    Management Act.

    Washington's definition for special area management planning is from 16 U.S.C. Section
    1453(17): "A comprehensive plan providing for natural resource protection and reasonable
    coastal-dependent economic growth containing a detailed and comprehensive statement of
    policies; standards and criteria to guide public and private uses of lands and waters; and
    mechanisms for timely implementation in specific geographic areas within the coastal
    zone." (Washington 1993a. p. F.98) The Coastal Zone Management Act provides that
    management programs should encourage the preparation of special area management plans
    that provide for increased specificity in protecting significant natural resources, reasonable
    coastal-dependent economic growth, improved protection of life and property in hazardous
    areas, and improved predictability in government decision making.

    Use of Special Area Management Plans

    Coastal states have integrated the various state planning mandates to address areas of
    particular concern, in some instances. There appears to be a strong correlation between the
    specificity of the states' guidelines to manage coastal resources, uses and activities and the
    prevalence of special area management plans. Those states with particularly strong
    mandates for local planning and zoning achieve management of special areas through the
    local comprehensive plans, or growth management plans that include several specific
    policies for coastal areas or resources.

    The California Coastal Act requires detailed planning and policy development in coastal
    district programs to protect coastal resources. Each county determines on resource maps
    which specific areas will be designated as environmentally sensitive habitat areas, then
    develops policies for each area. The policies are typically adopted into zoning codes.

    Maine addresses Areas of Particular Concern through zoning ordinances. The requirements
    for the Shoreland Zoning Ordinance contain elements similar to planning: maps showing
    lands managed according to one of the six districts described above, policies on
    conformance and non-conformance, background resource information supporting each
    designation to a particular district, and policies on allowable or conditional uses both
    areawide and within each district (Maine 1992).

                                                23

    Another approach used in South Carolina is the South Carolina Coastal Council's direct
    permitting authority in areas of critical state concern, but not in other areas of the coastal
    zone (South Carolina 1977).

    Michigan apparently does not conduct special area management planning, except for site-
    specific areas that are subject to development projects. Such plans provide resource
    information for managers so that operating standards can be implemented to minimize
    impacts during project development and operation. Local governments participate in
    management of areas of particular concern (APCs) through zoning ordinances. The core
    statutes provide considerable policy direction for management of APCs, thus minimizing
    the need for special area management plans.

    Apparently, Michigan provides direction for APCs largely in statute, regulation, and local
    zoning ordinances rather than special area management plans. The Shorelands Protection
    and Management Act includes many directives on procedures for development within the
    three Areas for Protection or Restoration (APRs) the act addresses. Local governments are
    required to develop zoning ordinances for management of critical dune areas (Michigan
    1976).

    New Hampshire has no direction for special area management planning or coastal
    management planning other than some very general guidance that pertains to all types of
    plans, not necessarily specific to coastal management (Hartman 1993). New Hampshire has
    a networked state program and state plan. There are no coastal district programs.
    However, funding may be provided to develop local ordinances (such as for master plans,
    zoning, wetlands, open space planning, watershed protection, or well-head protection) to
    implement coastal management policies. Local communities participate voluntarily and
    must contribute 50 percent of costs either "in-kind" or cash to the project (Helm 1993).

    Planning for ESPAs in New Jersey is primarily accomplished through local municipal or
    county comprehensive plans. There is little link between these local plans and the state
    coastal management program. Although the New Jersey Coastal Zone Management
    Program is the basis for implementing the State Development and Redevelopment Plan
    (SD&RP), the SD&RP is not an enforceable document under the state coastal program.
    The SD&RP does include a general intent that local comprehensive plans be consistent
    with it, so ESPAs do have a generalized, indirect link with coastal management.
    "Enforceable" policies for Areas of Particular Concern apparently are included in local
    comprehensive plans, which most likely serve as special area management plans. Additional
    areas can be included through municipal master plans in conjunction with what is called
    "cross-acceptance" or multi-agency coordination.

    From the materials provided, it appears New York generally addresses management of
    Significant Resource Areas (SRAs) through state and local policies developed in Local
    Waterfront and Revitalization Programs. SRAs are generally relatively small and may not
    warrant the effort of conducting a full planning process to determine management priorities

                                               24

    for a single SRA. A variation of a special area management plan was completed for a series
    of 39 unique areas, most of which are designated Significant Coastal Fish and Wildlife
    Habitats, located along the tidally influenced section of the Hudson River (New York b
    1990). Each site Is described and mapped, and has "recommended actions", "incompatible
    uses", and "recommended uses" included as part of the analysis. The document does not
    describe the enforceability of these management recommendations, although local laws and
    regulations may be enacted by the individual local governments to implement relevant parts
    of the plan.

    North Carolina does not develop separate plans for its areas of environmental concern
    (AECs). AECs are managed by policies contained in Coastal Area Management Act
    (CAMA), the CAMA Rules, and individual local land use plans (Crew 1993). The states
    that local land use plans shall serve as the criteria for the issuance or denial of development
    permits . The Act also directs that local plans "shall give special attention to the protection
    and appropriate development of areas of particular concern". Further, CAMA requires
    local governments to change existing ordinances that are inconsistent with any policies for
    AECs within its boundaries.

    Oregon's local comprehensive plans are required to be consistent with 19 Statewide
    Planning Goals adopted by the Land Conservation and Development Commission. State
    law requires cities and counties to adopt zoning and subdivision ordinances necessary to
    implement their comprehensive plans. Special districts created by a local comprehensive
    plan and state agencies must also conform to the 19 goals (Oregon 1993). Oregon
    encourages the use of overlay zoning to apply specific policies to sensitive areas or
    resources.

    Rhode Island primarily takes a watershed control approach when undertaking special area
    management planning (Willis 993). Special area management planning is also associated
    with the growth and development of the state's harbors which has been associated with
    increasing pressures on different users and habitats. The Coastal Resources Management
    Council produced guidelines for developing municipal harbor management plans (Rhode
    Island 1988).

    Criteria for AMSA Designation

    The coastal states vary in their breadth of criteria for AMSA designation. In the interest of
    refining the ACMP criteria, which is very broad, some examples of more restrictive criteria
    are provided as follows:

    California
    The California Coastal Act identifies sensitive coastal resource areas that are to be identified
    by the California Coastal Commission using the following criteria:

        *the area is of regional or statewide significance

                                                25

        * identification of significant adverse impacts that could result from development
           where zoning alone is not adequate to protect coastal resources or access

    Massachusetts
    The following factors are considered when evaluating an potential area of critical
    environmental concern.
      *    threat to the public health through inappropriate use
      *    quality of the natural characteristics (outstanding)
        * productivity
      � uniqueness of area (regional, state or national)
      �    irreversibility of impact (fragile resources)
      *    imminence of threat to the resource
        * magnitude of impact (significant)
      *    economic benefits of the area
      *    other supporting factors

    New York
    The procedures for designating Significant Coastal Fish and Wildlife Habitats were
    developed in a project conducted in 1984 (New York a 1984). Approximately 225
    candidate areas within New York's coastal zone w ere used as the basis for developing a
    rating system for evaluating an area for potential designation. The evaluation criteria in the
    rating system scores ecosystem rarity, species vulnerability, human use, population level,
    and replaceability. An area must meet a threshold score to be designated.

    Outstanding Natural Coastal Areas (OINCA) are "geographic areas within the Long Island
    Sound coastal boundary and are generally composed of a variety of smaller individual
    ecological communities that together form a landscape of environmental, social, and
    economic value to the people of New York" (New York 1993). An ONCA must

        * contain significant natural resources;
     �    have its resources at risk; and
     *    require additional management measures to preserve or improve the significant
           resources, or sustain their use.

    Washington
    The Washington Coastal Management Program environmental impact statement identifies
    the following criteria to designate areas of conservation, recreational, ecological, or aesthetic
    values (Washington 1993a).

     �    the area contains a resource feature of environmental value considered to be of
           greater than local concern or significance
     �    the area is identified as an area of particular concern by state or federal legislation,
           administrative and regulatory programs, or land ownership

                                                26

        * the area has the potential for more than one major land or water use or has a
           resource being sought by ostensibly incompatible users.

    Planning Manual

    The Local Coastal Programn Manual is a guide to assist local governments to prepare regular
    coastal program plans that meet the requirements of the California Coastal Act (California
    1979). The Manual outlines the general planning process, from issue identification to
    zoning actions and adoption by the California Coastal Council. The Manual also explains
    how the 14 policies in Chapter 3 of the CCA need to be addressed in a coastal district
    program (similar to 6 AAC 80 in Alaska).

    Although not specifically targeted for special area plans, the document titled Comprehensive
    Planning: A Manual/or Maine's Communities provides information on developing a
    comprehensive plan, planning elements, and identifying appropriate future land uses (Maine
    1992). Comprehensive planning is required for all municipalities per the Maine
    Comprehensive Zoning and Land Use Regulation Act and the Growth Management
    Program.

    Massachusetts has adopted guidelines for harbor planning. Although written specifically
    for communities involved in developing harbor plans, the guidelines essentially explain the
    steps for developing any resource related plan. Emphasis is provided for ensuring the
    recommendations are implemented (Massachusetts 1988). A separate publication provides
    guidance for public involvement while developing a municipal harbor plan. The guidance
    encourages the use of "open planning" which attempts to reach consensus by all interested
    parties. Although open planning is more costly and slower than more traditional planning,
    implementation should be easier because the various interests have had their concerns
    addressed and are more likely to support the plan's decisions.
    The State of Washington's manual Shoreline Management Guidebook, 2nd Ed., 1994 recently
    won merit awards from the American Planning Association and the Planning Association
    of Washington. Acclaimed both by state agencies and local governments as informative
    and user-friendly, this manual Is a good model to consider for Alaska.

    As discussed in the next chapter, examples from other coastal states support and provide
    good models for some of the suggested changes to the Alaska Coastal Management
    Program. In particular, other state's criteria for areas of particular concern, guidance on
    periodic plan analysis and updates, public involvement process, and some excellent models
    for planning manuals have provided useful information.

                                               27

                                           CHAPTER 4. ANALYSIS AND CONCLUSIONS

    This chapter first discusses benefits and concerns about coastal district plans and special area
    management plans identified through 1) the Division of Governmental Coordination
    (D GC) analysis of various review phases of the plans, 2) responses to the DGC
    questionnaire on coastal district planning, 3) responses to two questionnaires specific to
    implementation of coastal district plans, and 4) discussions at the District Planning
    Working Group (DPWG) meetings. Improvements to Alaska Coastal Management
    (ACMP) planning are also suggested following the review of other states' coastal programs
    and a review of literature on coastal management and special area management planning.
    The remainder of the chapter is subdivided into three sections- plan content, planning
    process, and plan implementation. Detailed summaries of the responses to the
    questionnaires are included in the appendices.

    Benefits and Concerns

    Some districts responded that AMSAs or special area management plans (SAMPs) provide
    greater "due deference" and local control for areas with high resource values and pressures
    of growth and development. Other benefits from participating in the development and
    implementation of a special area plan also identified were giving the area or resources
    special status that would be considered by state and federal agencies; providing more detail
    on resources, uses and activities; and improvements to permitting. Another benefit is
    increased public participation and awareness of coastal management at the local level.

    The predominant concerns raised include: 1) the need for more involvement of state and
    federal agencies during plan development; 2) the length and complexity of the plan
    amendment process- a deterrent to making plan revisions; 3) and myriad problems with
    plan implementation at the local and state level, including confusion about local, state and
    federal responsibilities, problems with policy interpretation, vague policy language,
    homeless stipulations, and monitoring and enforcement.

    Plan Content

    The elements of a special area management plan or coastal district plan that drew the most
    response include: resource inventory and analysis, criteria for AMSA designation,
    enforceable policies, and implementation.

    6 AAC 80.160 - .170 AMSAs
    Since the plan content and planning process for Areas Which Merit Special Attention is the
    same as that for coastal district programs, those subjects are not repeated in this section. A
    more detailed description and analysis of AMSA planning process and criteria is presented
    in Chapter 2.

                                                28

    Several respondents and the DPWG members felt that the AMSA criteria is too broad, and
    should be focused where conflicts occur or are likely occur. In response to the question
    "When is it more useful to develop a special area plan?", respondents to the questionnaire
    felt that SAMPs are appropriate when the issues or areas are complex, controversial, very
    unique or of high value. Responses to questions about when to do a special area
    management plan rather than develop area-specific policies in the district program varied.
    Special area planning is typically initiated when a detailed resource analysis is required.
    Review of the district program files and responses to the district planning and coastal
    district plan implementation questionnaires revealed the following common concerns.

    Criteria
      �    Districts must explain the basis for designating an area as an AMSA site and clearly
           tie this to the ACMP AMSA criteria.
     *    The type or level of uses, any conflict and values that AMSA sites have need to be
           clearly identified to support designation
     *    justify the size of the AMSA, and include adequate area and resources to manage the
           values for which it is selected.
     �    Confusion exists over the use of the terms identify, nominate and designate
      *    AMSAs should not be used as a planning tool in areas where there are not
           substantial conflicts, land ownership is simple (i.e. almost all federal or local) and
           future conflicts are unlikely.

    Based on the review of other states program, responses to the questionnaires conducted
    through this project, and discussions among the DPWG, the following criteria for AMSA
    designation should be considered:

        * Strong commitment at all levels of the government to enter into the SAMP
           planning process
        * Uniqueness of the area (values of state or national concern)
        * Conflicts of greater than local significance exist or are likely to occur
        * Policies in the existing plan are insufficient to sustain, preserve, protect or restore
           the values or uses significant in the area
        * justification that an AMSA is the preferred planning and management mechanism

    As discussed in Chapter 2, the AMSA regulations should be reorganized, and appropriate
    sections combined with the submittal to the council and resource inventory and analysis
    requirements. One section of the regulations should clearly identify the criteria for AMSA
    designation.

    6 AAC 85.020 Needs. Ob iectives, and Goals
    Identification of the local needs, objectives and goals defines the local intent for coastal
    management. Application of the enforceable policies that are built upon these goals and
    objectives sometimes is difficult if a policy is not linked to a goal or objective, or if the
    goals or objectives are vague. Review of district program files also unearthed some

                                                 29

    confusion about the goals and objectives achievable under the ACMP. One misconception
    is that the ACMP can affect the allocation of sport, commercial or subsistence resources,
    which is the purview of the Alaska Boards of Fish and Game. Conflicting enforceable.
    policies can also be the result of conflicting needs, goals and objects. Respondents to the
    district planning questionnaire also identified the need for a methodology for measurement
    of attainment of the districts' needs, goals and objectives. As discussed later in the
    implementation section, analysis of how effective the districts enforceable policies are in
    meeting the needs, goals and objectives is important to maintaining a vital program.

    Most of the respondents to the district planning questionnaire supported the concept of
    "1scoping", or bringing parties together early in the process to identify issues and the
    available means to address the issues before undertaking a special area management planning
    effort.

    Once the local district agrees on the needs, goals and objectives, its efforts are channeled to
    gathering the information and developing the policies and management structure to achieve
    those goals. Sometimes the local issues become diffused or overridden by the assertion of
    State and federal agency goals. A local district should acknowledge and carry primarily
    those issues it believes should be addressed, for the district coastal management program is
    intended to have that local "flavor".

    The Oregon Land Conservation and Development Commission adopted 19 Statewide
    Planning goals that must be followed by local government comprehensive plans and state
    agencies. Goal 2, Land Use Planning states that "All land-use plans shall state how the
    guidelines or alternative means are utilized to achieve the goals". Alaska should consider
    including this guideline in the ACMP standards for needs, goals and objectives.

    6 AAC 85.030 Oreanization
    Little response on this section was offered through the questionnaires. Review of coastal
    district program files revealed some "housekeeping" problems that could easily be remedied
    through a planning manual. Some of these problems include providing adequate
    orientation information for plan users, organizing all enforceable components of the plan
    into one section, inclusion of a bibliography, clarifying the district organization and
    contact for coastal management matters.

    6 AAC 85.040 Boundaries
    Boundaries are not always sufficiently described in draft plans. This includes a need to
    more clearly mark boundaries on maps, show the relationships of various types of
    boundaries, and provide a written description of the coastal zone boundaries. AMSA
    boundaries, in particular, must be shown in relation to the district program boundaries.
    Review of the consistency files and comments from ACMP implementers indicates
    problems occur when the coastal district boundary map is insufficient to determine
    whether a coastal project is inside, and subject to the district program. Guidance on an
    appropriate map scale and dominant features to include would be helpful.

                                                30

    AMSA regulations (6 AAC 85.160 and 85.170) require a justification of the area to be
    included within the AMSA boundary and requires a written and legal description of the
    boundary. In most cases, written descriptions are included, but often the lengthy legal
    descriptions are not. The federal regulations look for a description or adequate map to
    allow determination of whether a project or activity is located within the AMSA. If
    standards for an adequate scale map were developed, and an adequate narrative description
    provided, an lengthy legal description may not be necessary, or at most, could be included
    as an appendix.

    Another frustration noted in file comments on the draft plans and in responses to the
    questionnaires is the need to show the AMSA boundary in relation to the district boundary
    and a municipal boundary, if appropriate. Confusion about the relationship of federal
    lands to the coastal zone boundary is also noted, and should be explained in a manual.

    6 AAC 85.050 Resource Inventory and 6 AAC 85.060 Resource Analysis
    Several respondents to the planning questionnaire asked for guidance on methodologies for
    how to prepare resource inventories and analyses. The requirement for comprehensive
    inventories has lead to a multitude of problems. Of these, perhaps the most critical are
    problems with obtaining up-to-date and accurate information about resources, uses,
    activities, etc.; providing adequate documentation for data in the inventories; and deciding
    how to present the data (i.e., maps, tables, and charts).

    Gray (1993) in his report on the regulation of cumulative and secondary impacts in Alaska,
    recommends revisions to the Resource Inventory regulation (6 AAC 85.050) to provide
    more specific guidance on coastal resources and uses to be inventoried. The function of
    resources, if appropriate, and the value of the resources could be considered on a site
    specific basis. The proposed amendments differentiate between resources and uses, consider
    resource function and value, differentiate among types of resources, describe historic uses,
    and encourage a strategic planning approach.

    Nearly all persons responding to the district planning questionnaire and the DPWG
    supported a strategic planning approach to conducting the resource inventory and analysis.
    A strategic planning approach would focus the inventory and analysis on resources and
    issues identified as important to the coastal district. Also, the resource inventory could be
    built on, or reference, existing information.

    A municipality's comprehensive plan could be used as the foundation for the resource
    inventory, allowing more emphasis and research to be channeled into selected resources and
    activities, such as wetlands, nonpoint source pollution, seafood processing, or recreation
    management. A comprehensive plan is a compilation of policy statements, goals, standards,
    and maps for guiding the physical, social, and economic development, both private and
    public, of the first or second class borough, and may include, but is not limited to, the
    following: (1) statements of policies, goals, and standards; (2) a land use plan (3) a
    community facilities, plan, (4) a transportation plan; and (5) recommendations for

                                                31

    implementation of the comprehensive plan. [AS 29.33.085(a)]. According to AS 46.40.030,
    lithe program adopted by a coastal resource district shall be based upon a municipality's
    existing comprehensive plan or a new comprehensive resource use plan or comprehensive
    statement of needs, policies, objectives and standards governing the use of resources within
    the coastal area of the district." Similarly, AMSA plans typically build on the coastal
    district program.

    The recently formed City and Borough of Yakutat is taking the approach of concurrently
    developing its coastal management program and comprehensive plan. The Lake and
    Peninsula Borough is also developing its coastal management program close on the heels of
    its comprehensive plan. The City of Bethel, in its application for State FY95 funds, also
    expressed interest in revising the comprehensive plan to support revision of the district
    program.

    AMSA planning efforts parallel this process, by focusing research efforts on specific
    resources, uses or activities where more data are needed to lead to and support management
    decisions. Often, these focused planning efforts are more costly than the development of
    the basic district program because of the need for specific research to gather resource
    information that leads to specific enforceable polices. For example, the Aleutians West
    CRSA initiated an Unalaska Bay AMSA planning effort in 1991 to address the pressures of
    the rapid growth of the fishing fleet service and seafood processing industries and to
    maintain productive fish and wildlife habitats, protect subsistence, personal use, and
    recreation activities, and resolve conflicts in the use of coastal resources. As the planning
    effort unfolded, it was determined there was a critical need for specific studies on habitats,
    water circulation patterns and water quality data. These research efforts added about 45%
    to the basic costs of developing the AMSA plan.

    The Resource Analysis (6 AAC 85.060), which is based on the resource inventory,
    compares the resources and uses described in the inventory, then determines the most
    suitable uses for the area. Through the synthesis of resource inventory data, sensitive areas
    or sensitive coastal resources can be identified and specific policies developed to manage the
    areas or resource.

    In North Carolina, the data collection and analysis is required partly to identify existing
    and potential areas of environmental concern. Included in the data collection and analysis
    and existing land use map is a review of present conditions, land suitability, carrying
    capacity analysis, and estimated demand for land and resources.

    Following are the recommended changes to the resource inventory and analysis regulations
    based on Gray (1993) proposed language. Language that includes some of the resource
    inventory and analysis requirements for AMSAs at 6 AAC 80.160 - .170 is also included.

                                                32

            6 AAC 85.050. RESOURCE INVENTORY AND CAPABILITY ANALYSIS. fa)
     Each district program must include a resource inventory for the areas within or adjacent to the
     district which describes, either in writing or on a map, in a manner sufficient for program
     development and implementation
            (1) valuable natural resources such as forests. minerals. soils, wetlands, water, and fish
     and wildlife. including habitats [LISTED IN 6 AA C 80.130 THA TARE FOUND  WITHIN
     OR ADJA CENT TO THE DISTRICT] and the function of these resources, if aopropriate:
            (2) major cultural, historic. prehistoric and archaeolopical resources ITHA TARE
     FOUND WITHIN OR ADJACENT TO THE DISTRICT]; and
            (3) the value of other resources such as the potential for human settlement, recreation and
     transportation.
     ) [(3)] Each district Program must describe. in a manner sufficient for program development
     and implementation
           W  major land and water uses and activities which are or have been conducted within or
           adjacent to the district;
           a  [(4)] major land and resource ownership, jurisdiction and management responsibilities
    within or adjacent to the district. [; AND]
           [(5) MAJOR HISTORIC, PREHISTORIC, AND ARCHAEOLOGICAL RESOURCES
     WHICH ARE FOUND WITHIN OR ADJACENT TO THE DISTRICT.]
      (c) Each district Program should identify the criteria used to determine the value of specific
    resources.
      (d) Districts are encouraged to take a strategic planning approach which focuses on  the most
    important resources. uses and activities. Where inventory information is contained in other
    published reports. the information may be briefly summarized and the documents referenced in
    the coastal program. (Eff 7/18/78, Register 67)

           6 AAC 85.060. RESOURCE SUITABILITY ANALYSIS. Each district program
    must include a resource analysis for areas within or adjacent to the district which evaluates
    [DESCRIBES], in a manner sufficient for program development and implementation
           (1) significant anticipated changes in the matters identified under 6 AA C 85.050
    including uses and activities likely to occur in the foreseeable future:
           (2) [AN EVALUA TION OF THE ENVIRONMENTAL CAPABILITYAND] the
    suitability of specific uses and activities with consideration of natural hazards. conflicting or
    competing uses;
           (3) sensitivity of resources and habitats, including cultural, soil and water resources,
    [FOR LAND AND WA TER USES AND A CTIVITIES; AND]
           (  [(3) AN ASSESSMENT OF THE] present and anticipated needs and demands for
    coastal habitats and resources.
           (5) present and anticipated conflicts among uses and activities. (Eff. 7/18/78, Register 67)

                                                33

    Massachusetts also encourages mapping resource inventory and analysis data on a base map
    which will allow the information to be digitized and placed into the Massachusetts
    Geographic Information System (Massachusetts 1992). During State FY95, the Alaska
    Division of Governmental Coordination is conducting an investigation into the feasibility
    and usefulness of a GIS for coastal districts and state agencies participating in the ACMP.
    Should the project recommend the state proceed with a coordinated GIS, guidance on
    proper format should be provided in the resource inventory section of a planning manual.

    To ensure compliance and enforcement activities, Massachusetts also requires a human use
    inventory that identifies both permitted and unpermitted activities. An inventory of
    unpermitted activities within an entire Alaska coastal district is potentially overwhelming,
    but could be feasible within an AMSA plan which encompasses less geographic area.

    6 AAC 85.070 Subject Uses/6 AAC 85.080 Prover and Imvrover Uses
    Review of program files reveals that in some cases subject uses were not addressed in the
    plan document. While in other cases, proper and improper uses were not discussed in the
    district plan, usually the canned statement that uses and activities that are consistent with
    the policies of the district program and the ACMP are proper, and those not consistent are
    improper is included. Also, the discussion of uses of State concern that are considered
    proper or improper is occasionally overlooked. Another purpose of this section is to
    analyze and justify the exclusion or restriction of a use of State concern, an important
    consideration for approvability of a coastal district program or special area management
    plan (AS 46.40.060 and AS 46.40.070). In response to the planning questionnaire, some
    districts suggested that the terms "subject uses, proper and improper uses" should be
    defined. Another suggestion was to combine these two sections. Guidance should be
    provided in a planning manual on the elements that should be included in this section of
    the plan, how uses of state concern should be addressed in the plan, and how local, State
    agency and federal agency permits subject to the program should be presented.

    6 AAC 85.090 Policies
    The enforceable policies are the heart of the district plan. The application of the
    enforceable policies also causes the most difficulty in program implementation. Review of
    the district program files indicated some recurring problems:

        * Clarification or guidance is needed on enforceable language vs. administrative
           language
        * In most cases, enforceable policies supplement the State standards, but the districts
           state that the policies replace the State standards - this is only true in limited cases.
     *    There is ongoing debate about whether the State standards should be repeated
          verbatim when districts choose to incorporate the standards.
     � Often, the districts need to define terms used in the enforceable policies. At a
          minimum, definitions have to be revised.

                                                34

         *    There is ongoing debate about whether enforceable policies should be specific or
           general. Some feel that specificity is necessary for the policies to be enforceable
           while others feel that this makes the policies too inflexible.
      *    When enforceable policies mention actions that must be taken during project
           reviews or for enforcement purposes, the policies need to state who is responsible
           for taking the action(s).
      *    If district policies reference a plan, ordinance, etc. that is to be an enforceable part
           of the plan, then these elements must be included in the plan. Otherwise, a clear
           reference to the appropriate document should suffice.
      *    When policies address requirements or subjects that are also addressed by State or
           federal regulations, the policies should state that these regulations may also apply.
         *  Often, terms used in policies need to be defined.
         *    AMSA and coastal management plan policies should not conflict.
         *    Clarify when AMSA policies supplement or replace the policies of the coastal
           management plan.

    Most of these difficulties can be resolved through guidance in a planning manual and do
    not appear to need a regulatory fix. However, the policy section of the regulations should
    be revised to clarify that more detailed enforceable policies specific to sensitive resources or
    activities can be developed in the basic district program.

    The following revision to 6 AAC 85.090 is recommended to clarify that area-specific
    policies for sensitive areas identified in the resource inventory and analysis may be
    developed within a coastal district program (new section c). Also, the third sentence in
    section a belongs in the implementation section of the regulations.

           6 AAC 85.090. POLICIES. (a) Each district program must include the policies that
    will be applied to land and water uses and activities subject to the district program, and the
    process which will be used to determine whether specific land and water uses and activities will
    be allowed. It shall be the general policy of the district to approve specific proposals for uses and
    activities within areas designated for those uses and activities under 6 AA C 85.080.
    [DISTRICTS SHALL USE EXISTING MEANSAPPROPRIATE FOR THE EVALUATION
    OF SPECIFIC PROPOSALS TO THE GREATESTEXTENTFEASIBLE AND PRUDENT.
    Policies and procedures under this section must be consistent with the standards contained in 6
    AA C 80 and must meet the following criteria:
           (1) comprehensiveness, so as to apply to all uses, activities, and areas in need of
    management;
           (2) specificity, so as to allow clear under standing of who will be affected by the district
    program, how they will be affected, and whether specific proposals for land and water uses and
    activities will be allowed; and
           (3) enforceability, so as to insure implementation of and adherence to the district
    program.

                                                 35

      (b) All policies or enforceable rules and other enforceable components of the district program.
    including definitions and maps of areas subject to area-specific policies [OF THE DISTRICT
    PROGRAM] must be clearly identified and located in a single section of the program document.
    The identified policies or enforceable rules and other enforceable components will provide the
    basis for all determinations of consistency with the approved district program.
      fc) For sensitive areas or resources identified in 6 AAC 85.060. districts may include
    enforceable policies that will be used to determine whether specific land and water uses and
    activities will be allowed. Areas subiect to these policies must be mated at a scale sufficient to
    determine whether a use or activity is located within the area.  The maps must be referenced in
    the applicable enforceable policv and are enforceable components of the district program. (Eff
    7/18/78, Register 67; am 3/2/84, Register 89)

    Performance Standards
    The Washington Shoreline Management Act guides the development and content of local
    master programs which categorize the shoreline into environmental designations and utilize
    performance standards to regulate uses and activities in accordance with goals and
    objectives defined locally. This approach provides an "umbrella" environment class over
    local planning and zoning. (Washington, 1991). More detailed guidelines are then
    developed at the local level, similar to Alaska's approach.

    In the guidebook Regulating Sensitive Lands, Jon Kusler (1980) concludes that state and
    local regulatory programs for sensitive areas are similar in several ways. Most regulatory
    efforts balance preservation and development through the establishment of performance
    standards rather than prohibition of all uses. Typically, these standards are coupled with
    zoning approaches at the local level.

    Variance
    Some coastal districts have recently experienced difficulty with implementation of
    restrictive specific enforceable policies. The City of Cordova's district program classifies the
    coastal district into four categories and specifies allowable and nonallowable uses for each-
    an approach similar to zoning. However, a recent development proposal, while possibly
    allowable under the zoning ordinances, was not clearly allowed in the district program.
    The City and Borough of Juneau was confronted with a similar problem, creating a conflict
    between its district program and zoning ordinance after revising local zoning. In another
    instance, the City of Hoonah was caught between two conflicting policies, one prohibiting
    the arbitrary or unreasonable restriction of a use of state concern (in this case, expansion of
    a harbor by the Department of Transportation), and a habitat policy that does not allow
    fill material beyond a certain depth. Recent discussions of how to resolve this problem
    have yielded out two preliminary options: 1) revise the plans and use performance
    standards, relying on the local zoning for specificity or 2) include variance procedures in
    the district programs. Another option discussed by DPWG meeting is to 3) develop specific
    policies where appropriate, and streamline the ACMP amendment process inject flexibility
    and quicker response to the resolution of implementation problems.

                                                 36

    The State of Washington includes a provision for variances and conditional uses in its
    Shoreline Management Act Guidelines. Each local master program must contain provisions
    covering conditional uses and variances. Any permit for a variance or a conditional use
    granted by local government must be submitted to the Department of Ecology for
    approval. (WAG 173-16-070).

    Planning Process

    The aspects of the planning process most often raised as problematic include lack of
    participation of State and federal agencies in the early phases of planning; late comments on
    the review of the public hearing draft; reviewers raising late, substantive concerns during
    the council review phase; problems with implementation at the local and state level; and
    the lengthy and complex plan amendment process.

    The ACMP` planning process was intended to be   "oe" involving the public, local and
    state and federal levels of government. The ACMP regulations encourage and provide
    opportunities for pubic participation. Some coastal states go further and specifically direct,
    or encourage the formation of a citizen's advisory committee or public advisory group that
    directs the efforts of the coastal plan or special area management plan. The City and
    Borough of Sitka successfully used a Coastal Management Citizens Comm~ittee to guide the
    development of a public use management plan. The Committee was used to identify the
    most outstanding, site-specific recreation or subsistence use areas within the Sitka coastal
    district and to develop management guidelines to maintain existing uses and limit use
    conflicts in those special areas (Sitka 1993).

    In a recent article on state growth management, Mr. Scott Bollens recognizes that states are
    evolving from regulatory interventions to more collaborative planning models using local
    implementation of state goals and standards (Bollens 1992). A consensual group process in
    state growth management programs in Florida, Vermont, and New Jersey has been
    involved in problem framing, policy development, policy oversight and review,
    negotiations among competing interests and developing procedures for accomplishing
    complex new tasks (Innes 1992). A well-designed group process can be an effective way to
    accomplish key planning tasks.

    6 AAC 85.110 Public Particir~ation/6 AAC 85.130 Public Involvement/6 AAC 85.140
    Coordination and Review
    Early involvement by State and federal agencies, local residents, and other interest groups
    would help with several aspects of planning.

    1) Pre-planning meetings could be held to identify the issues the district wants to address
    and to sort out the appropriate means to address them. Coastal management planning may
    or may not be the right choice for the community. In response to the planning

                                                37

    questionnaire, and in discussions with the DPWG, some other avenues include local
    zoning, comprehensive plan revisions, harbor management plans, or Department of Natural
    Resources (DNR) area plans.

    2) Early identification of issues, and determining gaps in knowledge that warrant further
    research, would help focus the resource inventory and analysis, supporting a strategic
    planning approach, if appropriate. By involving other parties in this step, some of the
    discomfort with focusing on particular resources or uses may be allayed.

    3) Preliminary discussions among the interested parties to resolve concerns with policy
    language and implementation especially would give the district more certainty that the
    concept approved draft is more likely to be approved without significant changes.

    4) One method to address the problem of federal commitment to a coastal district plan or
    special area management plan is to involve the federal agencies early and often during the
    planning process. Because federal agencies have their own mandates, they can impose more
    stringent requirements on a project than might be required in a consistency review based
    on a coastal district program. State agencies also overlay their own authorities after the
    consistency determination and may further restrict or deny a project. However, a
    consensus based planning effort would encourage resolution of many multi-jurisdictional
    issues, and could significant reduce the contentious nature of some projects.

    Regulatory language could be crafted to encourage advisory groups, leaving the choice up
    to the district. At any rate, the coastal district should be encouraged to hold meetings
    early in the process to involve all parties. Due to declining state revenues, fewer agency
    staff are able to review draft plans, and inter-agency meetings have been held less
    frequently. This has resulted in more contentious reviews at the end of the planning
    process.

    Rhode Island (1988) requires public participation with the additional use of a working
    group. The working group drafts various elements of the plan, directs the planning
    process, and disseminates information to the public. In Washington State, it is generally
    expected by the public and accepted by public agencies, that land use and resource
    management policy development will be carried out by or through public advisory
    committees (Canning 1993). All the coastal states have a public participation element in
    their coastal management programs or planning laws, but some are more directive about
    the depth of involvement of the public.

    Coastal districts have expressed great frustration with certain aspects of the planning
    process. One of the foremost difficulties is the inconsistent State and federal participation
    during the initial development of a special area management plan or district program.
    Once a district has made revisions to the public hearing draft in response to comments, the
    revised plan is submitted to the planning commission and assembly, or Coastal Resource
    Service Area Board, as appropriate, for approval. Sometimes late comments are submitted

                                                38

    after the program is approved locally, or new substantive comments are brought up during
    the next critical phase of review, DGC review and recommendations for Coastal Policy
    Council review and approval. One technique to encourage State agency timely, substantive
    comments on the public hearing draft is through the use of fiscal incentives in the contract
    between DGC and an agency. The DGC has included this requirement in the FY95
    contracts with the State agencies.

    A close scrutiny of the regulations, compared with the historic district program files also
    revealed the need for some "housekeeping" changes. For example, the Office of Coastal
    Management referred to in the regulations was renamed the Division of Governmental
    Coordination. The regulations do not clearly state that the coastal district's governing body
    conceptually approves by resolution a district program, program amendment, or AMSA
    within its boundaries. Also, most often, Coastal Policy Council approval of a district
    program, amendment, or AMSA plan rarely occurs within 45 days of the receipt of
    comments on the preliminary findings and conclusions.

    Plan Implementation

    Once of the most critical issues with the ACMP in general is implementation, and
    monitoring and enforcement of the ACMP and district programs, including AMSA plans.
    The two questionnaires on the implementation of coastal district programs (see Appendix
    C) provide insight into a host of difficulties with the implementation of the district
    programs, and the ACMP in general. While all implementation issues are not within the
    scope of this project, improved enforceable policy language, clarification of the authorities,
    procedures, and responsibilities for implementation, monitoring and enforcement at the
    local, State and federal levels would undoubtedly improve implementation. A requirement
    to periodically review and revise the district programs and special area management plans
    would help make the plans more effective. Streamlining the plan amendment process
    would provide more flexibility to the cycle of plan development, analysis of effectiveness,
    and revision.

    6 AAC 85.100 Implementation
    The methods and authorities that will be used to implement the coastal district program
    must be described in the program and an Area Which Merits Special Attention. While
    few of the respondents to the planning questionnaire noted problems with interpreting the
    regulations, review of the district program files indicated several problems with the content
    of this section.

    Contents
    The most prevalent deficiency in district plans reviewed was the lack of detail or specificity
    about the local procedures for implementation, including the consistency review
    procedures. Descriptions of the State and federal implementation responsibilities and
    authorities also vary, indicating confusion about the networked structure of the ACMP.

                                                39

           Need to clarify of implementation authorities for an AMSA outside district
           boundaries.

    Periodic Plan Review/Revision
    Periodic plan revisions are often necessary to resolve problems with policy language, the
    need to develop new policies to address emerging issues in response to State and federal
    issues and changes in the social and economic shifts affecting a community. In discussion
    of some of these issues, the DPWG encouraged a periodic analysis of the district program
    or special area management plan.

    While the ACMP statutes and regulations do not mandate a periodic revision of a district
    program, there is direction to assess program implementation. The Coastal Policy Council
    must review the effectiveness of implementation of district coastal management programs
    (AS 46.40.010.(4). One of the duties of the Council is to measure the progress of a coastal
    resource district in meeting its responsibilities under the ACMP [AS 46.40.040.(1)(G)].
    Further, coastal districts must submit annual progress reports that includes

      *    a statement describing the district's progress in fulfilling any conditions stipulated at
           the time of the council's approval of the district program;
     *    a summary of significant land and water use decisions and enforcement actions;
     *    a description of routine program implementation; and
     *    any problems encountered with implementation.

    State agencies are also required to report, on a quarterly basis, information on single agency
    project reviews, monitoring and enforcement actions, any problems with implementation of
    the ACMP (including district programs) and any changes to their authorities or
    organization that would affect the implementation of the program.

    Some examples of requirements for periodic review and update of local coastal programs
    can be found in other coastal states regulations or guidance (e.g., Oregon, Rhode Island,
    and Massachusetts). North Carolina's local land use plans are to have a ten-year horizon
    but must be updated every five years. Updates are intended to identify and analyze
    emerging community issues and to reexamine policies. New data must be included in the
    update.

    The ACMP regulation 6 AAC 85.120 (b) could be revised to require an assessment of the
    district's program effectiveness in achieving its needs, goals, and objectives, problems with
    implementation, or the need to address new issues every five or more years. Cefialiulriit
    recently evaluated its coastal management program and developed a strategy for revising the
    plan to meet current local needs and new State and federal requirements (B & B
    Environmental and Isaacs, 1993). This program assessment has set the stage for program
    revisions and is proving a useful tool to direct those efforts. The Kodiak Island Borough

                                                40

    also focused early program revision efforts on analyzing problems with its coastal
    management program as a forerunner to program revision.

    To facilitate these efforts to periodically analyze plan effectiveness, the District Planning
    Working Group developed several recommendations:

      �    Revise the quarterly and annual reporting requirements for districts to ask more
           specific, diagnostic questions about program effectiveness and problems with
           implementation. The DGC and DCRA should work with some coastal districts to
           develop this form and revise the reporting requirements.
      �    The State agency quarterly reports should be analyzed and problems summarized for
           the ACMP working group or Councils discussion and action. Revision of reporting
           requirements may be necessary.
      *    Districts should be required to periodically analyze and revise, if appropriate, its
           district program or special area management plan(s).
      *    DGC should maintain a database of noted problems with policy language and
           suggested language changes. This summary information should be disseminated to
           the districts and agencies.

    A confusing aspect of the ACMP program amendment is the use of the terms routine
    program implementation and significant amendment, also used in the federal regulations.
    Most of the planning questionnaire respondents and nearly all of the DPWG participants
    emphatically requested that the program amendment procedures be streamlined. The
    district planning working group suggested breaking amendments into three categories.
    Table 5 describes some potential categories and procedures to streamline the amendment
    process. The ACMP should use simpler terminology- for example, major changes, minor
    changes and technical corrections.

    Consistency Review
    Description of the different local, State, and federal procedures for consistency review
    should be clear and explained in more detail in the district program or special area
    management plan. Some of the current frustration with the consistency review process
    revealed through the responses to the questionnaires, discussion at the recent coastal district
    conferences, and discussed at the DPWG meetings is due to lack of information about the
    procedures and authorities for the local and single agency consistency review. A clear
    description in the implementation section would help to a certain extent. However, much
    work remains to be done to facilitate communication, analyze the authorities and
    responsibilities, and correct procedures if necessary.

    State agency compliance with the ACMP consistency review procedures has not been
    examined closely over the years. The DGC can, at its discretion, review agency consistency
    review procedures, files, or decisions [6 AAC 50.030(d)].

                                               41

                                         Table 5. Proposed Changes to Progam Amendment Procedures
    Change to              TYPE                                THRESHOLD                                          PROCESS
    District Plan or
    AMSA

    Major (significant      Boundary                             If the change goes beyond the ACMP                Local Process: 60 day public hearing draft, public
    amendment)                                                 biophysical boundaries                             notice, one or two public meetings, public hearing,
                                                              If, by annexation, new territory is covered      Concept approve by resolution (18 to 24 months)
                                                            by another plan with approved policies that
                                                            are different                                       DGC/CPC Process: CPC review and approval

                          New policies                       New policies to address new uses and               (iiu    2   as
                                                            activities                                        Federal review and approval by OCRM (30 days)

                          Major revision to current            Change to the intent or application of the       Local adoption
                          policies                           policy

                          Plan overhaul                        Complete redo, major changes to policy           Lt. Governor filing
                                                            section

                          Uses of State Concern              Restrict or exclude

                          New AMSA                           New plan

    Minor (RP)              Update resource inventory,         Update of information                               Local process: 30 day review by agencies and
                          analysis                                                                              district (may move up to major change if agencies or
                                                                                                            district disagree change is minor), public notice
                                                                                                            Adopt by ordinance, resolution if CRSA
                          Annex additional territory          A modest annexation where existing
                                                            policies would be applicable, similar               DGC/CPC Process: CPC review of 30 days to
                                                            resources; similar uses and activities            concur that change is minor (public, state and federal
                                                                                                            agencies review); public notice
                          Minor change to policies            Policy revision to improve specificty or          NO  formal federal review by OCRM
                                                            clarity, remove ineffective policies
                                                                                                            Lt. Governor filing
                          Implementation                     CRSA to borough, city to borough, new
                                                            borough formed
    Technical              Editorial changes, reprint                                                             Editorial review by DGC, DCRA

    Monitoring and Enforcement
    Another thorny problem expressed at all levels of government is monitoring and
    enforcement. Declining state revenues and subsequent budget cuts only exacerbate the
    problem and underscore the urgency to resolve the issue. A special area management plan
    or district program is not very effective if its enforceable policies are not being
    implemented, monitored and enforced. Resolution of the problems 'With monitoring and
    enforcement will require some in depth analysis of the actual authorities and responsibilities
    of the State and federal agencies and the local governments and how to best fill the gaps.
    A 1982 report on state agency enforcement of the ACMP provides a summary of State
    agency mechanisms to monitor and enforce permits as well as unpermitted uses and
    violations of State laws (Alaska Office of the Governor 1982)

    The primary issues raised with monitoring and enforcement are the ability to enforce
    district policies that are more restrictive than State agency regulations and the enforcement
    of district policies carried as stipulations on an agency permit, but not directly under the
    agencies direct regulatory authorities. These polices, or stipulations, are dubbed "homeless
    stipulations". However, research on the occurrence of these stipulations and any noted
    violations has not been done to reveal the extent of the problem. As indicated in the 1990
    Attorney General opinion, homeless stipulations are to be enforced by the Department of
    Law (Alaska Department of Law 1990). This issue needs to be revisited by the Department
    of Law, and the authority and responsibility of agencies clarified.

                                                42

                          CHAPTER 5. SUMMARY OF RECOMMENDATIONS

    Following is a summary of the recommendations to improve the planning content, process
    and implementation of special area management plans and coastal district programs . The
    recommendations are discussed throughout the preceding chapters. The second year effort
    of the special area management planning project cannot undertake all of these
    recommendations. Certain tasks are prioritized and selected for action under the Section
    309 project. Other tasks will be presented as recommendations for the ACMP working
    group, the Division of Governmental Coordination, or for future research under Section
    309 or 306 of the ACMP funds in the outyears. In particular, the DPWG is asked to
    respond to the priorities selected for action during State FY95, marked by an asterisk.

    Areas Which Merit Special Attention

    Regulatory Revisions
    * 1.   Revise 6 AAC 85.80.160 and 6 AAC 85.80.170 to remove redundancy with the
           requirements in 6 AAC 80 and 6 AAC 85.
    * 2.   Require justification for AMSAs inside districts similar to 6 AAC 80.170(a)(3-6).
    * 3.   Define the terms identify, nominate and designate used in these regulations.
    * 4.   Add criteria that AMSAs are appropriate where the coastal district program policies
           are not specific enough to assure effective management of particular coastal resources
           and uses.
    * 5.   Restructure the regulations and move resource inventory/analysis requirements into
           6 AAC 80.060 and 80.070, move AMSA approval procedures into 6 AAC 85.150,
           and create a new section that specifies criteria for AMSA designation.

    Planning Manual
    * 6.   Provide information and examples of various types of SAMPS and guidance on
          when AMSA plans are the appropriate management tool.
     7.   Provide information on sources of funding for special area management planning
          efforts.
    * 8.   Provide guidance on elements required in a special area management plan.
    * 9.   Provide guidance on the process for AMSA development and approval.

    Planning Process

    Regulatory Revisions
    * 10. Revise the regulations to streamline the process for district program amendments.
    * 11. Clarify that a concept approved draft, if incomplete can be returned to the sponsor
          for revision before being accepted for council review.
    * 12. Require substantive comments from agencies at the public hearing draft phase.

                                               43

    * 13.  Revise the timeframe for submittal to the CPC to reflect that fewer formal meeting
           to consider plan approvals are held each year.
    * 14.  Require a preliminary analysis to identify the issues or conflicts with specific
           resources, uses and activities, to identify the options and select the best means to
           resolve the issues or conflicts (AMSA, local comprehensive plan, DNR plan, or
           other State, federal or local action) before a special area management plan is
           undertaken.
    * 15.  Clarify in 6 AAC 85.180. Effective Date and Local Adoption. that the local district
           should adopt the district program or program amendment after federal approval (and
           within 90 days of Council approval, unless NOAA won't approve the program).
    * 16.  Encourage use of a Public or Citizen Advisory Committee to participate in the
           planning process.

    Planning manual
    * 17.  Describe various options for specialized planning in a planning manual.
    * 18.  Provide guidance on conducting a preliminary analysis before selecting a specialized
           planning or other management option. Provide diagnostic questions to guide the
           analysis.
    * 19.  Outline the planning process to encourage full local, state and federal participation
           early in the plan development. Encourage development of a citizen's committee to
           guide the planning project.

    Grant Management
    * 20.  Prior to application for ACMP district grant funds, require districts to conduct a
           preliminary analysis (or scoping) to specify issues or conflicts to be addressed, the
           appropriate means to resolve the issues or conflict (AMSAs, local comprehensive
           plans, revised district programs), and to demonstrate local, state, and federal support
           of the selected planning effort.
    * 21.  Require agencies to review and provide substantive comments on public hearing and
           concept approved plans in the reimbursable service agreements.
    * 22.  Include the mandatory five year plan analysis as a priority task for funding in the
           district grant application process.

    OCRM
     *23. Identify categories of program changes that OCRM would give categorical approval
           to - similar to DGC's ABC List of project approvals. Pursue a memorandum of
           understanding on criteria and procedures for "categorical plan approvals".

    Plan Content

    Regulatory Revisions
     *24. Define the terms "needs, goals and objectives" used in 6 AAC 85.020. Clarify that
           needs, goals and objectives should indicate the enforceable policies that are used to
           achieve the goals and objectives.

                                                44

    * 25.  Reorganize and combine the standard on subject uses (6 AAC 85.070) and proper
           and improper uses (6 AAC 85.080). Define the terms "subject uses" and "proper and
           improper uses".
    * 26.  Revise regulations to provide for a "strategic planning" approach in district programs
           and special area plans in the resource inventory (6 AAC 85.050).
     *27. Revise 6 AAC 85.050 and 85.060 regulations to clarify the resources, uses and
           activities to be inventoried and analyzed.
     *28. Clarify whether or when the state standards (6 AAC 80) should be repeated in a
           district program or AMSA plan.

    Planning Manual
    * 29.  Provide guidance on the development of issues, goals and objective: a) describe what
           is. achievable under the ACMP or other means and b) clarify how the enforceable
           policies should be linked to the issues, goals and objectives 3) discuss whether state
           and federal issues should be carried in the district program or special area plan.
    * 30.  Provide guidance on the appropriate content of the section on organization (6 AAC
           85.030).
    * 31.  Provide guidance on the content and quality of maps to include in the boundary
           section. (6 AAC 040.).
      32. Provide guidance on how methodologies that could be used to conduct a resource
           inventory and analysis. Provide examples of ideal, or useful, resource inventory
           maps. (May want to hire a consultant for this task).
    * 33.  Provide guidance on when a strategic planning approach is appropriate, and on how
           to undertake such an effort.

    Enforceable Policies

    Regulatory Revisions
     *34. Clarify that specific policies can apply to certain areas or resources within a district.
     35. Consider developing criteria for allowing variances to enforceable policies in district
           programs.

    Planning Manual
    * 36.  Provide guidance on how to write clear, enforceable policies; provide examples and
           discuss when performance standards vs. specific (or design) standards should be used;
           and provide guidance on and examples of administrative policies.
    * 37.  Provide guidance on how the enforceable policy section , or enforceable component
           of the plan should be organized. Provide guidance on whether the state standards
           should be repeated in the enforceable policy section of the district program or
           special area management plan.
    * 38.  Clarify how the enforceable policies relate to State and federal requirements.
     39.  Clarify to what extent district policies can be more stringent than State agency
           regulations (may need DOL clarification first).

                                                45

    Implementation

    Regulatory Revisions
    * 40.  Require coastal districts to review and evaluate their district programs or special area
           plans about every five years, and amend them as appropriate. Revise 6 AAC 85.120
           Submittal to Council.
    * 41.  Require a time-table for the implementation program to meet the goals of the
           district plan.

    Planning Manual
    * 42.  Describe the implementation, monitoring and enforcement responsibilities at the
           local, State and federal level (may need clarification from DOL first).
    * 43.  Describe how Title 29 (municipal government) powers and the ACMP interact at
           the local level. Describe how local zoning and enforceable policies interact. Provide
           a model description for inclusion in district programs and special area management
           plans.
    * 44.  Describe and provide examples of local implementation options.
    * 45.  Provide guidance on the plan amendment process and describe when a minor or
           major plan revision is required.

    Grant Management
     *46. Revise the district quarterly and annual reporting form to ask more detailed,
           diagnostic questions and use them to document successes and problems with plan
          policies or plan implementation.
     47.  Review and analyze successes and problems with implementation identified by the
           agencies in their quarterly reports. Revise the reporting requirements, if necessary,
          to ask more diagnostic questions.
     48.  Evaluate the priority for funding under the ACMP. Should more funds be allocated
          to coastal district for developing or revising district programs or special area
          management plans and for local monitoring and enforcement as a priority over State
          agency monitoring and enforcement?

    Recommended Research

     49.  Identify and measure the success of local tools used by coastal districts to implement
          the ACMP. Evaluate means to strengthen implementation at the local level.
          Consider whether cities with planning powers located within CRSAs should adopt
          the district program by ordinance.
     50.  Evaluate and identify incentives for DFG, DEC, and DNTR to participate in and
          implement the ACMP and coastal district programs.
     51.  Evaluate how the ACMP consistency review process and the State resource agency
          permit review procedures can be better aligned or combined. Examine state agency
          compliance with consistency review procedures.

                                               46

      52. Investigate further the problems with monitoring and enforcement. Clarify what the
           district and state agencies responsibilities are under the ACMP and their own
           authorities.
      53. Investigate the extent of the real problem with monitoring and enforcement of
           homeless stipulations. If necessary, request clarification of the Alaska Attorney
           General Opinion on homeless stipulations.
     54. Explore different approaches to implementation of the ACMP. Is it time to
           consider a shoreline or coastal permit, with appropriate monitoring and enforcement
           powers going to a single agency responsible for the ACMP? Or could a special
           permit for Areas Which Merit Special Attention be developed at the local or State
           level.
     55. DGC should expand its database to collect information on district program
           implementation, specifically problems with policy language and any recommended
           language changes. Ad hoc information and quarterly and annual report information
           on policy language could be funneled into the database.
     56. Clarify how "public need" is determined during consistency reviews, especially
           under the coastal development and habitat standards. Consider whether a new
           "Socioeconomic" standard is appropriate.

    Public Education and Training

     57. Provide more opportunities for training on coastal program development and
           implementation including the consistency review process.
     58. Encourage cross-training among districts and state agencies on the local and single
           agency state consistency review process as well as the DGC-coordinated review.
     59. Help coastal districts promote awareness and support for coastal management.

    Conclusion

    Several recommendations to improve the plan content, planning process, and plan
    implementation are presented in Chapters 4 and 5. Through regulatory revisions,
    preparation of a planning manual, improvements to grant management, and clarification of
    implementation responsibilities, special area management planning as well as basic coastal
    district planning can be enhanced. The combination of these tasks will clarify, strengthen,
    or provide guidance on:

     �    Criteria for AMSA designation
     � Options for using AMSA plans or area-specific policies in the district program
     *    Elements for plan content
     �    Streamline and clarify the plan revision procedures
     �    Encourage a strategic planning approach
     �    Encourage periodic plan analysis and revision
     �    Local, State and federal implementation

                                               47

     *    Clarify and provide guidance on the planning process
     *    Encourage early, substantive involvement of the State and federal agencies and the
           public to identify the issues and determine appropriate management tool
        * Encourage substantive review of the public hearing draft phase

    Some of the additional research is suggested to clarify or resolve certain implementation
    issues: the responsibilities and authorities of the State agencies and local districts,
    consideration of a socioeconom-ic standard, consideration of a variance procedure, the
    extent of the problem with "homeless stipulations", and a study of the effectiveness of local
    implementation tools.

    Coastal districts responding to the questionnaire expressed a desire for the following types
    of information and guidance that could be included in a planning manual:

        * policy writing
        * information on new issues (nonpoint source pollution program, wetlands
          management, cumulative and secondary impacts)
        * mapping
        * methodologies for resource inventory and analysis
        * references for regulations
        * list of contacts (State and federal)
        * implementation methods
        * information on coastal resources
        *examples, or models of plan elements such as policies, boundary and resource maps

                                                48

                                                                     BIBLIOGRAPHY

    AS 29 (Municipal Government)

    AS 44.19 (State Government, Office of the Governor, Office of Management and Budget)

    AS 46.40 (The Alaska Coastal Management Program)

    6 AAC 80 (Standards of the Alaska Coastal Management Program)

    6 AAC 85 (Guidelines for District Coastal Management Program)

    15 CFR � 923 (Coastal Zone Management Program Development and Approval)

    15 CFR � 932 (Coastal Zone Enhancement Grants Program federal regulations)

    16 U.S.C. $ 1451 et seq. (Coastal Zone Management Act, as amended November 5, 1990).

    Alaska Coastal Policy Council, Resolution No. 21: Implementing the District Program,
          December 3, 1981. Juneau, AK: Alaska Office of the Governor, Division of
          Governmental Coordination.

    Alaska Department of Community and Regional Affairs. 1987. Alaska Local Government
          Handbook. 3rd ed. August 1987. Juneau, AK. Prepared by Calista Professional
          Services.

              1988. Regional government in Alaska. Juneau, AK.

    Alaska Department of Law. 1986. Attorney General's Opinion. "Special Area Designation
          in District Coastal Management Program". April 28, 1986. Laura Davis, Office of
          the Attorney General. Juneau, AK.

           � 1990. Attorney General Opinion. "Enforceability of Homeless Stipulations.
          August 27, 1990. Gary I. Amendola, Office of the Attorney General. Juneau, AK.

    Alaska Office of Coastal Management. 1980. Special Areas in the Alaska Coastal Zone:
          Abstracts of Proposals. Juneau, AK.

           _   1982. Enforcement of the Alaska Coastal Management Program by State Agencies.
          Juneau, AK.

                                              49

    Alaska Office of Coastal Management and U.S. Department of Commerce, Office of
           Coastal Zone Management. 1979. State of Alaska Coastal Management Program and
          Final Environmental Impact Statement. Juneau, AK.

    Alaska Office of the Governor, Division of Governmental Coordination. 1988a. Alaska
           Coastal Management Program. September 1988. Anchorage, AK: Prepared by Ott
           Engineering, Inc.

           . 1988. ACMP District Implementation Manual. September 1988. Anchorage, AK.
          Prepared by Ott Engineering, Inc.
    Aleutians East Borough. 1993. Aleutians East Borough Coastal Management Program. April
           1993. AK.

    Angoon, City of. 1992. Angoon Coastal Management Program. June 1992. Alaska.

           . 1992. Areas Which Merit Special Attention for Mitchell, Hood and Chaik-Whitewater
          Bays. June 1992. AK.

    B & B Environmental and Jon Isaacs & Associates. 1993. Ceflaliulriit Coastal Management
          Program Draft Scoping Document. A Report to the People. Anchorage, AK.

    Blakesley, R. G. Maine State Planning Office. Personal communication with Chas Dense,
          Division of Governmental Coordination, AK Office of the Governor. December 1,
           1993. Juneau, AK.

    Bollens, Scott A. 1992. "State Growth Management. Intergovernmental Frameworks and
          Policy Objectives. Journal of the American Planning Association, Vol. 58, No. 4,
          Autumn 1992. Chicago, II.: American Planning Association. 454-464.

    Bristol Bay Coastal Resource Service Area and Alaska Department of Natural Resources.
          1990. Nushagak and Mulchatna Rivers Recreation Management Plan. August 1990.
          AK.

    Brooks, Chris. 1993. South Carolina Coastal Council. 1993. Personal communication with
          Chas Dense, Division of Governmental Coordination. December 16, 1993. Juneau,
          AK.

    Burby, R.J. and Dalton, L.C. 1993. "State Planning Mandates and Coastal Management".
          Coastal Zone '93, Volume 1. O.T. Magoon, et.al., ed. New York: Amer. Soc. Civil
          Engin. 1069-1083.

    California Coastal Commission. 1979. Local Coastal Program Manual. October 1979. San
          Francisco, CA.

                                              50

            _   1981. Statewide Interpretive Guidelines. December 16, 1981. San Francisco:
           CA.

            _   1992. Final Assessment of the California Coastal Management Program Performed
           Under Section 309 of the Coastal Zone Management Act. January 17, 1992. San
           Francisco, CA.

            � 1993. "Barclay's Official Administrative Regulations, California Code of
           Regulations, Title 14". May 1, 1993. San Francisco, CA.

    California, State of. 1977. State of California Coastal Management Program and Final
                 Environmental Impact Statement. San Francisco, CA.

              1993. California Coastal Act of 1976. As of January 1993.

    Canning, Douglas. 1993a. Dunes Management Plan: Long Beach Peninsula, Washington. July
           1993. Olympia, WA. Washington Department of Ecology, Shorelands and Coastal
           Zone Management Program.

    Canning, Douglas. 1992. Washington Coastal Zone Management. Sea Level Rise. June 1992.
           Olympia, WA. Washington Department of Ecology, Shorelands and Coastal Zone
          Management Program

    Canning, Doug. 1993b. Washington State Shorelands and Coastal Zone Management
          Program. Personal Communication with Chas Dense, Division of Governmental
          Coordination, AK Office of the Governor. December 21, 1993. Juneau, AK.

    Cicin-Sain, Biliana. 1993. "Sustainable Development and Integrated Coastal Management".
          Ocean & Coastal Management, 21, 1-3, (1993). B. Cicin-Sain and R.W. Knecht, et. al.,
          ed. England: Elsevier Sci. Publ. 11-43.

    Clarke, John J. 1991. "Regional Coastal Planning and Regulation: The Cape Cod
          Experience". Coastal Zone '91, Volume 4. O.T. Magoon, et. al., ed. New York:
          Amer. Soc. Civil Engin. 2947-2961.

    Clarke, John. 1993. Executive Office of Environmental Affairs, Coastal Zone Management
          Assistant Director. Personal communication with Chas Dense, Division of
          Governmental Coordination, AK Office of the Governor. December 3, 1993.
          Juneau, AK.

    Connecticut Department of Environmental Protection. 1979a. Model Municipal Coastal
          Program, Planning Report No. 28. January 1979. Hartford, CT.

                                              51

            _   1979b. Coastal Policies and Use Guidelines, Planning Report No. 30. December
           1979. Hartford, CT.

         _�     1992a. Final Assessment of the Connecticut Coastal Management Program, Section
           309 Coastal Management Act. Office of Long Island Sound Programs. January 16,
           1992. Hartford, CT.

            _   1992b. Reference Guide to Coastal Policies and Definitions. Supplement to
           Planning Report 30. May 1992. Hartford, CT.

    Crew, John. 1993. North Carolina Division of Coastal Management. Personal
           Communication with Chas Dense, Division of Governmental Coordination, AK
           Office of the Governor. December 15, 1993.

    Eagles, Paul F. J. 1981. "Environmentally Sensitive Area Planning in Ontario, Canada".
          American Planning Association Journal. Chicago, I1: American Planning Association.
          July 1981. 313-323.

    Gale, Dennis E. 1992. "Eight State-Sponsored Growth Management Programs. A
           Comparative Analysis". Journal of the American Planning Association, Vol. 58, No.4,
          Autumn 1992. Chicago, II.: American Planning Association. 425439.

    Goldfarb, Gabriella. 1994. Federal Programs Manager, California Coastal Commission.
          Letter to Chas Dense, Alaska Division of Governmental Coordination. January 10,
           1993. Juneau, AK.

    Gordon, Gerald L. 1993. Strategic Planning for Local Government. Washington, D.C.:
          International City/County Management Association, Washington, D.C.

    Gray, Glenn. 1993. Regulation of Cumulative and Secondary Impacts in Alaska. July 1993.
          Juneau, AK: Division of Governmental Coordination, AK Office of the Governor.

    Hart, Mary Beth. 1993. Connecticut Department of Environmental Protection.
          Unpublished letter to Chas Dense, Division of Governmental Coordination, Alaska
          Office of the Governor. September 24, 1993. Juneau, AK.

    Hartman, David. 1993. New Hampshire Office of State Planning. Personal
          communication with Chas Dense, Division of Governmental Coordination, AK
          Office of the Governor. November 30, 1993. Juneau, AK.

    Helm, Peter. Response to Interstate survey for Alaska's Section 309 project: Procedures to
          Consider Cumulative and Secondary Impacts During Project Renewal and
          Modification. New Hampshire Office of State Planning. August 25, 1993.

                                              52

    Hildebrand, Lawrence P. and Christopher J. Leach. 1991. "A Coastal Zone Planning
          Initiative fo

                                              53

                       PrinctdwardIslandAnada"Coastal Zone '91, Volume 4. O.T.

           Magoon, et. al., ed. New York: Amer. Soc. Civil Engin. 2932-2946.

    Hunt, Sara L. 1992. Alaska Coastal Management Program Section 309 Enhancement Grants
          Program Final Assessment. January 15, 1992. Juneau, AK: Division of Governmental
           Coordination, AK Office ofthe Governor.

           . 1993. Alaska Coastal Management Program Section 309 Enhancement Grants
          Program Revised Strategy. November 30, 1993. Juneau, AK: Alaska Division of
           Governmental Coordination, Office of the Governor.

    Innes, Judith Eleanor. 1992. "Group Processes and the Social Construction of Growth
          Management. Florida, Vermont, and New Jersey." Journal of the American Planning
          Association, Vol. 58, No. 4, Autumn 1992. Chicago, II.: American Planning
          Association. 440-453.

    Kenai Peninsula Borough. 1990. Kenai Peninsula Borough Coastal Management Program.
          June 1990. AK.

           . 1992a. Port Graham/Nanwalek Area Which Merits Special Attention. March 1992.
          AK.

           . 1992b. KasilofRiver AMSA Public Hearing Draft. October 1992.

    Knecht, Robert W. 1979. Findings of Robert W. Knecht, Assistant Administrator for
          Coastal Zone Management, NOAA. Approval of the Alaska Coastal Zone
          Management Program. July 1979. Washington, D.C.: NOAA.

    Knecht, Robert W. and Jack Archer. 1993. " 'Integration' in the US Coastal Zone
          Management Program". Ocean & Coastal Management, Volume 21. B. Cicin-Sain
          and R.W. Knecht, et. al., ed. England: Elsevier Sci. Publ. 183-199.

    Kusler, Jon A. 1980. Regulating Sensitive Lands. Environmental Law Institute, Washington,
          D.C. Cambridge, MA.: Ballinger Publ. Co.

    MacDonald, Craig D., Athline M. Clark and Sequoia Shannon. 1991. "The Hawaii Ocean
          Resources Management Program: Policy Planning and Inter-agency Coordination".
          Coastal Zone' 91 - Volume 4. O.T. Magoon, et. al., ed. New York: Amer. Soc. Civil
          Engin. 2633-2644.

    Maine Department of Economic and Community Development. 1992a. Comprehensive
          Planning: A Manualfor Maine's Communities. November 1992. Augusta, ME.

    Maine Department of Environmental Protection. 1992b. State of Maine Guidelines for
           Municipal Shoreland Zoning Ordinances. Amended July 15, 1992. Augusta, ME.

    Maine, State of. 1992c. Title 30-A, Chapter 187, Planning and Land Use Regulation
           Growth Management Program. As amended June 30, 1992. Augusta, ME.

    Maine State Planning Office. Maine Coastal Program. 1988. An Interim Handbook on
           Coastal Policies, Laws, and Activities. February 1988. Augusta, ME.

            . 1991. The Estuary Book. January 1991. Augusta, ME.

    Malone, Shamus. 1993. Manager, Pennsylvania Bureau of Water Resources Management.
           Personal communication with Chas Dense, Division of Governmental Coordination,
           AK Office of the Governor. December 10, 1993. Juneau, AK.

    Massachusetts Executive Office of Environmental Affairs. 1991. Buzzards Bay Comprehensive
           Conservation and Management Plan, Executive Summary. August 1991. Boston, MA.

            . 1990. Chapter 301 Code of Massachusetts Regulations: Review and Approval of
           Municipal Harbor Plans. September 28, 1990. Boston, MA.

            . 1992a. The Development of Resource Management Plans for Coastal Areas of Critical
          Environmental Concern, Final Guidance Document. January 7, 1992. Boston, MA.

              1992b. The Massachusetts Bays Program, Saving Our Bays Through Wisdom,
          Experience, and Motivation; Progress '92. Boston, MA.

    Massachusetts Department of Environmental Management, Division of Forests and Parks,
          Region 1. 1990. Waquoit Bay National Estuarine Research Reserve, Newsletter Vol. I,
          No.1. March 1990. Boston, MA.

              1993. Areas of Critical Environmental Concern, Program Guide. Department of
          Environmental Management, Areas of Critical Environmental Concern Program.
          June, 1993. Boston, MA.

    Massachusetts Coastal Zone Management. 1988a. Harbor Planning Program, Harbor
          Planning Guidelines. May 1988, reprinted August 1990. Boston, MA.

             1988b. Harbor Planning Appendix: A Guide to Public Involvement. Boston, MA.

    Matanuska-Susitna Borough. 1993. Point MacKenzie Area Which Merits Special Attention
          Plan. May 1993. Palmer, AK.

    Mendocino County, California. 1985. General Plan Coastal Element. November 20, 1985.

                                              54

           � 1991. Mendocino County Zoning Code Coastal Zone. July 22, 1991.

    Michigan Department of Natural Resources, Land and Water Management Division.
          Michigan's Coastal Resources. Not dated. MI.

           _   1992. Shorelands Protection and Management Act, Act 245 of 1970. 1970, printed
          June 1992. MI.

    Michigan Underwater Preserve Council, Inc. Diving Michigan's Underwater Preserves.
          Maritime Press. 1993.

    Michigan, State of. 1976. Sand Dune Protection And Management Act, Act 222 of 1976.
           1976. MI.

    New Hampshire Office of State Planning and U.S. Department of Commerce. 1988. Final
          Environmental Impact Statement for the New Hampshire Coastal Program for Ocean,
          Harbor and Great Bay Areas. July, 1988.

    New Jersey Planning Commission. 1992. Communities of Place The New Jersey State
          Development and Redevelopment Plan. New Jersey Planning Commission. June 12,
           1992. NJ.

    New Jersey Department of Environmental Protection and Energy, Office of Land and
          Water Planning. 1993. The New Jersey Coast. Summer 1993. NJ.

    New York Department of Environmental Conservation. 1984. Technical Memorandum:
          Procedures Used to Identify, Evaluate and Recommend Areas for Designation as
          Significant Coastal Fish and Wildlife Habitats. July 1984.

    New York Department of State, Division of Coastal Resources and Waterfront
          Revitalization. 1990. Hudson River Significant Tidal Habitats: A Guide to the
          Functions, Values and Protection of the River's Natural Resources. March 1990. New
          York.

              Waterfront Revitalization and Coastal Resources Act (in relevant part), 19 NY
          CRR. New York. No date.

           _   1993. Long Island Sound Coastal Management Program, Volume Two, Discussion
          Draft. October 1993. Albany, NY.

    New York Office of the Lieutenant Governor. 1991. Now and for the Future: A Vision for
          New York's Coast. Recommendations of the Governor's Task Force on Coastal
          Resources. November 1991. New York.

                                              55

    Nisqually River Task Force. 1987. Nisqually River Management Plan. Approved by
           Washington Legislature June, 1987. Washington State.

    Nisqually River Task Force and Washington Department of Ecology. 1987. Nisqually
           River Management Plan. Final Environmental Impact Statement. April 1987.
           Washington State.

    North Carolina, State of. 1974. Coastal Area Management Act, Article 7., Section 113A.

    North Carolina, State of. North Carolina Administrative Code, Title 15A, Department of
           Environment, Health, and Natural Resources, Chapter 7, Coastal Management.

    Olsen, Stephen Bloye. 1993. "Will Integrated Coastal Management Programs be Sustainable;
           the Constituency Problem". Ocean & Coastal Management. Volume 21. B. Cicin-
           Sain and R.W. Knecht, et. al., ed. New York: Elsevier Sci. Publ. 201-225.

    Oregon Department of Land Conservation and Development. Oregon's Coastal
          Management Program, A Citizen's Guide. Salem, OR. Not dated.

           �. 1993. Oregon's Statewide Planning Goals. 1993 Edition. Salem, OR.

    Oswalt, D. 1993. Oregon Department of Land Conservation and Development. Personal
          communication with Chas Dense, Division of Governmental Coordination, AK
           Office of the Governor. November 30, 1993. Juneau, AK.

    Owens, David W. 1985. "Coastal Management in North Carolina. Building a Regional
          Consensus". American Planning Association Journal, Summer 1985. Chicago, II.:
          American Planning Association. 322-329.

    Pennsylvania Department of Environmental Resources, Office of Resources Management.
          Draft Pennsylvania Coastal Zone Management Program Technical Record. Pre-1980
          (Toth, 1993).

    Pennsylvania Department of Environmental Resources, Office of Resources Management,
          Coastal Zone Management Branch and U.S. Dept. of Commerce, NOAA. 1980.
          Commonwealth of Pennsylvania Coastal Zone Management Program and Final
          Environmental Impact Statement. August 1980.

    Rhode Island Coastal Resources Management Council. 1988. Guidelines for the
    Development of Municipal Harbor Management Plans. November 22, 1988.   Providence,
    RI.

           � 1986. Narrow River Special Area Management Plan. Adopted December 8, 1986.

                                              56

            . 1983. Providence Harbor: A Special Area Management Plan. Coastal Resources
           Management Council. Adopted November 22, 1983. Providence, RI.

            . 1984. Rhode Island's Salt Pond Region: A Special Area Management Plan. Adopted
           November 27, 1984.

    Rhode Island Coastal Resources Management Council and Connecticut Department of
           Environmental Protection, Office of Long Island Sound Programs. The Pawcatuck
           River Estuary and Little Narragansett Bay: An Interstate Management Plan. Adopted
          July 14, 1992. Providence, RI.

    Rothenburg, Dan. 1993. Connecticut Coastal Management Program. Personal
           communication with Chas Dense, Division of Governmental Coordination, AK
           Office of the Governor. November 11, 1993. Juneau, AK.

    Ruffing, J. 1993. Maine Coastal Program. Personal communication with Chas Dense,
           Division of Governmental Coordination, AK Office of the Governor. December 3,
           1993. Juneau, AK.

    Salkin, Patricia E., Esq. 1991. The Comprehensive Plan and Comprehensive Planning.
           Government Law Center of Albany Law School. August 1991. Albany, New York:
           Government Law Center.

    Sempere, James M. 1991. "Municipal Harbor Management Plans - A Solution for the
           1990's". Coastal Zone '91 - Volume 4. O.T. Magoon, et. al., ed. New York: Amer.
          Soc. Civil Engin. 3094 - 3105.

    Shafer, Chris. 1993. Chief, Great Lakes Shorelands Section, Department of Natural
          Resources. Personal communication with Chas Dense, Division of Governmental
          Coordination, AK Office of the Governor. December 15, 1993. Juneau, AK.

    Sitka, City and Borough of. 1993. Public Use Management Plan. June 18, 1993. AK.

    Skagway, City of. 1992. Port of Skagway and Skagway River Areas Which Merit Special
          Attention. February 1992.

    South Carolina, State of. 1990. Beachfront Management Act. July, 1990.

    South Carolina, State of. 1977. Coastal Tidelands and Wetlands Act.

    South Carolina Coastal Council. 1993. Assessment of the Geographic Area of Particular
          Concern as a Management Tool in South Carolina's Coastal Zone Management
          Program. July 1993. Charleston, SC.

                                              57

            _ _     Guidelines and Policies of the South Carolina Coastal Management Program;
           selected parts of the South Carolina Coastal Zone Management Program. Not dated.

            � 1979. State of South Carolina Coastal Management Program and Final
    Environmental Impact Statement. July 1979. Charleston, SC.

    South Carolina Coastal Council and South Carolina Department of Archives and History.
           1992. Preserving our past ... planningfor our future ... along the Ashley River; Ashley
           River Special Area Management Plan. February 1992. Charleston, SC.

    Stafford, George. 1993. New York Department of State, Division of Coastal Resources and
           Waterfront Revitalization. Personal communication with Chas Dense, Division of
           Governmental Coordination, AK Office of the Governor. November 11, 1993.
           Juneau, AK.

    Strnad, Les and Hyman, Rick. 1993. "A Watershed Approach to Coastal Zone
           Management for the Elkhorn Slough Estuarine Complex" Coastal Zone '93, Volume
           2. O.T. Magoon, et. al., ed. New York: Amer. Soc. Civil Engin. 1569-1584.

    Thorne Bay, City of. 1991. Thorne Bay Coastal Management Program. June 1991. AK.

    Toth, Larry. Pennsylvania Department of Environmental Resources, Division of Coastal
           Programs, Coastal Zone Management Program. 1993. Personal communication with
           Chas Dense, Division of Governmental Coordination, AK Office of the Governor.
           December 10, 1993.

    Valdez, City of. 1992. Valdez Duck Flats Area Meriting Special Attention. Concept approved
           draft (currently shelved) February 1992. AK.

    Valentine, Christine E. 1994. The Role of Local Governments in the Alaska Coastal
          Management Program. Internship Report Submitted to Oregon State University,
           Corvallis Oregon in partial fulfillment of requirements for the Masters of Science
          Degree. June 28, 1994.

    Washington Department of Ecology, Shorelands and Coastal Zone Management Program.
           1993. Draft Washington State Coastal Management Program, Internal Review Draft
          5.1. September 2, 1993. Olympia, WA.

    _______ 1993. Washington Coastal Zone Management. Pacific County- Willapa Bay. July
           1993. Olympia, WA.

    _______ 1992. Washington State Coastal Zone Section 309 Assessment and Strategy: Volume 1,
          Assessment. Version 4.01. January 1992. Olympia, WA.

                                               58

    Washington, State of. 1991. Shoreline Management Act Guidelines for Development of
          Master Programs Chapter 173-16 Washington Administrative Code. Version current
          as of 4/24/91. Olympia, WA.

    Whitney, Steve. 1993. Manager, Coastal/Land Planning Group. New Jersey Department
          of Environmental Protection and Energy, Office of Land and Water Planning. 1993.
          Personal communication with Chas Dense, Division of Governmental Coordination,
          AK Office of the Governor. December 15, 1993. Juneau, AK.

    Whittier, City of. 1991. Whittier Harbor Plan. Public hearing draft (currently shelved). June
          1991. AK.

    Williams, Gary L. and George W. Colquhoun. 1991. "Implementation of the North Fraser
          Harbour Environmental Management Plan". Coastal Zone '91, Volume 4. O.T.
          Magoon, et. al., ed. New York: Amer. Soc. Civil Engin. 3122-3133.

    Willis, Jeffrey M. 1993. Rhode Island Coastal Resources Management Council, Pawcatuck
          Estuary Interstate Management Project. 1993. Personal Communication with Chas
          Dense, Division of Governmental Coordination, AK Office of the Governor.
          December 3, 1993. Juneau, AK.

    Wuencher, Jim. North Carolina Division of Coastal Management. 1994. Personal
          communication with Chas Dense, Division of Governmental Coordination, AK
          Office of the Governor. April 28, 1994. Juneau, AK.

                                             59

    APPENDIX A

    pp~~~~ ~ .   . .....                                 g
                                       ~~~~~ ~~~~~~~~,   .~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~.. ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ 3

                                                 S TATUTES
                                                 AND

                                                 REGULATIONS

                                                 September 1991

                               State of Alaska
                           Office of the Governor
                Division of Governmental Coordination

                                             .AAAV.5 1U

         Chapter 40. The Alaska Coastal Management

                                           Program.

    Artilde
     1. ]Development of Alaska Coastal Management Program (if 46.40.010 - 46.40.IDD)
     2. Coastal Management Programs in the Unorganized Borough (Hf 46.40.110.- 46.40.180)
     3. General Provisions (�� 46.40.190 - 46.40.210)

     Opinions of Attorney gm"ra. - The activities of           While federal land use decisions will not be
    lessees, permittees and other private persona on          governed or controlled by the sautes& coastal
    nonexclusive federal coastal lands remain subject         management program, they must, to the degree that
    to stats W&Irguaoy authority - including the coastal      they directly affect nonfederal coastal resources,
    management program - unless the particular stale          conform to the state program to the maximum
    regulation is preempted by, irreconcilably conflicts      extent practicable.  February 3. 1978. Op. An'y
    with or fnzstrates the purpose of another federal         Gen.
    law. February 3. 1978. Op. Any' Gen.

                   Article 1. Development of Alaska Coastal
                                  Management Program.

    Section                                                   Section
    10. Development of Alaska coastal management              60. Review and approval by council
    Program                                                   70. Standards for council review and approval
    20. Objectives                                            80. Effective date of Alaska coastal management
    30. Development of district coastal management            prormM
    programs                                                  90. Implementation of district coastal management
    40. Duties of the Alaska Coastal Policy Council           programs
    50. Action and submission by coastal resource             100. Compliance and enforcement
    districts

     Collateral references. - 78 Am. Jur. 24 Waters          65 UJS. Navigable Waters. if 10.18. 20-132: 93
    Hf 59-116. 375-438.                    UJS. Waters if 71.85.

     Notes - Competitive sale of oil and gas                 Management Program. Trustees for Alaska v. State,
    development rights So offshore state land                 Dept of Natural Resources. Sup. Ct. Op. No. 3573
    constituted a project requiring a review and finding      (File No. S-2865), P.2d (1990).
    by the Office of Management and Budget as to
    whether the project was consistent with the Alaska
    Coastal

     Sec. 46.40.010. Development of Alaska coastal management program. (a)
    The Alaska Coastal Policy Council established in AS 44.19.155 shall approve, in
    accordance with this chapter, the Alaska coastal management program.
      (b) The council may approve the Alaska coastal management program for a
    portion or portions of the coastal area before approving the complete program

    under (a) of this section. Portions of the program approved under this subsection
    shall be incorporated into the Alaska coastal management program.
     (c) The Alaska coastal management program shall be reviewed by the council
    and, when appropriate, revised to
     (1) add newly approved district coastal management programs, or revisions and
    amendments to the Alaska coastal management program;
     (2) integrate newly approved district coastal management programs, or revisions
    and amendments of district coastal management programs, with existing approved
    programs and with plans developed by state agencies;
     (3) add new or revised state statutes, policies, regulations or other appropriate
    material;
     (4) review the effectiveness of implementation of district coastal management
    programs; and
      (5) consider new information acquired by the state and coastal resource districts.
      (d) All reviews and revisions shall be in accordance with the guidelines and
    standards adopted by the council under AS 46.40.040. (� 4 ch 84 SLA 1977)

     Opinions of attorney general. - Tbe doctrine of  A municipality enacting a local district coastal
    federal preemption, derived from the supremacy   management program may restrict or exclude a use
    clause of the United States Constitution, Article Vl,    of state concern without falling afoul of the
    clause 2, would not apply to state regulation of  constitutional limitations in Alaska Const. art. X.
    outer continental shelf activities in the coastal zone.    11 on the exercise of municipal authority if that
    May 12 1980 Op. Att'y Gen.                      restriction or exclusion is reasonable, within the
     Reasonable restrictions on oil and gas activities  meaning of AS 46.40.070(c). May 12 1980 Op.
    embodied in a local coastal management plan      Att'y Gen.
    incorporaled into the Alaska Coastal Management   The Alaska Oil and Gas Conservation Act AS
    Program would be enforeabhle against off-shore   31.05.005 et seq., which mandates the conservation
    federal lesses. May 12 1980 Op. Att'y Gcn.       of oil and gas and prohibits their waste, would not
     Municipal authority to regulate oil and gas    be contravened by a local coastal management plan
    activities of federal lesens depends upon whether  which comports with the Alaska Coastal
    the leases ar on-shore or off-shore. In the case of  Management Program. May 12 1980 Op Anty
    the former, the doctrine of federal preemption may  Ge
    prohibit local coastal zone ordinances from
    affecting any measure of control. In the case of
    the latter, local coastal management programs
    which are approved by the Alaska Coastal Policy
    Council anad thus pan of the Alaska Coastal
    Management Program will become one of the
    touch-stones in the state consistency determination
    required by section 307(cX3) of the Coastal Zone
    Management Act, 16 US.C. � 1451 et seq. May
    12 1980 Op. At'y Gen.

    Sec. 46.40.020. Objectives. The Alaska coastal management program shall be
    consistent with the following objectives:
      (1) the use, management, restoration and enhancement of the over-all quality of
    the coastal environment;
      (2) the development of industrial or commercial enterprises which are consistent
    with the social, cultural, historic, economic and environmental interests of the
    people of the state;
      (3) the orderly, balanced utilization and protection of the resources of the
    coastal area consistent with sound conservation and sustained yield principles;
     (4) the management of coastal land and water uses in such a manner that,
    generally, those uses which are economically or physically dependent on a coastal
    location are given higher priority when compared to uses which do not
    economically or physically require a coastal location;

                                                9

     (5) the protection and management of significant historic, cultural, natural and
    aesthetic values and natural systems or processes within the coastal area;
     (6) the prevention of damage to or degradation of land and water reserved for
    their natural values as a result of inconsistent land or water usages adjacent to
    that land;
     (7) the recognition of the need for a continuing supply of energy to meet the
    requirements of the state and the contribution of a share of the state's resources
    to meet national energy needs; and
     (8) the full and fair evaluation of all demands on the land and water in the
    coastal area. (� 4 ch 84 SLA 1977)

     Stated in Hammond v. North Slope
    Borough, Sup. Ct. Op. No. 2499 (File Nos.
    5550, 5558), 645 P.2d 750 (1982).

      Sec. 46.40.030. Development of district coastal management programs.
    Coastal resource districts shall develop and adopt district coastal management
    programs in accordance with the provisions of this chapter. The program adopted
    by a coastal resource district shall be based upon a municipality's existing
    comprehensive plan or a new comprehensive resource use plan or comprehensive
    statement of needs, policies, objectives and standards governing the use of
    resources within the coastal area of the district. The program shall be consistent
    with the guidelines and standards adopted by the council under AS 46.40.040 and
    shall include:
      (1) a delineation within the district of the boundaries of the coastal area subject
    to the district coastal management program;
      (2) a statement, list, or definition of the land and water uses and activities
    subject to the district coastal management program;
      (3) a statement of policies to be applied to the land and water uses subject to
    the district coastal management program;
      (4) regulations, as appropriate, to be applied to the land and water uses subject
    to the district coastal management program;
      (5) a description of the uses and activities which will be considered proper and
    the uses and activities which will be considered improper with respect to the land
    and water within the coastal area;
      (6) a summary or statement of the policies which will be applied and the
    procedures which will be used to determine whether specific proposals for land or
    water uses or activities shall be allowed; and
      (7) a designation of, and the policies which will be applied to the use of, areas
    within the coastal resource district which merit special attention. (� 4 ch 84 SLA
    1977)

     Opinions of attorney general. - The adoption of    resolution by theadoption of regulations since
    forest practices regulations by the Department of  differing policy consideration emphasized in the
    Natural Resources in 11 AAC 95 has completely  Forest Practices Act the Coastal Management Act
    preempted the coastal policy council's regulations,  and proposed permit reform regulations will be
    6 AAC 80.100, in regulating timber harvest and  served to � greater or lesser extent by assigning
    processing in the coastal area. April 20, 1981 Op.  responsibility for interpreting and applying the
    Atv Goen.                                      forest practices regulations to mom than one
      The allocation of responsibility for administration  agency ad since a particular result is not
    of the forest practices regulations in coastal  compelled under the various pieces of authorizing
    management consistency determinations is       legislation. April 20. 1981 Op. At'y Gen.
    sufficiently unclear that it seems appropriate for

                                               10

     Stated in Hammond v. North Slope
    Bomugb, Sup. CL Op. No. 2499 (Fik Nos.
    5550, 5558), 645 P.2d 750 (1982).

     Sec. 46.40.040. Duties of the Alaska Coastal Policy Council.
    Through the public hearing process and the recording of the minutes of the
    hearings, the Alaska Coastal Policy Council shall
     (1) by regulation, adopt under the provisions of the Administrative Procedure
    Act (AS 44.62) not later than April 15, 1978, for the use of an application by
    coastal resource districts and state agencies for carrying out their responsibilities
    under this chapter, guidelines and standards for
     (A) identifying the boundaries of the coastal area subject to the district coastal
    management program;
     (B) determining the land and water uses and activities subject to the district
    coastal management program;
     (C) developing policies applicable to the land and water uses subject to the
    district coastal management program;
     (D) developing regulations applicable to the land and water uses subject to the
    district coastal management program;
     (E) developing policies and procedures to determine whether specific proposals
    for the land and water uses or activities subject to the district coastal management
    program shall be allowed;
     (F) designating and developing policies for the use of areas of the coast which
    merit special attention; and
     (G) measuring the progress of a coastal resource district in meeting its
    responsibilities under this chapter;
     (2) develop and maintain a program of technical and financial assistance to aid
    coastal resource districts in the development and implementation of district
    coastal management programs;
     (3) undertake review and approval of district coastal management programs in
    accordance with this chapter;
     (4) initiate a process for identifying and managing uses of state concern within
    specific areas of the coast;
      (5) develop procedures or guidelines for consultation and coordination with
    federal agencies managing land or conducting activities potentially affecting the
    coastal area of the state. (� 4 ch 84 SLA 1977; am � 1 ch 129 SLA 1978)

    Crm rteracesa. - For regulations
    for the Alaska Coastal Management Prom
    gra, see 6 AAC 80 and 6 AAC 85.

     Sec. 46.40.050. Action and submission by coastal resource districts. Each
    coastal resource district shall make substantial progress, in the opinion of the
    council, toward completion of an approvable district coastal management program
    and shall complete and submit to the council for approval its program within 30

                                             11
           .4~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~'

    months of June 4, 1977 or within 30 months of certification of the results of the
    district's organization, whichever is later. If, in the opinion of the council, after
    receipt of a written request for extension from the district which includes the
    reasons for the extension, an extension is considered proper, the council may
    grant an extension to a date which is not later than December 4, 1981, or to a
    date which is within 54 months of certification of the results of the districts
    organization, whichever is later. (� 4 ch 84 SLA 1977; am � 1 ch 66 SLA 1979)

     Sec. 46.40.060. Review and approval by council. (a) If, upon submission of a
    district coastal management program for approval, the council finds that the
    program is substantially consistent with the provisions of this chapter and the
    guidelines and standards adopted by the council and does not arbitrarily or
    unreasonably restrict or exclude uses of state concern, the council may grant
    summary approval of the district coastal management program, or may approve
    portions of the district program which are consistent.
      (b) If the council finds that a district coastal management program is not
    approvable or is approvable only in part under (a) of this section, it shall direct
    that deficiencies in the program submitted by the coastal resource district be
    mediated. In mediating the deficiencies, the council may call for one or more
    public hearings in the district. The council shall meet with officials of the coastal
    resource district in order to resolve differences.
      (c) If, after mediation, the differences have not been resolved to the mutual
    agreement of the coastal resource district and the council, the council shall call
    for a public hearing and shall resolve the differences in accordance with the
    Administrative Procedure Act (AS 44.62). After a public hearing held under this
    subsection, the council shall enter findings and, by order, may require
      (1) that the district coastal management program be amended to make it
    consistent with the provisions of this chapter or the guidelines and standards
    adopted by the council;
      (2) that the district coastal management program be revised to accommodate a
    use of state concern; or
      (3) any other action be taken by the coastal resource district as appropriate.
      (d) The superior courts of the state have jurisdiction to enforce orders of the
    council entered under (c) of this section.(� 4 ch 84 SLA 1977)

    Opinions or attorney  eneal. . The invalid     A municipality enacting a loal district coastal
    provisions of AS 46.40.080 are severable from the  management program may restrict or exclude a use
    remainder of the Coastal Management Act Thus,  of state concern without falling afoul of Ibe
    council guidelines take effect when adopted in  constitutional limitations in Alaska Coast, art X �
    accordance with the Administrative Procedure Act.  11 on the exercise of municipal authority if Ihat
    AS 44,62. The effective date of council action on  rstriction or exclusion is reasonablk, within the
    district programs is governed by the council's  meaning of AS 46.40.070(c). May 12 1980 Op.
    regulations and tIbis section. April 29. 1980 Op.  An'y Gen.
    An'y Gen.

                                              12

     Sec. 46.40.070. Standards for council review and approval. (a) The council
    shall approve a district coastal management program submitted for review and
    approval if the program is consistent with the provisions of this chapter and the
    guidelines and standards adopted by the council.
     (b) Notwithstanding an inconsistency of a district coastal management program
    submitted for review and approval with the guidelines and standards adopted, the
    council shall approve the program if it finds that
     (1) strict adherence to the guidelines and standards adopted would result in a
    violation of another state law or policy;
     (2) strict adherence to the guidelines and standards adopted would cause or
    probably cause substantial irreparable harm to another interest or value in the
    coastal area of the district; or
     (3) the inconsistency is of a technical nature and no substantial harm would
    result to the policies and objectives of this chapter or to the Alaska coastal
    management program.
     (c) In determining whether a restriction or exclusion of a use of state concern is
    arbitrary or unreasonable, the council shall approve the restriction or exclusion if
    it finds that
     (1) the coastal resource district has consulted with and considered the views of
    appropriate federal, state or regional agencies;
     (2) the district has based its restriction or exclusion on the availability of
    reasonable alternative sites; and
     (3) the district has based its restriction or exclusion on an analysis showing that
    the proposed use is incompatible with the proposed site.
     (d) A decision by the council under this section shall be given within 90 days.
    (� 4 ch 84 SLA 1977)

     Opinions of attorney general. - Reading      constitutional limitations in Alaska Const.. art. X. �
    subsection (b) as vesting local officials with  11 on the exclusion of municipal authority if that
    complete control over policy formulation would  restriction or exclusion is reasonable. within the
    probably render the Alaska Costal Managemenlt  meaning of subsection (c). May 12 1980 Op. Att'y
    Act unconstitutional under Alaska Const. art. VIIIm    Gen.
    � 2. May 12 1980 Op. Att'y Gen.                 The Alaska Oil and Gas Conservation Act AS
     Reasonable restrictions on oil and gas activities  31.05.005 et seq., which mandates the conservation
    embodied in a local coastal management plan,   of oil and gas and pmhibits their waste, would not
    incorporated into the Alaska Coastal Management  be contravened by a local coastal management plan
    Program would be enforceable against off-shore  which comports with the Alaska Coastal
    federal lessees. May 12 1980 Op. Att'y Ge.     Managemeat Program. May 12 1980 Op.'Att'y
     A municipality enacting a local district coastal  Gen.
    management program may restrict or exclude a use
    of state concern without falling afoul of the

     Sec. 46.40.080. Effective date of Alaska coastal management program. The
    Alaska coastal management program adopted by the council, and any additions,
    revisions, or amendments of the program, take effect upon adoption of a
    concurrent resolution by a majority of the members of each house of the
    legislature or by a vote of the majority of the members of each house at the time

                                              13

    the houses are convened in joint session to confirm executive appointments
    submitted by the governor. (� 4 ch 84 SLA 1977)

     Opinions of attorney general. - Under the    The invalid provisions of section am severable
    decision in State v. A LI.V.E. Voluntary, Sup. Ct  from the remainder of the Coastal Management
    Op. No. 2022 (File No. 3670), 606 P.2d 769   Act Thus, council guidelines take effect when
    (1980), that the use of legislative resolutions as a  adopted in accordance with the Administrative
    veto over regulations, programs or other actions or    Procedure Act, AS 44.62. The effective date of
    proposed actions is constitutionally impermissible  council action on district programs is governed by
    except as expressly provided by the constitution.  the council's regulations, and AS 46.40.060. April
    this section is invalid. March 6, 1980 Op. Al'y  29, 1980 Op. Att'y Gcn.
    Gen.

      Sec. 46.40.090. Implementation of district coastal management programs.
    (a) A district coastal management program approved by the council and the
    legislature for a coastal resource district which does not have and exercise zoning
    or other controls on the use of resources within the coastal area shall be
    implemented by appropriate state agencies. Implementation shall be in
    accordance with the comprehensive use plan or the statement of needs, policies,
    objectives and standards adopted by the district.
      (b) A coastal resource district which has and exercises zoning or other controls
    on the use of resources within the coastal area shall implement its district coastal
    management program. Implementation shall be in accordance with the
    comprehensive use plan or the statement of needs, policies, objectives and
    standards adopted by the district. (� 4 ch 84 SLA 1977)

     Sec. 46.40.100. Compliance and enforcement. (a) Municipalities and state
    agencies shall administer land and water use regulations or controls in conformity
    with district coastal management programs approved by the council and the
    legislature and in effect.
     (b) On petition of a coastal resource district, a citizen of the district, or a state
    agency, showing that a district coastal management program is not being
    implemented, enforced or complied with, the council shall convene a public
    hearing to consider the matter. A hearing called under this subsection shall be
    held in accordance with the Administrative Procedure Act (AS 44.62). After
    hearing, the council may order that the coastal resource district or state agency
    take any action which the council considers necessary to implement, enforce or
    comply with the district coastal management program.
     (c) In determining whether an approved district coastal management program is
    being implemented, enforced or complied with by a coastal resource district
    which exercises zoning authority or controls on the use of resources within the
    coastal area, the council shall find in favor of the district if
     (1) zoning or other regulations have been adopted and are being enforced;
     (2) variances are being granted according to procedures and criteria which are
    elements of the district coastal management program, or the variance is otherwise
    approved by the council; and

                                             14

                  (3) procedures and standards adopted by the coastal resource district as required
                by this chapter or by the guidelines and standards adopted by the council and
                subsequently approved by the legislature have been followed and considered.
                  (d) In determining whether a state agency is complying with a district coastal
                management program with respect to its exercise of regulation or control of the
                resources within the coastal area, the council shall find in favor of the agency if
                  (1) the use or activity for which the permit, license or approval is granted is
                consistent with the district coastal management program and regulations adopted
                under it; and
                  (2) the use or activity for which the permit, license or approval is granted is
                consistent with requirements imposed by state statute, regulation, or local
                ordinance applicable to the use or activity.
                  (e) The superior courts of the state have jurisdiction to enforce lawful orders of
                the council. (� 4 ch 84 SI..A 1977)

                Opinions or the attorney general. - For effective  under this heading following AS 46.40.080.
                date of coastal management pmgrmn  see notes                               i2           d"

                          Article 2. Coastal Management Programs in the
                                           Unorganized Borough.

                Section                                      Section
                 110. Authority in the unorganized borough    170. Preparation of district coastal management
                 120. Coastal resource service areas pmgram by the Department of Community and
                 130. Organization of coastal rtesouz servioe area  Regional Affairs
                 140. Coastal resource service a.a boards     180. Approval of programs in coastal resource
                 150. Elections in coastal resource service areas  service aras
                 160. Organizations at the direction of the council

                  Collateral references. - 78 Am. Jur           65 CJS.. Navigable Wates, �f 10-18, 20-132;
                2d, Waters if 59-116. 375438.                93 CJ.S.. Wates, f. 71-85.

                  Sec. 46.40.110. Authority in the unorganized borough. Under AS 29.03.020
                and AS 46.40.110 - 46.40.180, the legislature authorizes organization of coastal
                resource service areas in the unorganized borough and grants authority to the
                service areas which may be organized to perform the duties required under this
                chapter. (� 4 ch 84 SLA 1977)

                  Sec. 46.40.120. Coastal resource service areas. (a) Except as otherwise
                provided in this section, each regional educational attendance area established
                under AS 14.08.031 containing a part of the coastal area may be organized as a
                coastal resource service area.
                  (b) The commissioner of the Department of Community and Regional Affairs
                may, after public hearings held in the area affected, consolidate two or more
                regional educational attendance areas as a single coastal resource service area

                                                         15

    ..

                         Article 3. General Provisions.

    Section                                    Section
    190. Cooperatve admiaistba6oa              210. Deflations
    200. Stae ageacnc

     Collat'al refeeae. - 78 Am. Jrut. 2d. Wate,  65 C-JS. Navigable Walcs J 10-1S 20-132; 93
    �J 59-116, 375-438.                        CJS, Wates � 71-$5.

     Sec. 46.40.190. Cooperative administration. (a) A city within the coastal area
    which is not part of a coastal resource service area shall be included for purposes
    of this chapter within an adjacent coastal resource service area unless its.
    governing body, by resolution adopted by a majority of its membership, chooses
    to exclude the city from an adjacent coastal resource service area and a copy of
    the resolution is filed with the commissioner of community and regional affairs.
      (b) This chapter does not restrict or prohibit cooperative or joint administration
    of functions between a municipality and a coastal resource service area organized
    under the provisions of this chapter upon initiation of a mutual agreement for the
    purpose. A city which elects to be excluded from an adjacent coastal resource
    service area under (a) of this section shall enter into a mutual agreement for
    cooperative or joint administration of functions with the coastal resource service
    area board from the adjacent coastal resource service area. (� 4 ch 84 SLA 1977;
    am � 3 ch 48 SLA 1980)

      Sec. 46.40.200. State agencies. Upon the adoption of the Alaska coastal
     management program, state departments, boards and commissions shall review
     their statutory authority, administrative regulations, and applicable procedures
     pertaining to land and water uses within the coastal area for the purpose of
     determining whether there are any deficiencies or inconsistencies which prohibit
     compliance with the program adopted. State agencies shall, within six months of
     the effective date of the Alaska coastal management program, take whatever
     action is necessary to facilitate full compliance with and implementation of the
     program, including preparation and submission of recommendations to the council
     for additional or amended legislation. (� 4 ch 84 SLA 1977)

       Sec 46.40.210. Definitions. In this chapter, unless the context otherwise
     requires,
       (1) 'area which merits special attention" means a delineated geographic area
     within the coastal area which is sensitive to change or alteration and which,
     because of plans or commitments or because a claim on the resources within the
     area delineated would preclude subsequent use of the resources to a conflicting or
     incompatible use, warrants special management attention, or which, because of its
     value to the general public, should be identified for current or future planning,
     protection, or acquisition; these areas, subject to council definition of criteria for
      their identification, include:

                                             20

     '(A) areas of unique, scarce, fragile or vulnerable natural habitat, cultural value,.
    historical significance, or scenic importance;
     (B) areas of high natural productivity.or essential habitat for living resources;
     (C) areas of substantial recreational value or opportunity,
     (D) areas where development of facilities is dependent upon the utilization of,
    or access to, coastal water,
     (E) areas of unique geologic or topographic significance which are susceptible
    to industrial or commercial development;
     (F) areas of significant hazard due to storms, slides, floods, erosion or
    settlement; and
     (G) areas needed to protect, maintain, or replenish coastal land or resources,
    including coastal flood plains, aquifer recharge areas, beaches and offshore sand
    deposits;
     (2) 'coastal resource district' means each of the following which contains a
    portion of the coastal areas of the state:
      (A) unified municipalities;
     (B) organized boroughs of any class which exercise planning and zoning
    authority;
     (C) home rule and first class cities of the unorganized borough or within
    boroughs which do not exercise planning and zoning authority;
      (D) second class cities of the unorganized borough, or within boroughs which
    do not exercise planning and zoning authority, which have established a planning
    commission, and which, in the opinion of the commissioner of community and
    regional affairs, have the capability of preparing and implementing a
    comprehensive district coastal management program under AS 46.40.030;
      (E) coastal resource service areas established and organized under AS 29.03.020
    and AS 46.40.110 - 46.40.180;
      (3) 'council' means the Alaska Coastal Policy Couricil;
      (4) 'department' means the Department of Community and Regional Affairs;
      (5) 'use of direct and significant impact' means a use, or an activity associated
    with the use, which proximately contributes to a material change or alteration in
    the natural or social characteristics of a part of the state's coastal area and in
    which
      (A) the use, or activity associated with it, would have a net adverse effect on
    the quality of the resources of the coastal area;
      (B) the use, or activity associated with it, would limit the range of alternative
    uses of the resources of the coastal area; or
      (C) the use would, of itself, constitute a tolerable change or alteration of the
    resources within the coastal area but which, cumulatively, would have an adverse
    effect;
      (6) 'uses of state concern' means those land and water uses which would
    significantly affect the long-term public interest; these uses, subject to council
    definition of their extent, include:
      (A) uses of national interest, including the use of resources for the siting of
    ports and major facilities which contribute to meeting national energy needs,
    construction and maintenance of navigational facilities and systems, resource
    development of federal land, and national defense and related security facilities
    that are dependent upon coastal locations;
      (B) uses of more than local concern, including those land and water uses which
    confer significant environmental, social, cultural, or economic benefits or burdens
    beyond a single coastal resource district;

                                            21

    6 AAC 80.140              GOVERNOR'S OFFICE              6 AAC 80.158

      (e) In applying this section, districts and state agencies may use
    appropriate expertise, including regional programs referred to in 6
    AAC 80.030(b). (Eff. 7/18/78, Register. 67)

    Authority: AS 44.19.161
              AS 46.40.040

      6 AAC 80.140. AIR, LAND, AND WATER QUALITY. Notwith-
    standing any other provision of this chapter, the statutes pertaining to
    and the regulations and procedures of the Alaska Department of Envi-
    ronmental Conservation with respect to the protection of air, land,
    and water quality are incorporated into the Alaska coastal manage-
    ment program and, as administered by that agency, constitute the
    components of the coastal management program with respect to those
    purposes. (Eff. 7/18/78, Register 67)

    Authority: AS 44.19.161
              AS 46.40.040

      6 AAC 80.150. HISTORIC, PREHISTORIC, AND ARCHAEO-
    LOGICAL RESOURCES. Districts and appropriate state agencies
    shall identify areas of the coast which are important to the study,
    understanding, or illustration of national, state, or local history or
    prehistory. (Eff. 7/18/78, Register 67)

    Authority: AS 44.19.161
              AS 46.40.040

            Article 4. Areas Which Merit Special Attention    -

     Section                               Section
     158. Types of areas to be designated as 170. Areas which merit special attention
          areas which menrit special attention  outside districts
     160. Areas which merit special attention
          inside districts

       6 AAC 80.158. TYPES OF AREAS TO BE DESIGNATED AS
     AREAS WHICH MERIT SPECIAL ATTENTION. An area to be
     designated as an area which merits special attention may include the
     following, in addition to the categories contained in AS 46.40.210(1):
         (1) areas important for subsistence hunting, fishing, food gather-
       ing, and foraging;
         (2) areas with special scientific values or opportunities, including
       those areas where ongoing research projects could be jeoparidzed by
       development or conflicting uses and activities; and
         (3) potential estuarine or marine sanctuaries.
     (Eff. 6/9/85, Register 94)

     Authority: AS 44.19.161
               AS 46.40.040

                                 43

    6 AAC 80.160    ALASKA ADMINISTRATIVE CODE             6 AAC 80.160

     Editor's notes. - Before 6t9'85. Regis- AAC 80.160 is not reflected in the history
    ter 94. the substance of 6 AAC 80.158 was  note for 6 AAC 80.158.
    contained in 6 AAC 80.160. The history of

      6 AAC 80.160. AREAS WHICH MERIT SPECIAL ATTEN.
    TION INSIDE DISTRICTS. (a) A person may recommend, to a dis-
    trict, areas inside the district to be nominated to the council as areas
    which merit special attention. A district may nominate, in a district
    program or as a significant amendment to its program, areas which
    merit special attention. Council designation of areas which merit spe-
    cial attention inside districts will be in accordance with the proce-
    dures for approval of district programs, or significant amendments to
    district programs, as described in 6 AAC 85. A nomination bf an area
    which merits special attention must include the following informa-
    tion:
        (1) the basis or bases for designation under AS 46.40.210(1) or 6
      AAC 80.158;
        (2) a map showing the geographical location, surface area and, if
      appropriate, bathymetry of the area, along with a legal and narra-
      tive description of the boundaries and a justification of the size of
      the area which merits special attention;
         (3) a description of the area which includes dominant physical
      and biological features;
         (4) the existing ownership, jurisdiction, and management status
       of the area, including existing uses and activities;
         (5) the existing ownership, jurisdiction, and management status
       of adjacent shoreland and sea areas, including existing uses and
       activities:
         (6) present and anticipated conflicts among uses and activities
       within or adjacent to the area, if any; and
         (7) a proposed management plan, consisting of the following:
           (A) a description of the uses and activities that will be consid-
         ered proper, and the uses and activities that will be considered
         improper, with respect to land and water within the area, and the
         rationale for the designate of proper and improper uses;
           (B) a statement of the specific, enforceable policies that will be
         applied in managing the area; and
           (C) an identification of the authority that will be used to imple-
         ment the proposed management plan.
       (b) A management plan for an area which merits special attention
     inside a district must preserve, protect, enhance, or restore the value
     or values for which the area was designated. (Eft. 7/1878, Register 67;
     am 8:18:79, Register 71; am 6/9185, Register 94; am 4.2:86, Register
     97)

                                  44

    6 AAC 80.170             GovERNoR's OFFICE             6 AAC 80.170

    Authority: AS 44.19.161
              AS 46.40.040

      6 AAC 80.170. AREAS WHICH -MERIT SPECIAL ATTEN-
    TION OUTSIDE DISTRICTS. (a) A person may recommend to the
    council an area that is within the coastal area but outside a coastal
    resource district, to be designated as an area which merits special
    attention. A recommendation to the council of an area which merits
    special attention outside a district must include the following infor-
    mation:
        (1) a map showing the geographical. location of the area, as well
      as a legal and narrative description of the boundaries, and a justifi-
      cation of the size of the area which merits special attention;
        (2) a summary of the resource values. and use conflicts, if any, in
      the area;
        (3) a statement of the purpose and objectives to be met through
      planning for an area which merits special attention;
        (4) a tentative schedule outlining timeframes for completion of
      planning tasks and reviews;
        (5) a list of parties with interests in or adjacent to the proposed
      area which merits special attention who may be affected by its des-
       ignation, and a description of how these parties would be involved
       in plan development; and
         (6) justification that the area which merits special attention is
       the preferred planning and management mechanism for meeting
       the objectives of the proposal and the Alaska coastal management
       program.
       (b) Upon receipt of a recommendation for an area which merits
    special attention outside of a district, the division of governmental
     coordination (DGC) of the office of management and budget shall
     place the recommendation on the council's agenda for consideration at
     its next regularly scheduled meeting, and shall give notice of a public
     hearing. DGC shall give direct notice to the affected parties identified
     in (a)(5) of this section. DGC shall make the recommendation avail-
     able for public inspection at the time of the notice of the public hear-
     ing. The council will make an initial finding, detailing its reasons to
     either authorize additional planning for the area which merits special
     attention outside a district, or to reject the recommendation. The
     council's determination to authorize additional planning for the area
     which merits special attention may not 'be construed as council ap-
     proval of the merits of the final plan.
       (c) If the council decides to authorize further planning for an area
     which merits special attention, public notice will be provided by con-
     spicuous advertisement, such as display notice, in a news publication
     of general circulation in the affected area and in one of general circu-
     lation in the state. DGC, with assistance from the sponsor, shall corn-

                                 45

    6 AAC 80.170    ALASKA ADM[NISTRATIVE CODE    6 AAC 80.170

    pile a mailing list of state and federal agencies, affected municipali-
    ties and villages, landowners, and other interested parties and shall
    notify them that planning for the area which merits special attention
    is going to occur.
      (d) The sponsor of the nomination is responsible for developing a
    public review draft for the area which merits special attention outside
    of a district. The review draft must include the information required
    under 6 AAC 80.160(a)(1) through (7), in addition to the following:
        (1) an evaluation of the potential impacts of the designation on
      the social. cultural, environmental, and economic features of the
      area and adjacent areas;
        (2) The proposed management plan required under 6 AAC
      160(a)(7) must include a description of how the proposed manage-
      ment plan will be implemented.
      (el A management plan for an area which merits special attention
    outside a district must preserve, protect. enhance, or restore the value
    or values for which the area is designated.
      (fA The sponsor shall provide opportunities for consultation on and
    review of the proposal by appropriate state, federal, and local govern-
    mental agencies, affected lanaowners, and other persons who have
    been identified as interested parties under (c) of this section. The
    sponsor shall hold no less than two public meetings during plan devel-
    opment to inform the public and receive comments concerning the
    plan.
      (g) The sponsor of the area which rierits special attention shall
    distribute a public review draft to all parties identified under (c) of
    this section. The public review draft must contain all elements listed
     in (d) of this section, as well as evidence that the public participation
     requirements of this section have been satisfied. The sponsor shall
     provide at least a 60-day review period. The sponsor shall send with
     the public review draft a transmittal letter that identifies the com-
     ment deadline and the recipient of comments. The sponsor shall pub-
     lish notice of the availability of the public review draft for review and
     comment. including advertising in news publications that are circu-
     lated in the area affected bythe nomination and in news publications
     that are circulated statewide. The sponsor shall also post a notice
     prominently in municipalities and villages affected by the proposal.
       (h) After the close of the public review and comment period, the
     sponsor of the area which merits special attention shall revise the
     public review draft as necessary to incorporate comments received.
     Council review of the area which merits special attention will begin
     upon the sponsor's submission of the revised draft to the council.
       (D DGC shall distribute the council review draft, along with its
     preliminary findings on the plan, to the mailing list compiled under
     ic) of this section. A person may submit comments on the area which
     merits special attention nomination to the council within 60 days

                                 46

    6 AAC 80.900             GOVERNOR'S ORiicz            6 AAC 80.900

    after this distribution. Comments that are not received within the 60-
    day review period will not be considered.
      (j) DGC shall prepare a summary of and a response to comments
    received on the council review draft and, if necessary, revise its recom-
    mendatioiis. DGC shall distribute these materials to all parties who
    commented on the draft. All comments and additional material sub-
    mitted will be placed in a record file maintained by DGC.
      (k) The council will, after public notice, hold a public hearing on the
    designation of the area which merits- special attention.
      (1) The council will approve the designation of an area which merits
    special attention if it (1) is substantially consistent with the require-
    ments of this section; (2) does not arbitrarily or unreasonably restrict
    or exclude uses of state concern, except as allowed in AS 46.40.070(c);
    (3) does not violate another state law; and (4) does not cause substan-
    tial irreparable harm to another interest or value in the coastal area.
    The council's decision to designate, or not designate, the area which
    merits special attention outside of a district will contain findings and
    conclusions based on the requirements listed in this subsection.
      (m) DGC shall provide public notice of the council's action designat-
    ing an area which merits special attention outside of a district by
    distributing a copy of the council's order to all persons who testified or
    submitted timely written statements during public review, and to all
    persons who requested a copy of the order in writing. DGC shall also
    publish notice of the council's action, at a minimum, in news publica-
    tions that are circulated within the affected region and in news publi-
    cations that are circulated statewide.
       (n) The council's designation of an area which merits special atten-
    tion outside of a district takes effect for state law purposes as piart of
     the Alaska coastal management program upon the lieutenant gover-
     nor's filing of the council's order approving the designation. (Eff.
     6/9/85, Register 94; am 4/2/86, Register 97)

     Authority: AS 44.19.161
               AS 46.40.040

                       Article 5. General Provisions

     Section
     900. Definitions

       6 AAC 80.900. DEFINITIONS. (a) Unless the context indicates
     otherwise, in this cihapter
         (1) "barrier islands and lagoons" means depositional coastal envi-
       ronments formed by deposits of sediment offshore or coastal rem-
       nants which form a barrier of low-lying islands and bars protecting
       a salt-water lagoon with free exchange of water to the sea;

                                  47

    6 AAC 80.900    ALASKA ADMINISTRATIVE CODE    6 AAC 80.900

        (2) "coastal water" means all water bodies in the coastal area,
      including wetlands and the intertidal area;
        (3) "council" means the Alaska Coastal Policy Council;
        (4) "district" means a coastal resource district as defined in AS
      46.40.210(2);
        (5) "district program" means a district coastal management pro-
      gram;
        (6) "estuary" means a semiclosed coastal body of water which has
      a free connection with the sea and within which seawater is mea-
      surably diluted with freshwater derived from land drainage;
        (7) "exposed high-energy coasts" means open and unprotected
      sections of coastline with exposure to ocean generated wave impacts
      and usually characterized by coarse sand, gravel, boulder beaches,
      and well-mixed coastal water;
        (8) "facilities related to commercial fishing and seafood process-
      ing" includes hatcheries and related facilities, seafood processing
      plants and support facilities, marine industrial and commercial fa-
      cilities, and aquaculture facilities;
        (9) "geophysical hazard areas" means those areas which present a
      threat to life or property from geophysical or geological hazards,
      including flooding, tsunami run-up, storm surge run-up, landslides,
      snowslides, faults, ice hazards, erosion, and littoral beach process;
        (10) "mining and mineral processing" means the development of
      mineral resources extracted in tidal rivers, coastal water, and on
      continental shelves of the open sea, and found in surface, subsur-
      face, and aqueous deposits;
        (11) "offshore areas" means submerged lands and waters seaward
      of the coastline;
        (12) "rocky islands and seacliffs" means islands of volcanic or
      tectonic origin with rocky shores and steep faces, offshore rocks,
      capes, and steep rocky seafronts;
        (13) "tideflats" means mostly unvegetated areas that are alter-
      nately exposed and inundated by the falling and rising of the tide;
        {14) "transportation and utility routes and facilities" include
      power transmission lines, mineral slurry lines, oil and gas pipe-
      lines, land and marine corridors, railways, highways, roadways, air
      terminals, water and sewage transfer, and facilities required to op-
      erate and maintain the route or facility;
        (15) "upland" means drainages, aquifers, and land, the use of
      which would have a direct and significant impact on coastal water;
        (16) "uses of state concern" has the same meaning as in AS
      46.40.210(6);
        (17) "water-dependent" means a use or activity which can be car-
      ried out only on, in, or adjacent to water areas because the use
      requires access to the water body;

                                48

    6 AAC 80.900            GOVERNOR'S OFFICE             6 AAC 80.900

        (18) "water-related" means a use or activity which is not directly
      dependent upon access to a water body, but which provides goods or
      services that are directly associated with water-dependence and
      which, if not located adjacent to water, would result in a public loss
      of quality in the goods or services offered;
        (19) "wetlands" includes both freshwater and saltwater wetlands;
      "freshwater wetlands" means those environments characterized by
      rooted vegetation which is partially submerged either continuously
      or periodically by surface freshwater with less than .5 parts per
      thousand salt content and not exceeding three meters in depth;
      "tsaltwater wetlands" means those coastal areas along sheltered
      shorelines characterized by halophilic hydrophytes and macroalgae
      extending from extreme low tide to an area above extreme high tide
      which is influenced by sea spray or tidally induced water table
      changes;
        (20) "feasible and prudent" means consistent with sound engi-
      neering practice and not causing environmental, social, or economic
      problems that outweigh the public benefit to be derived from com-
      pliance with the standard which is modified by the term "feasible
      and prudent";
        (21) "including" means including but not limited to;
        (22) "major energy facility" includes marine service bases and
      storage depots, pipelines and rights-of-way, drilling rigs and plat-
      forms, petroleum or coal separation, treatment, or storage facilities,
      liquid natural gas plants and terminals, oil terminals and other port
      development for the transfer of energy products, petrochemical
      plants, refineries and associated facilities, hydroelectric projects,
      other electric generating plants, transmission lines, uranium en-
      richment or nuclear fuel processing facilities, and geothermal facili-
      ties; "major energy facility" means a development of more than local
      concern carried out in, or in close proximity to, the coastal area,
      which meets one or more of the following criteria:
          (A) a facility required to support energy operations for explora-
        tion or production purposes;
          (B) a facility used to produce, convert, process, or store energy
        resources or marketable products;
          (C) a facility used to transfer, transport, import, or export en-
        ergy resources or marketable products;
           CD) a facility used for in-state energy use; or
           CE) a facility used primarily for the manufacture, production,
        or assembly of equipment, machinery, products, or devices which
        are involved in any activity described in (A) - (D) of this para-
        graph;
        (23) "significant amendment" means an amendment to an ap-
      proved district program which

                                4 9

    6 AAC 85.010        ALASKA ADMINISrRAIVE CODE           6 AAC 85'010

          (A) results in a major revision, addition or deletion to the poli-
        cies or implementation methods or authorities included in the
        district program under 6 AAC 85.090 and 6 AAC 85.100:
          (B) alters the district boundaries, other than by technical ad-
        justments;
          (C) designates an area which merits special attention or alters
        an existing area which merits special attention designation; or
          (D) restricts or excludes a use of state concern not previously
        restricted or excluded;
        (24) "area which merits special attention" has the same meaning
      as in AS 46.40.210(1):
        (25) "village" has the same meaning as in AS 46.40.180(d).
      (b) In AS 44.19.155, "deputy commissioner" includes assistant com-
    missioners of state agencies. (Eff. 7/18178, Register 67; am 8/18179,
    Register 71; am 9/9/81, Register 79; am 619/85, Register 94; am
    10/16/87, Register 104)

    Authority: AS 44.19.160(4)     AS 46.40.040
              AS 44.19.161        AS 46.40.060
              AS 46.40.010tcl     AS 46.40.070
              AS 46.40.030

        CHAPTER 85. GUIDELINES FOR DISTRICT
           COASTAL MANAGEMENT PROGRAMS

    Article
    1. Program Elements t6 AAC 85.010 - 6 AAC 85.110)
    2. Government Process (6 AAC 85.120 - 6 AAC 85.185)
    3. General Provisions t6 AAC 85.900t

                      Article 1. Program Elements

    Section                               Section
     10. Coverage of chapter               70. Subject uses
     20. Needs. objectives. and goals      80. Proper and improper uses
     30. Organization                      90. Policies
     40. Boundaries                       100. Implementation
     50. Resource inventory               110. Public participation
     60. Resource analysis

       6 AAC 85.010. COVERAGE OF CHAPTER. a) This chapter
     contains guidelines for the use of and application by districts in carry-
     ing out their responsibilities under the Alaska Coastal Management
     Act (AS 46.40 and AS 44.19.891 - 44.19.894).
       (b) At a minimum, the council will review this chapter annually.
     (Eff. 7/18/78, Register 67)

     Authority: AS 44.19.161
               AS 46.40.030
               AS 46.40.040

                                 50

               6 AAC 85.020            GOVERNOR'S OFFICE             6 AAC 85.040

                 6 AAC 85.020. NEEDS, OBJECTIVES, AND GOALS. Each
               district program must include a statement of the district's overall
               coastal management needs, objectives, or goals, or the district's com-
               prehensive.land and resource use plan. (Eff. 7/18.78. Register 67)

               Authority: AS 44.19.161
                         AS 46.40.030
                         AS 46.40.040

    --:           6 AAC 85.030. ORGANIZATION.  (a)  Each  district  program
               must include a description of the district program organization for
               coastal management. Budgetary and staff needs and. where appropri-
               ate, a schedule for necessary reorganization must be included.
                 (b) The district program must clearly state the name and address of
               the individual or organization within the district that is assigned to
               receive from the state notice of proposed activities and authorizations
               affecting the district, and that is responsible for responding to the
               state on consistency reviews. (Eff. 7.18'78, Register 67; am 312/84,
                Register 89)

                Authority: AS 44.19.161
                          AS 46.40.030
                          AS 46.40.040

                  6 AAC 85.040. BOUNDARIES. (a) Each district must include a
                map of the boundaries of the coastal area within the district subject to
                the district program. Boundaries must enclose those lands which
                would reasonably be included in the coastal area and subject to. the
                district program if they were not subject. to the exclusive jurisdiction
                of the federal government.
                  (b) Before council approval of the district program, initial bound-
                aries must be based on Biophysical Boundaries of Alaska's Coastal
                Zone (published by the Office of Coastal Management and the Alaska
                Department of Fish and Game, 1978, a copy of which is on file with
                the Office of the Lieutenant Governor, and which is available from the
                Office of Coastal Management) and must include the zone of direct
                interaction and the zone of direct influence.
                  (c) Final boundaries of the coastal area subject to the district pro-
                gram may diverge from the initial boundaries if the final boundaries
                    (1) extend inland and seaward to the extent necessary to manage
                  uses and activities that have or are likely to have a direct and
                  significant impact on marine'Coastal water; and
                    (2) include all transitional and intertidal areas, salt marshes,
                  saltwater wetlands, islands, and beaches.
                  (d) If the criteria in (c) of this section are met, final boundaries of
                the coastal area subject to the district program may be based on politi-
                cal jurisdiction, cultural features, planning areas, watersheds, topo.

                                            51

    6 AAC 85.050    ALASKA ADMINISTRATIVE CODE    6 AAC 85.070

    graphic features, uniform setbacks, or the dependency of uses and
    activities on water access.
     .(e) The boundaries of the district must be sufficiently compatible
    with those of adjoining areas to allow consistent administration of the
    Alaska coastal management program. (Eff. 7118178, Register 67; am
    8118179, Register 71)

    Authority: AS 44.19.161
              AS 46.40.040

      6 AAC 85.050. RESOURCE  INVENTORY.  Each district pro-
    gram must include a resource inventory which describes, in a manner
    sufficient for program development and implementation
        (1) habitats listed in 6 AAC 80.130 that are found within or adja-
      cent to the district;
        (2) major cultural resources that are found within or adjacent to
      the district;
        (3) major land and water uses and activities which are conducted
      within or adjacent to the district;
        (4) major land and resource ownership and management respon-
      sibilities within or adjacent to the district; and
        (5) major historic, prehistoric, and archaeological resources
      which are found within or adjacent to the district. (Eff. 7/18/78,
      Register 67)

    Authority: AS 44.19.161
              AS 46.40.030
              AS 46.40.040

      6 AAC  85.060. RESOURCE ANALYSIS. Each district program
     must include a resource analvsis which describes, in a manner suffi-
    cient for program development and implementation
         (1) significant anticipated changes in the matters identified un-
       der 6 AAC 85.050;
         (2) an evaluation of the environmental capability and sensitivity
       of resources and habitats, including cultural resources, for land and
       water uses and activities; and
         (3) an assessment of the present and anticipated needs and de-
       mands for coastal habitats and resources. (Eff. 7/18/78, Register 67)

     Authority: AS 44.19.161
               AS 46.40.030
               AS 46.40.040

       6 AAC 85.070. SUBJECT USES. Each district program must in-
     clude a description of the land and water uses and activities which are
     subject to the district program. The uses and activities mentioned in 6

                                52

    6 AAC 85.080            GOVERNOR'S O'Fics             6 AAC 85.090

    AAC 80 are, if applicable, subject to the district program. (Eff. 7!1878.
    Register 67)

    Authoritry AS 44.19.161
              AS 46.40.030
              AS 46.40.040

      6 AAC 85.080. PROPER  AND  IMPROPER  USES. Each dis-
    trict program must include a description of the uses and activities,
    including uses of state concern, that will be considered proper, and the
    uses and activities, including uses of state concern, that will be consid-
    ered improper within the coastal area, including land and water use
    designations. This description must be based on the district's state-
    ment of overall needs, objectives, or goals, or the district's comprehen-
    sive land and resource use plan, under 6 AAC 85.020, and must be
    consistent with the standards contained in 6 AAC 80. (Eff. 7/18/78,
    Register 67)

    Authoritr AS 44.19.161
              AS 46.40.030
              AS 46.40.040

       6 AAC 85.090. POLICIES. (a) Each district program must in-
    clude the policies that will be applied to land and water uses and
    activities subject to the district program;and the process which will be
     used to determine whether specific land and water uses and activities
     will be allowed. It shall be the general policy of the district to approve
    specific proposals for uses and activities within areas designated-for
    those uses and activities under 6 AAC 85.080. Districts shall use
     existing means appropriate for the evaluation of specific proposals to
     the greatest extent feasible and prudent. Policies and procedures un-
     der this section must be consistent with the standards contained in 6
     AAC 80 and must meet the following criteria:
         (1) comprehensiveness, so as to apply to all uses, activities, and
       areas in need of management;
         (2) specificity, so as to allow clear under standing of who will be
       affected by the district program, how they will be affected, and
       whether specific proposals for land and water uses and activities
       will be allowed; and
         (3) enforceability, so as to insure implementation of and adher-
       ence to the district program..
       (b) All policies or enforceable rules of the district program must be
     clearly identified and located in a single section of the program docu-
     ment. The identified policies or enforceable rules will provide the ba-
     sis for all determinations of consistency with the approved district
     program. (Eff. 7/18/78, Register 67; am 3/2/84, Register 89)

                                  53

    6 AAC 85.100    ALASKA ADMINISTRATIVE CODE    6 AAC 85.120

    Authority: AS 44.19.161
              AS 46.40.030
             AS 46.40.040

      6 AAC 85.100. IMPLEMENTATION. Each district program
    must include a description of the methods and authority which will be
    used to implement the district program. Methods and authority must
    be adequate to insure program implementation, and any additional
    methods or authority which are required must be specified. Methods
    and authority include land and water use plans, municipal ordinances
    and resolutions, (including shoreline, zoning, and subdivision ordi-
    nances and building codes), state and federal statutes and regulations,
    capital improvement programs, the purchase, sale, lease, or exchange
    of coastal land and water resources, cooperative agreements, tax ex-
    emptions for nondevelopment purchase of development rights, memo-
    randa of understanding, and coordinated project or permit review pro-
    cedures. (Eff. 7/18178, Register 67)

    Authority: AS 44.19.161
              AS 46.40.030
              AS 46.40.040

      6 AAC 85.110. PUBLIC PARTICIPATION. Each district pro-
    gram must include evidence of effective and significant opportunities
    for public participation in program development under 6 AAC 85.130.
    (Eff. 7/18178, Register 67)

    Authority: AS 44.19.161
              AS 46.40.030

                     Article 2. Government Process

    Section                             Section
    120. Submittals to council          170. Mediation
    130. Public involvement during program  180. EfTective date and local adoption
         development                    185. Petition for amendment to an ap-
    140. Coordination and review             proved district program regarding
    145. Review of public hearing draft      uses of state concern
     150. Council review of district programs

      6 AAC 85.120. SUBMITTALS TO COUNCIL. (a) During pro-
    gram development. districts shall submit brief annual progress re-
     ports concerning program development to the council.
       (b) Following adoption of the final program under 6 AAC 85.180Lb),
    districts shall submit brief annual progress reports concerning pro-
     gram implementation to the council. The council will furnish copies of
     annual progress reports to any interested party upon request. An an-
     nual progress report must be submitted by December 31 of each year
     and must include

                                  54

    6 AAC 85.120             GOVEzNOR's OFFICE             6 AAC 85.120

        (1) a statement describing the district's progress in fulfilling any
      conditions stipulated at the time of the council's approval of the
      district program;
        (2) a summary, on forms provided by the Office of Coastal Man-
      agement, of significant district land and water use decisions and
      enforcement actions taken during the year;
        (3) a description of routine program implementation during the
      year;
        (4) additional details of the district program implementation, in-
      cluding the district's response to council recommendations made
      either at the time the district program was approved or as part of
      the council's continuing review after approval of the program; and
        (5) identification of any problems encountered in implementing
      the district program and recommendations for solution of the prob-
      lems.
      (c) After conceptual approval as described in (d) of this section, a
    district program must be submitted to the council for approval as
    provided in 6 AAC 85.150, and a significant amendment to a district
    program must be submitted to the council, through the Office of
    Coastal Management, for approval. The Office of Coastal Manage-
    ment will review proposed amendments to determine if council ap-
    proval is required. The coastal resource district may make a recom-
    mendation on whether council approval of a proposed amendment is
    required when the amendment to the district program is submitted to
    the office. If the office determines that'council approval is required,
    the procedures set out in 6 AAC 85.150 apply. The office's determina-
    tion is subject to council review when requested by a council mem.ber
    or the coastal resource district. Amendments to the district program
    determined not to require council approval are matters of routine
     program implementation. Matters of routine program implementation
     will be considered incorporated into the district program without fur-
     ther council action. Timely notification of matters of routine program
     implementation will be made to the council and appropriate state and
     federal agencies by the Office of Coastal Management.
       (d) Before submitting a district program or a significant amend-
     ment to a district program for approval, a district shall conceptually
    approve the district program or amendment by resolution of the dis-
     trict's governing body. However, a coastal resource service area shall
     conceptually approve the district program or amendment by resolu-
     tion of the coastal resource service area board. (Eff. 7/18178, Register
     67; am 5/2/81, Register 78; am 9/9181, Register 79; am 3/2/84, Register
     89)

     Authority: AS 44.19.160       AS 46.40.040
               AS 44.19.162        AS 46.40.060
               AS 46.40.010        AS 46.40.070
               AS 46.40.030

                                  55

    6 AAC 85.130        ALASKA ADMINISTRATIVE CODE            6 AAC 85.145

      Editor's notes. - The Municipality of  mation concerning any district program.
    Anchorage's and the City of Haines' dis.  may be obtained by writing to:
    trict programs took effect January 16.   Office of the Governor
    .1980.                                   Division of Policy Development and
      The City of Skagway's district program  Planning
    took effect onr December 18, 1980. Infor-    Office of Coastal Management
     mation regarding the effective dates of   P.O. Box AP
    other district programs. and other infor.   Juneau. Alaska 99811

       6 AAC 85.130. PUBLIC INVOLVEMENT DURING PRO-
     GRAM DEVELOPMENT. (a) Districts shall provide publicly adver-
     tised opportunities for public involvement in the development of all
     program elements contained in -6 AAC  85.020 - 6 AAC 85.110.
       tb) No less than two public meetings must be held within the dis-
     trict during program development to inform the public and receive
     comments concerning the program. A brief summary or report of the
     matters considered at the public meeting held under this subsection
     must be prepared by the district, made available to the public, and
     retained for inclusion in the record file referred to in 6 AAC 85.150.
       (c) Districts shall provide the public, in a timely manner and in
     understandable form, information explaining the district coastal man-
     agement program, the requirements of public participation in pro-
     gram development, how and when the public may participate in pro-
     gram development, what information is available, and where that
     information may be obtained. (Eff. 7/18178, Register 67; am 8/18/79,
     Register 71; am 3;2/84, Register 89).

     Authority: AS 44.19.161
               AS 46.40.040

       6 AAC  85.140. COORDINATION AND REVIEW. District shall
     provide opportunities for coordination and review by federal, state,
     and local governmental agencies, including adjacent districts, and
     other persons with a significant interest in coastal resources or who
     are conducting or may conduct uses and activities that have or are
     likely to have a direct and significant impact on the district's coastal
     area. (Eft. 7/18/78, Register 67)

     Authority:. AS 44.19.161
                AS 46.40.030
                AS 46.40.040

        6 AAC 85.145. REVIEW OF PUBLIC HEARING DRAFT. (a)
      This section applies to district programs and significant amendments
      to district programs.
        lb) A public hearing draft of the district program must be distrib-
      uted to all parties identified as having a significant interest in the
      district program. including those parties described in 6 AAC 85.140.
      The mailing list of these parties must be reviewed and approved by

                                  56

    6 AAC 85.150            GovERNoRt's OFFICE            6 AAC 85.150

    the Office of Coastal Management. The public hearing draft must
    include all elements to be included in the district program when it is
    conceptually approved. At least a 60-day review period must be pro-
    vided. A transmittal letter that states the comment deadline and the
    recipient of comments must be sent with the document. One or more
    review meetings may be sponsored by the Office of Coastal Manage-
    ment, with the concurrence of the district.
      (c) Public notice of the availability of the document must be given
    to any person who has requested it in writing, and through conspicu-
    ous advertisement in a newspaper of general circulation within the
    district. Notice must also be posted in villages and municipalities
    within the district. Comments received by the deadline must be con-
    sidered by the district and, where appropriate, incorporated into the
    plan before conceptual approval.
      (d) A public hearing on the district program must be held before
    conceptual approval is given and no sooner than 30 days after distri-
    bution and notice of the public hearing draft under (b) and (c) of this
    section. Notice specifying time and place of the hearing must be pro-
    vided to all who were provided the public hearing draft, and also by
    conspicuous advertisement in a newspaper of general circulation
    within the district and by advertisement in a newspaper of general
    circulation within the state. Notice must be given at least 30 days
     before the hearing is held.
       (e) At the public hearing, each person must be given the opportu-
     nity to present statements orally or in writing. Districts shall insure
     that translation into the appropriate native languages is provided. A
     written transcript or electronic recording of the public hearing must
     be provided to the council. Comments offered at the hearing must be
     considered by the district and, where appropriate, incorporated into
     the plan before conceptual approval.
       (f) Districts must give conceptual approval to their district program
     before the program is submitted to the council. District programs
     must be adopted by resolution of the district's governing body except
     that coastal resource service area plans must be adopted by resolution
     of the board. (Eff 321284, Register 89)

     Authority: AS 44.19.161
               AS 46.40.030
               AS 46.40.040

       6 AAC 85.150. COUNCIL .REVIEW OF DISTRICT PRO-
     GRAMS. (a) A district may prepare findings and conclusions an its
     program, based on AS 46.40.030, 46.40.060, 46.40.080, and the stan-
     dards set out in this chapter.
       (b) At least one copy of the district's conceptually approved pro-
     gram, including any changes made to the public hearing draft, and

                                 57

    6 AAC 85.150    ALASKA ADMINISTRATIVE CODE    6 AAC 85.150

    the district's findings and conclusions or a written statement indicat-
    ing that the district has elected not to prepare findings and conclu-
    sions, must be forwarded to the Office of Coastal Management as soon
    as practicable after conceptual approval. The district shall also submit
    a recording or transcript of the public hearing held under 6 AAC
    85.145(d), a list of names and addresses of those who testified, and
    copies of all materials on which it based its decision.
      (c) Within 30 days after the district's submission to the Office of
    Coastal Management under (b) of this section, the office will prepare.
    findings of fact and conclusions based on authorities cited in this sec-
    tion. to comprise its recommendation on the program. Any material on
    which the recommendation is based must be cited and placed in the
    district record file described in (0 of this section.
      (d) Before the Office of Coastal Management will submit a program
    to the council review, the district must submit copies of its conceptu-
    ally approved program to the office in sufficient number to allow dis-
    tribution to the office's mailing list, the council, and persons who
    testified at the public hearing or presented written comments on the
    public hearing draft.
      (e) The Office of Coastal Management will distribute the district
    program, its recommendations, and the district's recommendations, if
    any, to those identified in (d) of this section and to any other person
    who has requested this material in writing. This material will be
    distributed as soon as practicable after the 30-day period allowed in (c)
     of this section.
       (fC A record file containing all material submitted by the district
     under this section, the Office of Coastal Management's recommenda-
     tions under this section. and all material on which the recommenda-
     tion was based must be maintained at the office and at a convenient
     location within the district.
       (g) Within 45 days after the distribution of the Office of Coastal
     Management's recommendation, ahy person may submit comments on
     the recommendation. Comments which are not received within the 45-
     day period will not be considered.
       (h) Within 25 days after the deadline for submitting comments to
     the council under (gI of this section. the Office of Coastal Management
     will submit its response to the comments and, if appropriate, revised
     findings and conclusions to the council and to all who responded to the
     original findings and conclusions. All comments and additional mate-
     rial submitted must be placed in the record files.
       (i) Within a total of 45 days after the deadline in (g) of this section,
     the council will approve or disapprove the district program, in whole
     or in part. The council's decision will contain findings and conclusions
     based on this chapter. the standards contained in 6 AAC 80, AS
     46.40.060. and 46.40.070. The council's findings and conclusions will
     be based on material contained in the record file. The council will, in

                                   58

    6 AAC 85.170             GOVERNOR'S OFFICE             6 AAC 85.170

    its discretion, adopt the findings and-conclusions of the Office of
    Coastal Management by reference.
      (j) The council will serve its decision under this section on all per-
    sons who submitted timely comments 6i the staff recommendation
    under (g) of this section, to all persons who testified or.submitted
    timely written statements at the public hearing held under 6 AAC 85
    145(d), and to all persons who have requested a copy of the decision in
    writing. Notice of the council's action also must be published, at a
    minimum, in newspaper of general circulation in the district. EfT.
    7/18/78, Register 67; am 1/22181, Register 77; am 3:2184, Register 89)

    Authority: AS 44.19.160       AS 46.40.030
              AS 44.19.161        AS 46,40.040
              AS 46.40,010

      Editor's notes. - The provisions con- 6 AAC 85.170. effective March 2. 1984,
    cerning mediation contained in 6 AAC   Register 89.
    85.150 before March 2. 1984 are located at

      6 AAC 85.170. MEDIATION. (a) If the council's decision under 6
    AAC 85.150(i) disapproves, in whole or in part, the district program,
    the disapproved portion must be submitted to mediation as required
    by AS 46.40.060(b). Before the initial mediation session, the council
     will, in its discretion, call for one or more public hearings in the
     district concerned, for the purpose of discussing those portions of the
    program subject to mediation. Public hearings must be preceded by 30
     days' notice. If public hearings are held, districts shall insure that,
     where reasonably requested, translation into the appropriate Native
     languages is provided. All public hearings must be electronically. re-
    corded. Oral or written testimony may be submitted, except that
     unduly repetitious testimony may be excluded. The oral testimony
     and written submissions constitute the hearing record, which must be
     transmitted to the mediator. Mediation sessions will be conducted as
     follows:
         (1) The parties to the mediation'will be the council and the dis-
       trict. The parties shall, within 10 days after the date of the council's
       decision under 6 AAC 85.150(i), agree upon the selection of a media-
       tor. If the parties cannot agree, they shall immediately, in writing,
       ask the Federal Mediation and Conciliation Service to appoint a
       mediator. If that mediator is unacceptable to either party, that
       party shall request the Federal Mediation and Conciliation Service
       to submit to the parties the names of three qualified mediators.
       Upon receipt of these names, each party shall strike one name from
       the list and the remaining name will be the mediator. A mediator
       shall perform his or her duties in a manner consistent with the
       standards of conduct set out in the Code of Professional Conduct for
       Labor Mediators, referred to in and set out as an appendix to 29
       C.F.R. 1400.735-20.

                                  59

    6 AAC 85.170    ALASKA ADMINISTRATIVE CODE    6 AAC 85.170

        (2) Mediation sessions must be held within the district. The medi-
      ator shall schedule the sessions, with due regard for the convenience �
      of the parties, upon at least seven days' notice, except that the-
      parties may, by mutual consent, waive the notice period. The par-
      ties shall mutually agree upon the place of the meeting.
        (3) The mediator shall schedule the first mediation session to be
      held as soon as possible after he or she has been selected. At the
      initial session. the mediator shall establish reasonable rules of pro-
      cedure. Mediation sessions must be conducted in a manner so that
      the parties will have the assurance and confidence that information
      disclosed to the mediator will remain confidential. The mediator
      shall determine the length and frequency of mediation sessions;
      however, if an accord is not reached within 60 days after the initial
      session, an impasse will be declared by the mediator. By mutual
      consent of the parties and the mediator, this deadline may be ex-
      tended for a period not to exceed an additional 30 days.
        (4) If the mediator determines that an impasse has been reached,
      he or she shall notify the parties in writing within 10 days after the
      determination is made.
         (5) If the mediator determines that an accord has been reached,
       he or she shall direct the parties to set out in writing the terms of
       the agreement. This agreement, to be signed by the parties, signi-
       fies the final settlement of outstanding disputes, subject to ratifica-
       tion at a public meeting by the official bodies of each party. With
       the approval of the parties, mediation may be used to resolve any
       differences which may arise as 'the result of the public meetings.
       After ratification under (a)(5) of this section, the agreement may be
       set aside only for fraud, misconduct, or gross mistake.
       (b) If the council and the district reach accord in mediation sessions
     held under (a) of this section, the council will, within 20 days after
     ratification by both parties, serve its modified decision, in the form of
     an order, on the district and all persons who were served with the
     council's decision under 6 AAC 85.150(i), and will place the modified
     decision in the record file. The modified decision will contain findings
     and conclusions, based on the record file and additional material pre-
     sented during mediation necessary to demonstrate that the modified
     decision is consistent with this chapter, and the standards contained
     in 6 AAC 80. AS 46.40.060, or 46.40.070.
       (c) If the council and the district do not reach an accord, the council
     will, within 20 days after a determination that an impasse has been
     reached, set the matter for an adjudicatory hearing under AS
     46.40.060Lc). Notice of the hearing must be served on the district and
     on all persons who were served with the council's decision under 6
     AAC 85.150i). Any person served with notice of the hearing under
     this subsection may intervene as a party to the hearing. (Eff. 3,2/84,
     Register 893

                                   60

    6 AAC 85.180             GOVERNOR'S OFF-iC              6 AAC 85.185

    Authority: AS 44.19.160       AS 46.40.030
             AS 46.19.167        AS 46.40.040
             AS 46.40.010

      6 AAC 85.180. EFFECTIVE DATE AND LOCAL ADOPTION.�
    (a) A district program or significant amendment to a district program
    takes effect as part of the Alaska Coastal Management Program upon
    the lieutenant governor's filing of the council's decision approving the
    district program or significant amendment. A change or an amend-
    ment in the district program resulting from mediation under AS
    46.40.060(b) and 6 AAC 85.170(a) and (b) or from adjudication under
    AS 46.40.060(c) and 6 AAC 85.170(c) takes effect upon the lieutenant
    governor's filing of the council's order either ratifying the results of
    the mediation or determining the adjudication. Filing will take place
    after local adoption as provided in (b) of this section.
      (b) Within 90 days after the date a district program or significant
    amendment is approved by the council under 6 AAC 85.150, the dis-
    trict shall, by ordinance or resolution, whichever is required by other
    applicable provision of law, adopt the district program or amendment
    approved by the council. However, a coastal resource service area
    shall adopt the district program by resolution of the coastal resource
    service area board. In the same manner, a change in a district pro-
    gram resulting from mediation under AS 46.40.060(b) and 6 AAC
     85.170(a) and (b) or from adjudication under AS 46.40.060(c) and 6
     AAC 85.170(c) must be adopted by the district following the council's
    order under 6 AAC 85.170 (b) or (c) ratifying the results of the media-
     tion or determining the adjudication. (Eff. 3/2/84, Register 89)

     Authority: AS 44.19.160        AS 46.40.040
               AS 46.40.010       AS 46.40.060
               AS 46.40.030        AS 46.40.070

       6 AAC 85.185. PETITION FOR AMENDMENT TO AN AP-
     PROVED DISTRICT PROGRAM REGARDING USES OF
     STATE CONCERN. (a) A state agency or other interested party may
     submit a petition for amendment to a district program if there is
     substantial evidence that a use of state concern, as defined in AS
     46.40.210(6), is arbitrarily or unreasonably restricted or excluded by
     the district program. The petitioner must submit the petition to the
     division of governmental coordination (DGC), in the office of manage-
     ment and budget, office of the Governor, and to the district. The peti-
     tion must include the following information:
         (1) identification of one or more uses of state concern that are
       arbitrarily or unreasonably restricted or excluded by implementa.
       tion of the program:
         (2) specific documentation of how the use of state concern is being
       arbitrarily or unreasonably restricted or excluded;

                                  61

    6 AAC 85.185    ALASKA ADMINISTRATIVE CODE             6 AAC 85.185

        (3) description of a significant change in circumstances or new
      information that has arisen since program approval, which provides
      a reasonable basis for concluding that the district program arbitrar-
      ily or unreasonably restricts or excludes a use of state concern; and
        t4) the proposed program amendment.
      (bN DGC will review the petition for completeness and distribute it
    to appropriate state agencies. Within 30 days after the petition is
    submitted to DGC. DGC will. in consultation with the district, and the
    petitioner, attempt to resolve the petitioner's concerns without initiat-
    ing a program amendment. DGC will extend the 30-day consultation
    period by 20 days at the request of the district, the involved state
    agencies or the petitioner. DGC will, in its discretion, extend the con-
    sultation period by up to 60 days if more time is needed for all parties
    to assemble.
      (c) If the concerns are not resolved through consultation and if
    DGC, in consultation with the district, the involved state agencies,
    and the petitioner, determines that after original program approval a
    significant change in circumstances has occurred or new information
    has developed that might cause the program to arbitrarily or unrea-
    sonably restrict or exclude a use of state concern, the procedure de-
    scribed in (di of this section applies.
       (d) If the criteria in tc) of this section are met, then within 20 days
    after the end of the consultation period specified in (b) of this section,
     DGC will distribute the petition, DGC's evaluation of the proposed
     amendment, and the district's response to the petition, to the council
     and to all parties identified as having a significant- interest in the
     district program, including those parties described in 6 AAC 85.140.
     DGC's evaluation will include:
         ti) a summary of the proposed program amendment;
         (2) an analysis of the evidence that the requirements in (c) have
       been satisfied; and
         (3) an evaluation of the amendment's consistency with the
       Alaska Coastal Management Program (ACMP).
       le) If the criteria established in (c) of this section are not met, then
     DGC will report this finding to the council. DGC's finding will be
     distributed to all parties involved during the consultation period spec-
     ified in (b} of this section and to the council. DGC's finding is subject to
     council review if a review is requested by a council member.
       (f0 The procedures set out in 6 AAC 85.150(g) - (ji for review of
     district programs apply to council review of a petition under this sec-
     tion.
       ig{ The procedures set out in 6 AAC 85.170 for mediation and adju-
     dicatory hearings apply if the district is dissatisfied with the council's
     decision on. the petition.
       (h) An amendment to a district program approved by the council
     under if, of this section takes effect as part of the ACMP upon the

                                   62

    6 AAC 85.900             GOVERNOR'S OFFICE             6 AAC 85.900

    lieutenant governor's filing of the council's decision approving the
    amendment. If mediation or an adjudicatory hearing under (g) of this
    section occurs, an amendment to a district program resulting from
    mediation under AS 46.40.060(b) and 6 AAC 85.170(a) and (b) or from
    adjudication under AS 46.40.060(c) and 6 AAC 85.170(c) takes effect
    upon the lieutenant governor's filing of the council's order either rati-
    fying the results of the mediation or determining the adjudication,
    respectively. (Eff. 8/23/86, Register 99)

    Authority: AS 44.19.160       AS 46.40.040
              AS 44.19.161        AS 46.40.060
              AS 46.40.010

                      Article 3. General Provisions

    Section
    900. Definitions

      6 AAC 85.900. DEFINITIONS. Unless the context indicates oth-
    erwise, in this chapter
        (1) "beaches" means the area affected by wave action directly
      from the sea;
        (2) "marine coastal water" means water adjacent to shorelines
      which contains a measurable quantity of seawater, including
      sounds, bays, lagoons, bayous, ponds and estuaries, and the living
      resources which are dependent on these bodies of water;
        (3) "council" means the Alaska Coastal Policy Council;
        (4) "district" means a coastal resource district as defined in. AS
      46.40.210(2);
         (5) "district program" means a district coastal management pro-
      gram;
         (6) "islands" means bodies of land surrounded by water on all
      sides; interior portions of major islands may be excluded from the
      coastal area if uses of these islands do not cause direct and signifi-
      cant impacts on coastal waters;
         (7) "saltwater wetlands" has the same meaning as that contained
       in 6 AAC 80.900(19);
         (8) "transitional and intertidal areas" means areas subject to pe-
       riodic or occasional inundation by tides, including coastal flood-
       plains, storm surge areas, tsunami and hurricane zones, and
       washover channels;
         (9) "feasible and prudent" has the same meaning as in 6 AAC
       80.900;
         (10) "including" has the same meaning as in 6 AAC 80.900; and
         (11) "significant amendment" means an amendment to an ap-
       proved district program which

                                63

    APPENDIX B

                                                                               WALTER J. HICKEL, GOVERNOR

                                  OFFICE OF THE GOVERNOR
                             OFFICE OF MANAGEMENTAND BUDGET
                      DIVISION OF GOVERNMENTAL COORDINATION

    E SOUTHCENTRAL REGIONAL OFFICE           CENTRAL OFFICE                   E] PIPELINE COORDINATOR'S OFFICE
      3601 'C' STREET, SUITE 370           P.O. BOX 110030                       411 WEST 4TH AVENUE, SUITE 2C
      ANCHORAGE, ALASKA 99503-2798         JUNEAU, ALASKA 99811-0300             ANCHORAGE, ALASKA 99501-2343
      PH: (907) 561-6131/FAX: (907) 561-6134  PH: (907) 465-3562/FAX: (907) 465-3075  PH: (907) 278-8594/FAX: (907) 272-0690

                                                            September 10, 1993

           To:           Alaska Coastal Management Program Participants

           Subject:      Coastal District Planning Questionnaire

           The Division of Governmental Coordination (DGC) is undertaking a project this fiscal year
            designed to revise, clarify and improve coastal district planning with an emphasis on special area
            management planning. The current Alaska Coastal Management Program (ACMP) coastal
            district and special area management planning process and regulations will be reviewed in
            conjunction with districts, state agencies, federal agencies and others, to prepare regulatory
            changes (at 6 AAC 80 and 6 AAC 85) and a planning manual. The project will draw from
            ACMP participant's experience with coastal management planning and implementation during
            the past decade. Other states' special area planning will also be evaluated.

            Special area management planning includes several planning approaches to manage coastal
            resources and activities. Some of the techniques used in Alaska include Areas Which Merit
            Special Attention (specified in the ACMP statutes and regulations), public use management
            plans, wetlands management plans, harbor management plans, and recreation river management
            plans.

            The enclosed questionnaire addresses the district planning process, plan content, and plan
            implementation and includes specific questions about special area management planning. Your
            responses to the enclosed questionnaire will help identify the successes of and suggest
            improvements to the district and special area management planning process and plan content.
            Your input will be used to help design a district planning manual and to revise, as needed, the
            ACMP district planning regulations.

    For your convenience, I have enclosed a stamped, addressed envelop and a copy of relevant
    portions of the ACMP statute (AS 46.40) and regulations (6 AAC 80 and 85). Please return
    the questionnaire to me by September 30, 1993. Thank you for taking the time to respond.
    You may call me at 465-8788 if you have questions.

                                                    Sincerely,

                                                    Sara L. Hunt
                                                    District Program Coordinator

                                                2

                           Distribution List

    Alaska Area Native Health Service, Anchorage
    Alaska Center for the Environment, Anchorage
    Coastal Environmental Activities, Anchorage
    Kake Non-Profit Fishery Corporation, Kake
    Murph Engineering, Petersburg
    NSRAA, Sitka
    Peratrovich, Nottingham & Drage, Inc. Juneau
    R & M Engineering, Juneau
    Seley Corporation, Ketchikan
    SSRAA, Ketchikan
    Toner-Nordling, Juneau
    Wilson Engineering, Juneau
    Mr. Frank Alby, City of Hydaburg, Hydaburg
    Ms. Tina Anderson, Aleutians East Borough, Sand Point
    Mr. Lonnie Anderson, City of Kake, Kake
    Mr. Bruce Bachen, NSRAA, Sitka
    Mr. Randolph Bayliss P.E., Juneau
    Ms. Liz Benson, Anchorage
    Ms. Patty Bielawski, Accord Environmental, Anchorage
    Ms. Molly Birnbaum, Dept. of Natural Resources, Anchorage
    Ms. Judith Bittner, DNR, Anchorage
    Ms. Mary Bixby, Office of Management and Budget, Juneau
    Mr. Jon Bolling, City of Craig, Craig
    Mr. Steven Borrell, Alaska Miners Association, Anchorage
    Mr. Tom Boullion, City of Bethel, Bethel
    Ms. Judith Brady, Alaska Oil and Gas Association, Anchorage
    Ms. Susan Braley, Dept. of Environmental Conservation, Juneau
    Mr. Zacharias Brink, Cenaliulriit, Bethel
    Ms. Susan Brook, Office of the Governor, Juneau
    Mr. Jerry Brossia, DNR, Anchorage
    Mr. Larry Bullis, Dept. of Natural Reources, Anchorage
    Ms. Janet Burleson, Dept. of Natural Resources, Juneau
    Ms. Marlene Campbell, Planning Department, Sitka
    Mr. George Cannelos, B&B Environmental, Anchorage
    Ms. Susan Cantor, Environmental Protection Agency, Anchorage
    Ms. Jan Caulfield, Community Development Department, Juneau
    Ms. Amy Crook, Dept. of Environmental Conservation, Juneau
    Mr. Paul Day, City of Nome, Nome
    Mr. Chuck Degnan, Bering Straits Coastal Mgmt. Program, Unalakleet
    Mr Tony DeGrange, US Fish and Wildlife Service, Anchorage
    Mr. David Dengel, Community Development, Valdez
    Ms. Carmen Denny, Office of Management and Budget, Anchorage
    Mr. Chas Dense, Office of the Governor,
    Mr. Larry Dugan, USFWS, Anchorage
    Ms. Nicole Faghin, Reid Middleton, Anchorage
    Ms. Sue Flensburg, Bristol Bay CRSA, Dillingham
    Ms. Linda Freed, Community Development, Kodiak
    Mr. Duane Gasaway, Wrangell
    Mr. Chris Gates, Division of Economic Development, Juneau
    Ms. Sally Gibert, Office of Management and Budget, Juneau

    Mr. Jim Glaspell, Eagle River
    Mr. John Gliva, Dept. of Community and Regional Affairs, Anchorage
    Mr. Glenn Gray, Office of the Governor, Juneau
    Mr. Andy Grossman, U.S. Fish & Wildlife Services, Juneau
    Mr. Ken Hammons, Alaska Pulp Corporation, Sitka
    Mr. Bill Hansen, Hansen Engineering, Juneau
    Mr. Dave Hardy, Dept. of Fish and Game, Sitka
    Mr. Tom Healy, City of Haines, Haines
    Ms. Faye Heitz, Office of Management and Budget, Anchorage
    Ms. Kerry Howard, Office of Management and Budget, Juneau
    Mr. Ken Hudson, Matanuska-Susitna Borough, Palmer
    Ms. Sara Hunt, Office of Management and Budget, Juneau
    Mr. Jon Isaacs, Isaacs and Associates, Anchorage
    Mr. Scott Janke, Bristol Bay Borough, Naknek
    Ms. Besty Jensvold, Office of Management and Budget, Juneau
    Mr. Nate Johnson, DTPF, Juneau
    Ms. Pauline Johnson, Angoon
    Mr. Robert Juettner, Aleutians East Borough, Anchorage
    Mr. Glenn Justis, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Anchorage
    Ms. Gretchen Keiser, Office of Management Budget, Juneau
    Ms. Elizabeth Kerttula, Dept. of Law, Juneau
    Mr. John King, NOAA/OCRM, Silver Spring
    Dr. K. Koski, National Marine Fisheries Service, Juneau
    Ms. Janet Kowalski, Office of Management and Budget, Juneau
    Ms. Gabrielle LaRoche, DCED, Juneau
    Mr. Tom Leavitt, Barrow
    Mr. Gordon Lewis, Community Planning, Seattle
    Mr. Robert Loescher, Sealaska Corporation, Juneau
    Mr. Leo Luczak, City of Petersburg, Petersburg
    Mr. Richard Madden, Ketchikan Pulp Company, Ketchikan
    Ms. Elaine Maki, Pelican
    Ms. Lorraine Marshall, Office of Management and Budget, Juneau
    Ms. Caren Mathis, City of St. Paul, Anchorage
    Mr. Jim McAllister, DNR, Juneau
    Ms. Maureen McCrea,Dept. of Interior, Anchorage
    Mr. Mike McKinnon, DOTPF, Juneau
    Mr. Don McKay, Dept. of Fish and Game, Anchorage
    Mr. Peter McKay, Dept. of Community and Regional Affairs, Juneau
    Ms. Beth McKibben, City of Yakutat, Yakutat
    Mr. Larry Merculief, City of St. Paul, St. Paul Island
    Ms. Christy Miller, DCRA, Anchorage
    Mr. Tom Mortenson, LCMF, Anchorage
    Mr. Gary Munsterman, Ketchikan Gateway Borough, Ketchikan
    Mr. David Nanney, Haines
    Mr. Mike Neimeyer, Calista Corporation, Anchorage
    Ms. Kris O'Connor, Dept. of Natural Resources, Anchorage
    Mr. Robert Oja, U.S. Army Corps of Enginners, Anchorage
    Mr. Al Ott, Dept. of Fish and Game, Fairbanks
    Mr. Jeffrey Ottesen, DTPF, Juneau
    Mr. Rodger Painter, Alaska Mariculture Association, Juneau
    Mr. Gary Paxton, City & Borough of Sitka, Sitka
    Ms. Mary Pearsall, Kenai Peninsula Borough, Soldotna
    Mr. Duane Petersen, U.S. Dept. of Commerce, Juneau
    Mr. Judd Peterson, Dept. of Natural Resources, Anchorage

    Mr. Alan Phipps, Alaska Center for the Environment, Anchorage
    Ms. Frankie Pillifant, Office of Management and Budget, Anchorage
    Mr. Robert Pinard, City of Hoonah, Hoonah
    Ms. Mary Lee Plumb-Mentjes, Corps of Engineers, Anchorage
    Mr. Rich Poor, DOT/PF, Juneau
    Mr. Steve Porter, ARCO Alaska, Inc., Anchorage
    Mr John Purcell, Lake and Peninsula Borough, King Salmon
    Mr. Larry Reeder, Regulatory Branch, Anchorage
    Ms. Darcy Richards, Aleutians West CRSA, Anchorage
    Mr. Dan Robison, Environmental Protection Agency, Anchorage
    Mr. Tim Rumfelt, Dept. of Environmental Conservation, Anchorage
    Mr. Walter Russell, Planning Dept., Kotzebue
    Ms. Janet Schempf, Dept. of Fish and Game, Douglas
    Mr. Glenn Seaman, Dept. of Fish and Game, Anchorage
    Mr. Stan Selmer, City of Skagway, Skagway
    Ms. Elizaveta Shadura, Dept. of Natural Resources, Juneau
    Ms. Barb Sheinberg, Juneau
    Ms. Carrie Skrzynski, Office of Management and Budget, Juneau
    Ms. Alyson Smith, Dames & Moore, Anchorage
    Ms. Roselyn Smith, DNR, Fairbanks
    Mr. Sam Sollie, Montgomery/Watson Engineering, Juneau
    Mr. Ed Soto, Haida Corporation, Hydaburg
    Mr. Tony Stigall, Stigall & Associates, Edmonds
    Mr. Gordon Thompson, Annette Natural Resources Center, Metlakatla
    Ms. Ginny Tierney, City of Thorne Bay, Thorne Bay
    Mr. Thede Tobish, Municipality of Anchorage, Anchorage
    Mr. Lance Trasky, DFG, Anchorage
    Ms. Roxanne Turner, Juneau
    Ms. Christine Valentine, Office of the Governor,
    Mr. Glen Vernon, Lake and Peninsula Borough, King Salmon
    Ms. Nancy Wainwright, Attorney at Law, Anchorage
    Ms. Nelda Warkentin, DCRA, Anchorage
    Mr. Randall Weiner, Anchorage
    Mr. Gary Williams, City of Whittier, Whittier
    Ms. Priscilla Wohl, Dept. of Environmental Conservation, Anchorage
    Mr. Ronald Wolfe, Klukwan Forest Products, Juneau
    Mr. Walt Wrede, City of Cordova, Cordova
    Mr. Marvin Yoder, Klawock

    Samp Distribution Question
    September 9, 1993

                                 QUESTIONNAIRE
                            Alaska Coastal Management Program
                                   Coastal District Planning
                                      September 10, 1993

    Your responses to this questionnaire 'will be used to help the Division of Governmental
    Coordination identify any concerns -with the ACMP district planning process or content of
    district plans and special area management plans. Your suggestions will be used to help design
    a District Planning Manual and revise the ACMP district planning regulations (6 AAC 80 and
    85).

    Name:                                     Do you -want a copy of a summary report
    Address:                                  on the responses to this questionnaire?
                                            Yes No

    Phone:
    Telefax:

    Please return this survey by September 30, 1993 to:            Sara Hunt
                                                                Div. of Governmental Coordination
                                                                P.O. Box 110030
                                                                Juneau, AK 99811-0030
                                                                Phone (907) 465-8788
                                                                Fax (907) 465-3075

    GENERAL QUESTIONS

    1.    Do you represent a: __ Coastal District -_ State Agency -_ Federal Agency
             Industry -Environmental Group __Citizen __Other

    2.     How long have you been involved in coastal management?

    PLAN CONTENT

    3.     Do you feel the ACMP Planning regulations (see 6 AAC 80 and 6 AAC 85 attached)
    provide clear guidance on the information that is required for the following subjects? Can you
    suggest any improvements?

    Yes   No    a) AMSA Designation (6 AAC 80.160 and 170):

    Yes   No    b) Needs, Objectives, Goals (6 AAC 85.020):

    Yes   No    c) Organization (6 AAC 85.030):

    Yes   No    d) Boundaries (6 AAC 85.040):

    Yes   No    e) Resource Inventory (6 AAC 85.050):

    Yes   No    f) Resource Analysis (6 AAC 85.060):

                                             2

    Yes   No    g) Subject Uses (6 AAC 85.070):

    Yes   No    h) Proper and Improper Uses (6 AAC 85.080):

    Yes   No    i) Policies (6 AAC 85.090):

    Yes   No    j) Implementation (6 AAC 85.100):

    Yes   No    k) Other:

    4. Do you use the issues, goals and objectives and the resource inventory and analysis to
    develop and implement enforceable policies? How could these elements of the plan be
    improved?

                                              3

    5. How should you determine which resources and activities will be inventoried and analyzed?

    6. How should you determine which uses/activities/issues -will be addressed in the district
    coastal management plan?

    7. What do you think about taking a "strategic planning" approach in the district coastal
    management plan -which would focus on the most important resources, uses and activities and
    critical issues during the resource inventory and analysis, rather than a comprehensive review
    of everything?

    ENFORCEABLE POLICIES

    8. Has the use of the enforceable policies of district coastal management plans or special area
    management plans addressed the resource analysis and met the needs, goals and objectives
    identified in the plan(s)?

    9. What do you see as a preferred approach to writing enforceable policy language?

                                                4

    PLANNING PROCESS

    10. Please identify and explain any concerns you have with the ACMP planning process
    described in 6 AAC 85.120 - 185. (The planning process includes submittal to the Coastal Policy
    Council as a significant amendment or routine implementation action, public involvement, public
    review, council review, mediation, effective date and local adoption.)

    11. Has it been your experience that the planning process follows the regulatory guidelines?
    Please explain.

    12. How could the planning process be improved?

    13. Should a scoping process to acquaint State and federal agencies with local concerns and
    to identify concerns or recommendations of State and federal agencies as well as local residents

                                                 5

    be required early in the development/revision of district coastal management plans? If so,
    why.

    SPECIAL AREA MANAGEMENT PLANS (SAMP) (includes areas which merit special
    attention, wetlands plans, public use management plans, harbor management plans, recreation river
    management plans, etc.)

    14.    (a) If you are referring to a particular SAMP in your response to these questions, please
    provide the name.

           (b) How has planning in an area designated as a SAMP furthered the goals of coastal
    management at the local level?

           (c) The criteria for AMSA designation are outlined in AS 46.40.210 (1) and 6 AAC
    80.158 (attached). Do you feel this criteria is        Adequate            Too broad
    Too limiting? Any suggestions?

    15. Should the regulations be modified to refer to other forms of special area management
    planning besides Areas Which Merit Special Attention (AMSA)?. Please explain.

    16. Can you list benefits from participating in the development and implementation of a
    SAMP your district has experienced?

                                                6

    17. Should the nomination of an AMSA within a coastal district's boundaries include
    justification that the AMSA is the preferred planning and management mechanism to meet the
    coastal districts objectives? (See 6 AAC 80.170.(6). Please explain.

    18. When is it more useful for a district to develop area or activity/resource specific policies
    in a district coastal management plan rather than develop a SAMP that focuses on a particular
    area of concern? For example, the City and Borough of Sitka developed a Public Use
    Management Plan which includes specific policies which apply to several special management
    areas within the borough. The Aleutians East Borough Coastal Management Plan includes
    special habitat policies that apply to designated special habitat policy areas within the borough.

    19. When is it more useful to develop a SAMP?

    20. Are there other State or local resource management plans or techniques that may be as
    or more effective than the SAMP at managing coastal resources and activities? Please describe.

                                                7

    PLAN IMPLEMENTATION(plan implementation includes theA CMPconsistency review process
    as well as othe local implementation techniques, such as shoreline, zoning, and subdidvision
    ordinances and building codes)

    21. Do you generally use the enforceable policies of the district coastal management plans or
    SAMPs in the ACMP consistency review process? If not, why not?

    22. If you are a coastal district, how do you implement the district plan or SAMP at the local
    level?

    23. Do you use the resource maps and resource inventory/analysis information included in
    the district coastal management plans and SAMPs? If not, why not?

    24. What are other sources of information you use to make consistency determinations or
    recommendations?

    25. What do you see as reoccurring problems with plan implementation including the
    consistency review process? Do you have suggestions for improvements?

    ACMP PLANNING MANUAL

    26. What type of information or guidance would be useful to include in an ACMP District
    Planning Manual?

    27. Do you use the District Implementation Manual (by the Office of the Governor, Division
    of Governmental Coordination, 1988)?

                                             9

    OTHER

    28. Any other comments?

                                       10

                           Summary of Responses
                              QUESTIONNAIRE
                         Alaska Coastal Management Program
                               Coastal District Planning
                                  November 16, 1993

    The Division of Governmental Coordination (DGC) solicited responses to this
    questionnaire during September and October 1993. The questionnaire was sent to
    coastal districts, state and federal agencies, industries, environmental groups, public
    citizens, and others (primarily planning consultants). The responses have provided us
    with insight regarding respondents' concerns about the ACMP district planning
    process and the content of district coastal zone and special area management
    (SAMP)/areas meriting special attention (AMSA) plans. In addition, the responses
    will aid in the design of a District Planning Manual and the determination of what, if
    any, revisions to the ACMP district planning regulations (6 AAC 80 and 85) are
    necessary.

    Each question has been restated and is followed by a summary of the responses to it.

         -GENERAL QUESTIONS

    I.Do you represent a: _  Coastal District __ State Agency  -  Federal Agency
       Industry - Environmental Group - Citizen __ Other

    We received responses from:
          11 Coastal District 5 State Agency  3 Federal Agency  3 Industry
          0 Environmental Groups  0 Citizen 2 Other   TOTAL: 23

    2.     How long have you been involved in coastal management?

          6 0-2 years 5 3-5 years 5 6-10 years 6 more than 10 years 2 no reply

    PLAN CONTENT

    3.     Do you feel the ACMP Planning regulations (see 6 AAC 80 and 6 AAC 85
    attached) provide clear guidance on the information that is required for the
    following subjects? Can you suggest any improvements?

    Yes    No     a) AMSA Designation (6 AAC 80.160 and 170):

          Most respondents stated that these regulations do provide clear guidance.
          However, a few concerns about extraterritorial AMSAs were raised by
          several respondents. This included the following responses: (1) the regulations

           for AMSAs within and outside districts are confusing, (2) stronger justification
           is needed for extraterritorial AMSAs and (3) a suggestion that the Coastal
           Policy Council be responsible for preparing extraterritorial plans.

    Yes   No    b) Needs, Objectives, Goals (6 AAC 85.020):

           Respondents indicated that these regulations do provide clear guidance. Those
           respondents who felt the regulations could use some clarification asked that the
           terms needs, goals, and objectives be defined and that it be clearly stated what
           types of needs, goals, and objectives are appropriate under the ACMP. In
           addition, a few respondents stated that there is a need for methodology for
           needs/goals/objectives development and measurement of attainment.

    Yes   No    c) Organization (6 AAC 85.030):

           Except for a few concerns that the funding and staff requirements outlined in
           these regulations are confusing, most respondents stated that clear guidance is
           provided.

    Yes   No    d) Boundaries (6 AAC 85.040):

           Most respondents indicated that the boundaries regulations provide clear
           guidance. Areas indicated as being problematic included: the relationship
           between coastal zone and municipal boundaries, and the relationship of
           federal lands/jurisdiction to coastal districts and their boundaries.

    Yes   No    e) Resource Inventory (6 AAC 85.050):
                         AND
    Yes   No    f) Resource Analysis (6 AAC 85.060):

           Respondents were closely split as to whether these regulations provide clear
           guidance. It was suggested that districts should be allowed to focus on
           resources/uses/activities that are most important to them instead of mandating
           a comprehensive approach (i.e. strategic planning). In addition, there was
           some desire for DGC to outline the methodologies that could be used for
           preparing the inventories/analyses. Industry respondents expressed concerns
           that economic factors were not required to be part of the inventories/analyses,
          but coastal economics do not fall under the ACMP.

    Yes   No    g) Subject Uses (6 AAC 85.070):
                         AND
    Yes   No    h) Proper and Improper Uses (6 AAC 85.080):

          Most respondents stated that these regulations provide clear guidance.

                                             2

           However, those who disagreed focused on two areas: (1) subject and
           proper/improper uses need to be better defined, including a description of
           what uses WIl under the ACMIP and (2 ) the sections should be combined.

    Yes   No    i) Policies (6 AAC 85.090):

           The district respondents did not identify any problems with these
           regulations. All but two state respondents agreed that these regulations
           provide clear guidance. Concerns expressed by the state respondents were that
           the districts need to clarify how policies relate to state and federal
           requirements and identify how the policies will be enforced at the local
           level.- One State respondent also felt that the regulations contained
           unnecessary language and should be rewritten.

    Yes   No    j) Implementation (6 AAC 85.100):

           Nearly all respondents stated that these regulations provide clear guidance.
           Those few respondents who disagreed indicated that problems are: (1) unclear
           explanation of requirements, (2) a need to indicate more implementation
           methods available to districts, and (3) conflicts over policy interpretation.

    Yes   No    k) Other:

           Few respondents had additional comments. However, one state respondent
           suggested that State and local implementation, not regulations, is the
           problem. This respondent was also concerned about DGC and the state
           resource agencies giving the districts inconsistent advice over time. Other
           state responses were that the public participation requirements need to be
           clarified and plans and policies should be tied to public need.

    4. Do you use the issues, goals and objectives and the resource inventory and
    analysis to develop and implement enforceable policies? How could these
    elements of the plan be improved?

           Districts do use the issues, goals, and objectives and the resource
           inventories/analyses to develop and implement their enforceable policies.
           Several districts did mention that they are limited by finances, time and
           politics. As for suggestions of how to improve these plan elements, the
           responses were highly variable.

    5. How should you determine which resources and activities will be inventoried
    and analyzed?

                                             3

                        AND
    6. How should you determine which uses/activities/issues will be addressed in the
    district coastal management plan?

           The districts gave three dominate answers to this question: (1) local input,
           including locals, local interest groups, and local government, (2) historical
           review, (3) thoroughly (comprehensively?) investigate resources/activities.
           The State respondents favored a strategic planning approach. The remaining
           respondents indicated that selection should be based on existing state laws and
           regulations, local input, and the availability of financial and informational
           resources.

    7. What do you think about taking a "strategic planning" approach in the
    district coastal management plan which would focus on the most important
    resources, uses and activities and critical issues during the resource inventory and
    analysis, rather than a comprehensive review of everything?

           The majority of respondents expressed strong support for a strategic
           planning approach. Most indicated that this approach was critically needed
           due to limited financial and other resources for planning. However, several
           respondents expressed a concern that certain types of resources would be
           completely excluded when maybe they should be discussed to a lesser degree.
           Several respondents strongly stated that comprehensive resource
           inventories/analyses are needed.

    ENFORCEABLE POLICIES

    8. Has the use of the enforceable policies of district coastal management plans or
    special area management plans addressed the resource analysis and met the
    needs, goals and objectives identified in the plan(s)?

           Respondents were closely divided as to whether issues, goals and objectives
           have been met via implementation of district enforceable policies. The
           problem areas indicated by respondents are: (1) policy interpretation, (2)
           extraterritorial AMSAs, (3) unenforceable policies, and (4) policies are not
           always linked to the needs, goals and objectives.

    9. What do you see as a preferred approach to writing enforceable policy
    language?

           The most frequent response given was that policies need to be written in
           clear, concise, and simple language. Other suggestions included: (1) back up
          policies with strong definitions, (2) clearly tie policies to objectives, and (3)

                                             4

          clearly state how the policies will be implemented/enforced.  Conecerns about
          using "canned" language for policies and that enforcement, not the policies, is
           the biggest problem were also expressed by respondents.

    PLANNING PROCESS

    10. Please identify and explain any concerns you have with the ACMP planning
    process described in 6 AAC 85.120 - 185. (The planning process includes
    submittal to the Coastal Policy Council as a significant amendment or routine
    implementation action, public involvement, public review, council review,
    mediation, effective date and local adoption.)

           The dominate concerns respondents raised about the ACMP planning process
           is that it takes too much money and time in relation to what is available.
           Another prominent concern is that the amendment process is too complex and
           confusing. A criticism from both the districts and various state respondents is
           that the districts learn about agencies' concerns too late in the planning
           process and then do not have enough time to respond. Other suggestions were
           that the State and districts should meet more often - to improve
           coordination/cooperation, deadlines should be extended due to agency/staff
           shortages, federal involvement needs to be increased and DGC must be more
           aware that policy rewrites often do not reflect the districts' intent for the
          policies.

    It. Has it been your experience that the planning process follows the regulatory
    guidelines? Please explain.

          Most respondents indicated that the planning process does follow regulatory
          guidelines. However, comments submitted to the districts past specified
           deadlines were mentioned as a problem by several respondents.

    12. How could the planning process be improved?

          Responses to this question were highly variable. The most common response
          was that districts need more money and want the process to take less time.
          Several other respondents agreed that the process takes too long. Additionally,
          districts would like reviewers to submit comments on time and suggest
          changes earlier in the process. Both the districts and state felt that issues need
          to be discussed early in the process and a interagency/district meeting might
          be an appropriate means for doing Uhs. One state respondent also suggested
          that DGC concentrate more resources on fewer plans. One district suggested
           that all plans need to be updated to incorporate new events, issues or
           regulations.

    13. Should a scoping process to acquaint State and federal agencies with local
    concerns and to identify concerns or recommendations of State and federal
    agencies as well as local residents be required early in the development/revision
    of district coastal management plans? If so, why.

          Almost all respondents expressed support for a scoping process. This was
          viewed as a route for the state/federal agencies to be made aware of the local
          perspective and a way to involve the local community and expertise.
          However, some respondents suggested that this could be an optional stage,
          with the choice left to the districts. One district felt that this was unnecessary
          and that the plan should just reflect the needs the district identified.

    SAM~s (includes AMSAs, wetlands plans, public use management plans, harbor
    management plans, recreation river management plans, etc.)

    14.    (a) If you are referring to a particular SAMT in your response to these
    questions, please provide the name.

          (b) How has planning in an area designated as a SAMP furthered the
    goals of coastal management at the local level?

          In general, those districts that responded stated that AMSAs/SAMPs provide
          greater local control for areas with high resource values/growth. Those who
          indicated that goal achievement has been hindered cited enforceable policies
          and state/federal agency implementation as the problems.

           (c) The criteria for AMSA designation are outlined in AS 46.40.210 (1)
    and 6 AAC 80.158 (attached). Do you feel this criteria is _Adequate
    Too broad  __Too limiting? Any suggestions?

          6 District, 2 Federal, 2 Industry, I Other = 11 Adequate
           I District, 2 State =3 Too Broad
           I District, I Other =2 Too Limiting

    15. Should the regulations be modified to refer to other forms of SAWPS besides
    AMSAs?. Please explain.

          Respondents were almost evenly divided as to whether the AMSA regulations
          should allow other forms of SAMP. Respondents expressed interest in SAMPs
          for watersheds (iLe drinking water), wetlands, recreation areas, and important

                                            6

           use or single issue areas. Those who do not want the regulations modified
           stated that there are already too many types of AMSAs, the guidelines need to
           be improved first, and suggested that many local district can prepare and
           implement SAMPs without it being an AMSA.

    16. Can you list benefits from participating in the development and
    implementation of a SAMP your district has experienced?

           Districts listed the following benefits: (1) greater local control/participation,
           (2) special status to be considered by state/federal agencies, (3) greater level
           of detail in plan and (4) facilitates permitting. Other respondents stated that
           the increased local control and status given to areas are the greatest benefits.

    17. Should the nomination of an AMSA within a coastal district's boundaries
    include justification that the AMSA is the preferred planning and management
    mechanism to meet the coastal districts objectives? (See 6 AAC 80.170.(6).
    Please explain.

           Most respondents indicated that AMSAs should be justified. In particular,
           they felt that districts should clarify why this was the best method and how the
           plan would relate to their coastal zone management plans. Some districts felt
           that local support should be sufficient.

    18. When is it more useful for a district to develop area or activity/resource
    specific policies in a district coastal management plan rather than develop a
    SAMP that focuses on a particular area of concern? For example, the City and
    Borough of Sitka developed a Public Use Management Plan which includes
    specific policies which apply to several special management areas within the
    borough. The Aleutians East Borough Coastal Management Plan includes special
    habitat policies that apply to designated special habitat policy areas within the
    borough.

           There were highly variable responses to this question. Some respondents
           seemed to indicate that the decision is highly situation-dependent. Several
           respondents stated that AMSAs were never really necessary.

    19. When is it more useful to develop a SAMP?

           There was more agreement among respondents to this question than to the
          previous question. Many respondents felt that SAMPs are appropriate when
          issues/areas are complex, controversial, very unique, or are of high value.
          In these cases, respondents indicated that detailed resource analyses and
          policies are usually required.

                                             7

    20. Are there other State or local resource management plans or techniques that
    may be as or more effective than the SAMP at managing coastal resources and
    activities? Please describe.

           Most districts stated that there are not better techniques than SAMPs. Other
           respondents stated that other local implementation methods, particularly local
           comprehensive plans, DNR area plans, and zoning, were preferable in many
           cases.

    PLAN LNIMPLEMENTATION (plan implementation includes the ACMP consistency
    review process as well as other local implementation techniques, such as shoreline,
    zoning, and subdivision ordinances and building codes)

    21. Do you generally use the enforceable policies of the district coastal
    management plans or SAM~s in the ACMP consistency review process? If not,
    why not?

           The districts strongly indicated that they do use the enforceable policies. One
           state respondent indicated that the agency relies on district input during
           reviews because the agency is not an expert on the local plans.

    22. If you are a coastal district, how do you implement the district plan or
    SAVtP at the local level?

           The primary methods used are: (1) zoning/ordinances, (2) local consistency
           reviews, (3) responses to the State regarding permits/project reviews, and (4)
           local permits. Other methods cited included public meetings, on-site reviews,
           and development comprehensive land use plans.

    23. Do you use the resource maps and resource inventory/analysis information
    included in the district coastal management plans and SAMPs? If not, why not?

           Most respondents stated that they use this information. Several districts
           stated that they did not use the information regularly or that it needed to be
           revised. All other respondents, with the exception of a state respondent,
           indicated that the plans are a good information source. The state respondent
           stated that the agency relies on district input and expertise instead of consulting
          plans.

    24. What are other sources of information you use to make consistency
    determinations or reconmmendations?

           The districts use the following sources of information: (1) public hearings,

                                             8

           (2) agency advice, (3) applicant input, (4) other local plans/regulations and
           (5) input from the local government. Other respondents indicated that they
           use agency advice, regulations, policies, guides, and documents.

    25. What do you see as reoccurring problems with plan implementation
    including the consistency review process? Do you have suggestions for
    improvements?

           A variety of problems were identified by respondents. The districts identified
           policy interpretation, lack of jurisdiction on surrounding lands, lack of
           public support, and insufficient staff as recurring problems. State and
           federal respondents indicated that district implementation and enforcement
           are problems. One state respondent also highlighted "homeless" stipulations
           as an enforcement problem. A federal respondent sharply criticized that
           projects are always found to be consistent with the ACMP and district plans.
           One consultant stated that locals often do not understand coastal zone
           management, and this serves as an impediment to local implementation.

           ACMP PLANNING MANUAL

    26. What type of information or guidance would be useful to include in an
    ACMP District Planning Manual?

           Districts expressed a desire for the following types of information and
           guidance to be included in the planning manual: (1) policy writing, (2) new
           issues, (3) mapping, (4) methodologies for resource inventories/analyses, (5)
           references for regulations, (6) list of contacts, (7) implementation methods,
           (8) sections on various types of planning considerations (ex. cultural
           resources). The remaining respondents suggested that DGC include
           information on coastal resources, examples of all plan elements, and examples
           of ideal boundary and resource maps.

    27. Do you use the District Imnlementation Manual (by the Office of the
    Governor, Division of Governmental Coordination, 1988)?

           Few respondents use the manual. In addition, many respondents indicated
          that they had never seen the manual.

    OTHER

    28. Any other comments?

          There were few additional comments and those offered were highly variable.

                                             9

    APPENDIX C

    TELEPHONE SURVEY                                  Christine Valentine 465-3177 Fx. 465-3075
    COASTAL DISTRICTS                                 DGC/P.O. Box 110030/Juneau 99811

    Background Info:

    Name (optional):

    District Type:

    # Years in Coastal Zone Mgmt.(CZM):

    (A) State Consistency Review Process (SCRP):

           (1) Is the SCRP the primary method your district uses to implement its coastal plan
           or plans?    Yes    No    Please explain:

           (2) EXCEPT CRSAs, what other methods are used and have they been more
           successful than the SCRP for your district? Please explain:

           (3) Can you highlight any project types (for example, dealing with particular
           resources, activities or uses) for which consistency reviews have been problematic for
           the district?    Yes     No      Don't Know         Please explain:

           (4) Based on your experience, can you list any obstacles to successful

           use/implementation of your district policies via the SCRP? Please explain:

           (5) Can you offer any suggestions on how the SCRP could be changed to better
           facilitate the needs of the coastal districts?

           (6) Would you agree or disagree that consistency stipulations are being enforced and
           monitored within your district.  agree   disagree

           Please explain:

    (B) Coastal District Policies:

           (1) Have your district's enforceable policies covered the projects/problems and issues
           that have been prevalent within the district?      Yes   No       Don't Know

           Please explain

                  (a) If No, can you give examples of types of policies or issues that the district
                  would like its plan to include?

    (2) Has interpretation of your enforceable policies been a problem at either the local
    or state level?    Yes    No    Which?_____   Please explain:

    (3) Has the district had any trouble with conflicting, non-prioritized policies that
    apply concurrently to projects?   Yes    No        Don't Know  Please explain:

           (a) IF YES, how do you decide what has top priority?

    (4) Has your district discovered that any of its policies are based on inaccurate
    assumptions about the cause of a problem and the means required to alleviate the
    problem? (For example, having a policy that protects fish habitat to eliminate or
    slow the decline of a particular fish species when in fact the problem might be
    degraded water quality as well as loss of habitat which is not addressed by a policy.
    Yes    No       Don't Know   Please explain:

    (5) Does your district have any enforceable policies that require various actions on
    its part or by the applicant (ex. review of documents, site visits, studies, etc.)?
    Yes    No    Don't Know

           (a) IF YES, Have you had problems taking the required actions or having
           applicants take the required actions?

    (C) Implementation Resources:

    There are many types of resources that are necessary for implementation of policies to be
    successful. I am going to ask you a few questions about the availability of some of the
    more basic resources. The goal is to identify which resources are most abundant and most
    scarce relative to each other.

           (1) Financial Resources: Are these   adequate        inadequate

                  (a) If you were given more $ and could use it for one or more of the
                  following tasks, which would you characterize as the greatest and lowest
                  priorities for your district? If you feel that all areas are in equal need of $
                  resources, then please indicate this. If you are not sure, then please indicate
                  this.

                                    policy/plan amendments
                                    policy/plan implementation via the SCRP
                                    policy/plan implementation via local methods
                                      (not CRSAs)
                                    monitoring/enforcement of consistency stipulations
                                    equal needs
                                    Don't Know

                  Please explain:

           (2) Knowledge/Skills and Availability of Staff:

                  (a) Does your district require particular skills or knowledge of staff hired for
                  positions involving the SCRP? Please explain:

                         (1) Have you been able to secure staff with this knowledge/these
    skills?                            Yes   No

                  (b) Is the lack of adequate staff to implement your policies via the SCRP a
                  problem? Yes   No        Don't Know    Please explain:

           (c) How are your staff trained about the district's CZM goals, policies and
          the SCRP/ACMiP?

    (3) Information:
           (a) Has your district had problems using/implementing its enforceable
          policies via the SCRP because of insufficient baseline information (for
          example inadequate review packets, inadequate resource or use info. in
          resource inventories and other sources, inadequate info. on likely impacts,
          etc.)?
              Yes    No       Don't Know          Please explain:

    (4) Other:
           (a) Would you say that the local support, including community members and
          the local government, for CZM and your district's participation in the SCRP
          is:  very strong     strong      adequate       low     very low*

          Please explain:

           (b) Do you feel that there is a need for more public education (including
          community members, local government, staff, etc.) in regard to CZM issues
          or the SCRP within your district? Yes        No      Don't Know

          Please explain:

          (c) Are there any special interest groups or industries who are actively
          involved in coastal activities or management within your district - for ex.
          frequent project applicants or those who frequently comment on projects

                 within your district?  Yes      No       Don't Know         Please explain.

                  (d) Have any major socioeconomic changes occurred in your district since its
                  plan and policies were adopted and if so, has this affected the district's
                 participation in the SCRP?   Yes       No      Don't Know

                  Please explain:

    (D) Closing Questions:

           (1) Has your district ever conducted a formal evaluation of the results of
          participation in the SCRP      Yes    No          Please explain:

                  IF YES,
                  (a) Can I receive a copy of this report?    Yes    No

           (2) Can you quickly list a few benefits that your district has received from preparing
          and implementing policies via the SCRP?

          (3) Can you quickly list a few costs that your district has incurred from preparing
          and implementing policies via the SCRP?

           (4) Would you agree that the district has furthered its CZM goals and objectives by
          participating in the SCRP?   agree       disagree

           (5) Do you have any other comments, concerns, or suggestions?

    That's the end - Thanks for your time!!!!!

    revised 1/7/94

               SUMMARY OF RESULTS - COASTAL DISTRICTS SURVEY
                   Implementation via the State Consistency Review Process

    Background Info:
    District Type:
                 10 = City           OR    58.82 % (Total of 17)
                 06 = Borough        OR    54.55 % (Total of 11)
                 03 = CRSA           OR    75.00 % (Total of 04)
    Totals:       19                   OR    59.38 % (Total of 32)

    # Years in Coastal Zone Management (ACMP or other):
                 04 = 00-05
                 12 = 06-10
                 03 = 11-15

    (A) State Consistency Review Process (SCR.P:

          (1) Is the SCRP the primary method your district uses to implement its coastal
          plan or plans?
                 City          5 = Yes    5 = No
                 Borough   3 = Yes    3 = No
          Totals:              8             8

          Please explain:
          *** elocal land use powers used more or as frequently
                 elocal land use powers better method
          ***    eyes but supplement with local land use powers
          *      *no local land use powers
                 *:coastal policies incorporated in local land use code
                 *not enough staff to adequately review projects through SCRP

          CRSAs offered the following suggestions about making the SCRP work well:
                 eneed to have 1st class cities adopt plan in ordinances
                 e need good working relationships with state resource agency staff

          (2) EXCEPT CRSAs, what other methods are used and have they been more
          successful than the SCRP for your district?
          All 16 non-CRSA respondents answered

          Please explain:
          *** elocal code - zoning, subdivision ordinances, development permits,
                 building standards, GP for wetlands
          *** eno methods other than SCRP
          ***  eSCRP and local methods equally effective/used in conjunction
          *** elocal methods more effective - more specific and local control, state not
                 concerned with local issues

           *potential for local implementation not yet realized in district

    (3) Can you highlight any project types (for example, dealing with particular
    resources, activities or uses) for which consistency reviews have been problematic
    for the district?
           City          6 = Yes       2 = No         2 = Don't Know
           Borough       6 = Yes        0 = No        0 = Don't Know
           CRSA          2 = Yes        I = No        0 = Don't Know
    Totals:               14            3             2

    Please explain:
    ISSUE-RELATED:
    ***    coil and gas - leases, plans, development, energy facilities, oil spill
           contingency plans
    ***    *wetlands fill projects, including unauthorized fills
           *dredge/fill projects - local process is complex
           *airport projects - trouble with applicant compliance with local policies
           e mariculture
           osubsistence - state has little/no respect for Native knowledge,
           expertise, concerns
           *erosion repair/bank stabilization
           *stream setbacks - have ACMP and non-ACMP setback policies
           *water quality permits - local policies stronger than state regulations
    PROCESS-RELATED:
           *SCRP does not really allow public participation
           *DNR does reviews of single permits when should be DGC review
           *resource agencies forget to contact districts during single-agency reviews
           estate often forgets to contact districts - about reviews or other
           *sometimes don't hear about project until Corps public notice or SCRP
           *one case when city needed state aid to enforce

    (4) Based on your experience, can you list any obstacles to successful
    use/implementation of your district policies via the SCRP?
    17 (of 19) respondents answered

    Please explain:
    *** elocal policies are vague and open to interpretation
    *** einsufficient resources for state and local implementation/monitoring
    C***    *state agencies don't use or respect local policies
    *** estate agencies misuse local policies - take authority away from locals
           estate agencies always want very specific stipulations/local policies don't
           allow
           estate agencies need native employees
            communication with state resource agencies is poor
           *only DFG uses district plans and contacts districts
           *low public awareness and education about coastal issues in district

           *local goals, issues and objectives need revision
           *local politics interferes with coastal management
           elocal ordinances not completely consistent with local coastal plan
           *review deadlines too short
            local permitting timelines ignored by state
           *projects do not always receive thorough attention with SCRP
           *district can't enforce on native lands
           *federal government controls coastal zone management

    (5) Can you offer any suggestions on how the SCRP could be changed to better
    facilitate the needs of the coastal districts?
    16 of 19 respondents answered

    Please explain:
    ***    *increase local control over SCRP and ACMP, in general - due deference is
           not given
           * process is too complex and cumbersome - simplify where possible for ex.
           same procedures for all lands
           * process needs more flexibility - allow extensions or longer deadlines
    **    e*obtaining information can be a problem - agency comments and other
           * improve relationships between districts and state resource agencies - districts
           need to receive state resource agency comments, needs these comments
           sooner to respond, agencies misuse local plans, agencies ignore local
           authority, clarify what the agencies implementation responsibilities are
           *difficult to coordinate local and SCRP review - can't always complete local
           review in time to submit consistency comments/state should follow local
           timeline
           *list local permits on CPQ
           *DGC needs to better coordinate with Corps review process
           *need to highlight SCRP issues for applicants - use checklist
           *place more emphasis on preapplication meetings
           *give DGC role to DCRA - DCRA more sensitive to local problems
           *DGC expects districts to respond to many non-local projects

    (6) Would you agree or disagree that consistency stipulations are being enforced
    and monitored within your district?
           10 = agree   7 =  disagree 2 - don't know

    Please explain:
    **$     *estate resource agencies do little monitoring/enforcement
    F""b   *state and local governments financially incapable of much monitoring and
           enforcement/need staff/bigger problem as budgets shrink
    ***    edo not monitor/enforce locally
    *** O*local enforcement and monitoring occurs
           *few district stipulations on consistency determinations, etc.
           $stipulations only enforced when applicant agrees to follow

                 *try to have project changed instead of stipulating changes

    (B) Coastal District Policies:

          (1) Have your district's enforceable policies covered the projects/problems and
          issues that have been prevalent within the district?
                 City          6 = Yes    3 = No    1 = Don't Know
                 Borough       I = Yes        4 = No         1 = Don't Know
                 CRSA          3 = Yes    0 = No    0 = Don't Know
          Totals:               10            7              2

          Please explain
                 *old plan - need to add policies
          ***~'~ sold plan - need to revise all policies because vague/non-enforceable
                 *not applicable because plan is new
                 *DGC does not accept local policy interpretation
                 *want to expand boundaries to incorporate an AMSA
                 *wanted policies stronger than state standards - not allowed
                 *have general policies that help locals support projects - specific policies
                 would need to be updated too often

                 (a) If No, can you give examples of types of policies or issues that the
                 district would like its plan to include?
                 ~* * oil and gas related
                 ***'  subsistence - state standard should address allocation
                        water quality impacts from urban development
                        floodplains
                        public access
                        waterfront/port projects
                        nonpoint source pollution
                        cumulative and secondary impacts
                        wetlands fills

          (2) Has interpretation of your enforceable policies been a problem at either the
          local or state level?
                 City          2 = Yes   7 = No    1 = Don't Know
                 Borough       5 = Yes        I = No         0 = Don't Know
                 CRSA          I = Yes    2 = No    0 = Don't Know
          Totals:               8              10            1

          Please explain:
          Borough
          ***   estate resource agencies misinterpret district policies and then cite in
                 comments
                 eDGC overrides and manipulates local interpretation of policies
                 estate agencies ignore local goals and objectives found in plan

           eapply plan differently during purely local reviews - unclear how local land
           use powers and ACMP mesh
           *stream setbacks - local ACMP and non-ACMP policies conflict

    City/CRSA
           estate interprets policies differently than locals
           eproblems with subsistence policies
           *new plan but has some vague policies that could cause problems
           eproblems with AMSA that is part inside and part outside district
           boundaries

    (3) Has the district had any trouble with conflicting, non-prioritized policies that
    apply concurrently to projects?
           4 = Yes       11 = No       3 = Don't Know    1 = No Answer

    Please explain:
           *some goals and objectives conflict - either with each other or with State
           standards
           epolicies are not prioritized so potential for problems
           e mariculture reviews - existing uses

           (a) IF YES, how do you decide what has top priority?
                 case-by-case application - use common sense
                 local needs have top priority

    (4) Has your district discovered that any of its policies are based on inaccurate
    assumptions about the cause of a problem and the means required to alleviate
    the problem? (For example, having a policy that protects fish habitat to
    eliminate or slow the decline of a particular fish species when in fact the
    problem might be degraded water quality as well as loss of habitat which is not
    addressed by a policy.)
           City          0 =    Yes    8 = No    2 = Don't Know
          Borough       3 = Yes       3 = No         0 = Don't Know
          CRSA          0 = Yes    3 = No    0 = Don't Know
    Totals:              3              14            2

    Please explain:
    Borough
           *no factual basis for many policies
           * buffers addressed separately from timber policies
           ecan't foresee future - policies often inaccurate
           epolicies are general - don't have such specific problems

    City/CRSA
           *this should be answered at planning stage
           estate has not provided information on fisheries cycles

                 0 unenforceable policies are the biggest problem
                 *new plan - no problems yet

          (5) Does your district have any enforceable policies that require various actions
          on its part or by the applicant (ex. review of documents, site visits, studies, etc.)?
                 I1 I  Yes    5 -,No        2 - Don't Know    I = No Answer

          Please explain:
                 Ocombination of local and applicant actions required
                 estate agency has tried to require too much of applicants based on local
                 stream policy

                 (a) IF YES, Have you had problems taking the required actions or having
                 applicants take the required actions?
                 4=- Yes                                  4 =No
                  *understaffed                            *enforce if necessary
                 elocal politics interferes               *potential - can require studies
                 * federal agencies change stipulations
                 without notifying local government              2 = No Answer
                 *biggest problem is people who do
                 not apply for any permits

    (C) Implementation Resources:

    There are many types of resources that are necessary for implementation of policies to be
    successful. I am going to ask you a few questions about the availability of some of the
    more basic resources. The goal is to identify which resources are most abundant and most
    scarce relative to each other.

          (1) Financial Resources: Are these:
                 4 =adequate 12  -inadequate              3   -No Answer

                 (a) If you were given more $ and could use it for one or more of the
                 following tasks, which would you characterize as the greatest and lowest
                 priorities for your district? If you feel that all areas are in equal need of
                 $ resources, then please indicate this. If you are not sure, then please
                 indicate this.
                 18 of 19 respondents answered

                 City
                 #1 Priority - implementation via local methods
                 #2 Priority = policy/plan amendments & monitoring and enforcement
                 #3 Priority = implementation via the SCRP

                 Borough
                 #1 Priority = policy/plan amendments

          #2 Priority = implementation via local methods/monitoring and
          enforcement
          #3 Priority = implementation via the SCRP

          CRSA
          No Dominate Response

          * would only amend if could do locally - state process too time and
          financially intensive/another said need to amend but process too cumbersome
          and time consuming
          eplan needs to assist in development of local land use regulations
          etwo districts asked for $ for special studies or issue projects
          *one districts asked for $ for hiring more staff
          elocal controls easier to apply and more useful
          emonitoring and enforcement is rare - district can't do often

    (2) Knowledge/Skills and Availability of Staff:

          (a) Does your district require particular skills or knowledge of staff hired
          for positions involving the SCRP?
          City          3 = Yes    6 = No    I = No Answer
          Borough       5 = Yes        1 = No        0 = No Answer
          CRSA          2 = Yes    I = No    0 = No Answer
    Totals:              10             8             1

          Please explain:
                 *planning experience
                 *on-the-job training
                 *diverse experience
                 *knowledge of local concerns/traditions

                 (1) Have you been able to secure staff with this knowledge/these
                 skills?
                 8 = Yes   2 = No

          (b) Is the lack of adequate staff to implement your policies via the SCRP
          a problem?
          8 = Yes   9 - No    1 = Don't Know  1 = No Answer

          Please explain:
                 Cinadequate funding provided by local government
                 *echallenge to participate/can't fully participate
                 elocal politics does not allow hiring additional staff
          *** eneed to increase staffs technical knowledge as well as # - too much
                 reliance on state agencies
                 *staff training/travel not covered by CZM grants

          (c) How are your staff trained about the district's CZM goals, policies and
          the SCRP/ACMP?
          17 of 19 respondents answered

          *** estaff review local plans and ACMIP
          *** emeetings/trainings held by DGC and DCRA
                 *on-the-job training
           ***ea few districts stated that staff are not trained

    (3) Information:
          (a) Has your district had problems using/implementing its enforceable
          policies via the SCRP because of insufficient baseline information (for
          example inadequate review packets, inadequate resource or use info. in
          resource inventories and other sources, inadequate info. on likely impacts,
          etc.)?
          8 = Yes       11 = No       0 = Don't Know

          Please explain:
          ***   eif review packets are inadequate, request information
          *      *no local resources to obtain information when needed
           *** ereview packets sometimes contain insufficient information
                 0 review packet should contain analysis of likely impacts as well as
                 resource/use information
                 *state agencies rely on antidotal information - say will monitor and
                 enforce but don't or use as reason to be restrictive
                 *baseline information insufficient
                 *too much emphasize on wetlands - ignores non-wetlands habitats in
                 districts that are more important
                 *need to update plan's resource inventory
                 *need more pre-application meetings to obtain information

    (4) Other:
          (a) Would you say that the local support, including community members
          and the local government, for CZM and your district's participation i.n
          the SCRP is:
           1 = very strong      (some respondents gave more than one answer)
          2 - strong
                            13.64% of responses
           11 I adequate
          6 = low
          3   very low
                           86.36% of responses

          Please explain:
           ***  egreater support from local government than public
          ***  egreater support from public than local government

                 *epublic/local government lack of interest or understanding
                 *depends on issue/project
                 elocals think district should have more control over SCRP
                 epublic supports unless NIMBY or person's own project
                 *public/government interested in issues not SCRP

          (b) Do you feel that there is a need for more public education (including
          community members, local government, staff, etc.) in regard to CZM
          issues or the SCRP within your district?
          16 = Yes       1 = No        1 = Don't Know   1 = No Answer

          Please explain:
          *** elocals don't understand or value district plan
          ***  etry to educate through local methods - ex. public hearings,
                 neighborhood meetings, DCRA sponsored trainings, develop
                 management measures for local creek, planning commission trainings
          ~    *important but not district's highest priority
                 Opublic will always be opposed to governmental regulations
                 e local government resists education attempts
                 estate/federal agencies need education about local concerns
                 =other local departments submit projects that are not consistent with
                 local coastal policies

          (c) Are there any special interest groups or industries who are actively
          involved in coastal activities or management within your district - for ex.
          frequent project applicants or those who frequently comment on projects
          within your district?
           I- = Yes      6 = No         1 = Don't Know   1 = No answer

          Please explain:
          * * * e industrial groups - timber, fisheries-related, oil and gas
          ~    *environmental groups
          ~    *native corporations
                 estate and federal public works agencies
                 * real estate developers
                 elocal chamber of commerce

          (d) Have any major socioeconomic changes occurred in your district since
          its plan and policies were adopted and if so, has this affected the district's
          participation in the SCRP?
          City          6 = Yes 2 = No  I = Don't Know  I = No Answer
          Borough       3 = Yes 3 = No    0 = Don't Know    0 = No Answer
          CRSA          I = Yes 2 = No    0 = Don't Know    0 = No Answer
    Totals:              10        8           1                     1

          Please explain:

                 ***   *more development/growth - ex. local government broke, increased
                        development of private lands, development more widespread than
                        anticipated
                 ***   *certain types of project have increased - ex. non-timber projects,
                        timber, oil and gas, tourism-related
                        splan only covers small area so changes haven't affected role in SCRP
                        e reduction in conflicting land uses accomplished through coastal
                        management
                        eincreased road access increases the potential for major changes
                        e economic recession and population loss - lower local and state
                        resources but fewer projects

    (D) Closing Ouestions:

          (1) Has your district ever conducted a formal evaluation of the results of
          participation in the SCRP?
          0 = Yes       19 = No

          (2) Can you quickly list a few benefits that your district has received from
          preparing and implementing policies via the SCRP?
           17 of 19 respondents answered

          *** -=more local involvement and influence over state/federal reviews
          *** -*district informed of projects, issues
          $*$ -*early identification of projects, problems, controversies
                 simproved protection for coastal resources, uses, or activities
                 * have developed relationships with state agencies - receive input
          ***    *expedites/coordinates review process - more efficient and better for
                 applicants, including preapplication meetings
                 *keeps local public informed of projects near district

          (3) Can you quickly list a few costs that your district has incurred from
          preparing and implementing policies via the SCRP?
          16 of 19 respondents answered

          ***  efinancial costs of staff/resources necessary to participate in SCRP
          ***  elevel of funding low
          ***   edifficult to process all the SCRP/DGC paperwork
                 *** state agencies do not give due deference
                 *plan amendments are too time and financially intensive
                 einconsistencies between state and local standards
                 *project sometimes take too long - strung out
                 *process either works or fails - no medium
                 elocal politics - public doesn't like government interference

          (4) Would you agree that the district has furthered its CZM goals and objectives

    by participating in the SCRP?
           17 = agree   1 = disagree  1 = No Answer

    (5) Do you have any other comments, concerns, or suggestions?
           eState needs to strengthen standards for high growth areas
           eno one looking at CSIs of projects outside districts
           enew district staff need training either at conferences or remotely through
          video, written materials, or helpline
           eregulations often not sensible - for ex. oil and gas liability requirements
           camending plan is too complex and restraining - state and federal
          governments override local intent/ideas
           eSCRP - successful paper implementation but not necessarily successful on
          the ground
           edistricts not given role outlined in ACMP
           estate does not recognize/respect differences in cultures
           eDGC inconsistent with advice - ex. local stipulation once allowed and once
          not with rationale being whether DGC director allowed, not sure about
          using stipulations that mirror state regulations - locally feel necessary to alert
          applicant, can district review project beyond scope outlined in Corps public
          notice.

    TELEPHONE SURVEY                                               Please Return to:
    PROJECT REVIEWERS/REVIEW COORDINATORS                                 Christine Valentine
    DEC, DFG, DNR, DGC                                             DGC P.O. BOX 110030
    SE, SC, and N Offices                                          Juneau, AK 99811

    (A)   Background Information:
          (1) Name (optional):

          (2) Agency/SE SC N:

          (3) # years working w/ consistency reviews:

          (4) # years in Coastal work:

    (B)    District Plans/Policies
          (1) When proposed projects are within the boundaries of coastal districts (which
          have approved coastal management plans), do you use these plans in any way during
          project reviews?
                 (a) NO
                 (1) Why don't you use the
                 plans?

                 (2) What would have to change for you to use the plans during project
                 reviews?

                 (b) YES (includes sometimes or always)
                 (1) Can you estimate the % of reviews during which you use district plans in
                 some way (it is OK to give a range - i.e. 15-30%)
                         YES-%

                         NO  - would you say that you use them:

                        frequently    1/2 time    rarely    don't know

    (2) In what review situations or for what types of projects are you most likely to
    use district plans?

    (3) Do you use certain district plans more than others?
              ____YES

           (a) What districts?

          (b) Why these districts or plans?

              __NO

              __DON'T KNOW

    (4) Do you use both general coastal and Area Meriting Special Attention plans?
       ___YES ___NO

          (a) IF YES, in your experience, has either type of plan (and its policies) been
          more useful?

                                        2

    (5) Do you use district enforceable policies during project reviews?
                  YES       Please explain:

          (a) IF YES, Based on your use of the policies, would you agree that they are
          clearly written and easy to interpret and implement?
           _____YES            NO         DON'T KNOW    Please explain:

          ______NO, please explain why you don't use the policies?

          DEC/DFG/DNR ONLY - IF YES:
          (b) Do you ever cite them in your comments?            YES             NO

          (c) Do you ever base comments on them?             YES            NO

    (6) During project reviews, do you ever use particular sections of district plans, for
    example maps, boundary information, resource inventories or resource analyses?
          YES    NO    DON'T KNOW

          (a) IF YES, what sections:

    (7) During project reviews, do you contact districts:

          always     frequently    1/2 time       rarely     never      don't know'

                                        3

                  (a) Can you give one or more reasons why you would contact a coastal
                  district during a project review?

           (8) During project reviews, do the districts contact you:

                  always      frequently       �/ time      rarely      never      don't know

                  (a) Can you give one or more reasons why you a district would contact you
                  during a project review?

    (C) The following statements refer to the coastal districts in general. Please give an answer
    of strongly agree, agree, neutral, disagree, strongly disagree, or don't know. Additional
    comments are welcome.

           (1) The districts usually agree with/don't object to the consistency comments you
           submit during DGC or single agency reviews.

           (2) Coastal districts generally expect State agency staff or DGC to raise'any
           concerns instead of carefully. reviewing the projects themselves.

           (3) The responsibility for using and implementing coastal districts' enforceable
           policies lies with the districts, not with State agency staff or DGC.

                                                 4

        (4) Coastal districts' enforceable policies have been effectively used/implemented
        during State consistency reviews.

    () DGC/Coordinating Agencies Questions:

        (1) What role, if any, do you think DGC or the coordinating agency should play in
        the implementation of district policies via the State consistency process?

               (a) Does this differ from the current role of DGC or the coordinating
               agency?    YES               NO           DON'T KNOW

               (1) IF YES, how does it differ?

        (2) Should DGC or the coordinating agency be responsible for ensuring' that district
        plans and policies are used/checked during State consistency reviews?
               YES    NO    DON'T KNOW

        (3) Can you suggest any ways that coastal district plans and policies could be
        improved to ensure that they can be effectively used and implemented during State
        consistency reviews?
               YES    NO                 DON'T KNOW

                                             5

          (4) What do you see as the biggest obstacle or obstacles to the successful
          implementation of district policies via the State consistency review process?

          (5) On occasion, State agency and DGC staff are assigned draft plans to review.
          This should occur at the PI-ID and CAD stages in the planning process. I would
          like to ask you a few questions about these procedures:

                 (a) Have you ever reviewed draft plans?            YES             NO

                 (1) IF YES, Do you feel that this process was useful?
                            _viiYES          NO  Please Explain:

                 (2) IF YES, Can you list any problems that have or may hinder this process?

                               Yes          No

    (E) Do you have any other comments, concerns or suggestions?
          (IF SO PLEASE ANSWER ON BACK OF THIS PAGE OR ATTACH SHEET!)

    THANK YOU FOR ANSWERING THIS SURVEY/YOUR INPUT IS GREATLY
    APPRECIATED!!!!

                                              6

                       SUMMARY OF SURVEY RESULTS
                          DEC - PROJECT REVIEWERS
                      Implementation of Coastal District Plans

    Background Information
    Distribution of Respondents:
                  2 - SE
                  3 - SC
                  i -N
    Total: 6

    # Years Working with Consistency Reviews:
           3   0-3
           1 - 4-7
           0 - 8-11
           2   12-15

    # Years in Coastal Work (ACMP or other):
           2 - 0-3
           2   4-7
           0 = 8-11
           2   12-15
           0 = 16-19

    District Plans/Policies
    (1) When proposed projects are within the boundaries of coastal districts (which
    have approved coastal management plans), do you use these plans in any way
    during project reviews?

           (a) 4 = NO* - SC/N

           (1) Why don't you use the plans?
                  *districts responsibility to use plans/policies - they are the experts
           ~   *only use our own regulatory authorities
                  edon't have copies of the district plans

           (2) What would have to change for you to use the plans during project
           reviews?
           **~ e*never would use - not DEC responsibility/expertise
           ~   *don't have enough staff/time
                  *don't have the authority to implement district plans/policies

           *some respondents indicated in answers to a later question that they do use the maps and resource info. in district plans. Also
           one respondent indicated that districts are contacted if a project appears to be controversial or otherwise problematic

           (b) If Yes, how often and when?
           2 = YES (includes sometimes or always) - SE

                                                                                  2

                 1   always
                 1   frequently
                 0 = 1/2 time
                 0 = rarely
                 0 = never
                 0 = don't know

    (2) In what review situations or for what types of projects are you most likely to
    use district plans?
    Two respondents answered                   4   - N/A (see (1) (b))

    Please explain:
           *when there is a DEC permit - use as reference for info. about special area
          designations, land uses, etc.
           *always before project begins and if developing stipulations

    (3) Do you use certain district plans more than others?
           i -YES I =NO   4=N/A

          (a)&(b) What districts and why those districts?
                 *Sitka often - district is very active
                 eKiawock when there are questions regarding their dredge/fill policy
                 ethose with more DEC permit activity

    (4) Do you use both general coastal and Area Meriting Special Attention plans?
    1 = YES   0 = NO   1 = DON'T KNOW    4 = N/A

          (a) IF YES, in your experience, has either type of plan (and its policies)
          been more useful?
          1 = GENERAL
                 efew development projects in AMSAs
                 e few enforceable policies in AMSAs
                 eAMSAs more for designating land uses

    (5) Do you use district enforceable policies during project reviews?
          2 -YES  0-NO   4-N/A

    Please explain:
          e only those that are useful/some old
          *sometimes districts did not have policies to cover DEC issues
          econsider when will be stipulations or denying permit
          ealso look at district zoning ordinances

          (a) IF YES, Based on your use of the policies, would you agree that they

                                                                                    3
          are clearly written and easy to interpret and implement?
           I = YES  1 = DON'T KNOW    4 = N/A

          Please explain:
                 eyes but water quality policies are often general and the districts defer
                 to DEC
                 etried to help districts clarify policies during planning process
                 esome policies are clear but not what district intended
                 esome policies are not clear

          DEC/DFG/DNR ONLY - IF YES:
          (b) Do you ever cite them in your comments? 2 = YES  4  - N/A

          (c) Do you ever base comments on them?             2 = YES  4  - N/A

    (6) During project reviews, do you ever use particular sections of district plans,
    for example maps, boundary information, resource inventories or resource
    analyses?
          2 = YES  0=NO   4= N/A

          (a) IF YES, what sections:
                 * resource inventories
                 .maps
                 call sections

    (7) During project reviews, do you contact districts:
          0 = always
          0o  frequently*
          1 = � time
          2   rarely
          3 = never*
          0 = don't know

          *one respondent frequently contacted districts in the past but no longer contacts districts because
          of a lack of time/high workload

          (a) Can you give one or more reasons why you would contact a coastal
          district during a project review?
          All 6 respondents answered

            ** eonly contact when DEC-coordinated review
                 *controversial project
                 edistrict policy might conflict with proposal
                 e clarification about district plans/policies

                                                                                            4

                         *in past, use to contact to discuss most projects

           (8) During project reviews, do the districts contact you:
                  0= always
                  0o = frequently*
                  0 = � time
                  6= rarely
                  0= never
                  0o = don't know

                  One respondent does contact certain districts frequently but contacts the majority of district
                  rarely.

                  (a) Can you give one or more reasons why you a district would contact
                  you during a project review?
                  All 6 respondents answered

                  ***    *district wants technical advice
                  ***    *certain districts are more active:
                                SE - Juneau/Sitka
                                SC - Kenai, Aleutians East and West, Bristol Bay CRSA,
                                Kodiak, Mat-Su
                                N - no specifics

    (C) The following statements refer to the coastal districts in general. Please give an answer
    of strong1y agree. agree. neutral. disagree. stronzlv disagree. or don't know. Additional
    comments are welcome.

           (1) The districts usually agree with/don't object to the consistency comments
           you submit during DGC or single agency reviews.
                  0 = strongly agree
                  4 = agree
                  1 = neutral
                  0 = disagree
                  0 = strongly disagree
                  1 = don't know

           Comments:
                  *district stipulations that DEC/district don't have authority for
                  * disagree when DEC stipulations/agree when no stipulations

           (2) Coastal districts generally expect State agency staff or DGC to raise any
           concerns instead of carefully reviewing the projects themselves.
                  2 = strongly agree

                                                                                          5

                 1 = agree
                 0= neutral
                 0 = disgree
                 o = strongly disagree
                 3 = don't know

          Comments:
                 *defer to DEC on technical issues
                 edepends on district

          (3) The responsibility for using and implementing coastal districts' enforceable
          policies lies with the districts, not with State agency staff or DGC.
                 5 - strongly agree
                 0 = agree
                 0 = neutral
                 i = disagree
                 0 = strongly disagree
                 0 = don't know

          Comments:
          *** eDEC doesn't have authority to enforce district policies
                 *can't enforce CRSA policies that are stronger than DEC authorities both
                 are responsible

          (4) Coastal districts' enforceable policies have been effectively used/implemented
          during State consistency reviews.
                 O - strongly agree
                 2 = agree
                 1 = neutral
                 0 = disagree
                 0 - strongly disagree
                 3 - don't know

          Comments:
                 *when district is active/takes strong position
                 eagree for Aleutians West

    (D/ DGC/Coordinatine Aeencies Ouestions

          (1) What role, if any, do you think DGC or the coordinating agency should play
          in the implementation of district policies via the State consistency process?
          All 6 respondents answered

          Please explain:

                                                                                    6

        *clearinghouse/facilitator - be there to help resolve issues/no more
           * more actively use district plans/policies
          (a) Does this differ from the current role of DGC or the coordinating
          agency?
                 3 =YES I1=NO   2 =DON'T KNOW

                 (1) If Yes, how does it differ?
                        *DGC questions district and state comments too much
                        *DGC not actively using district plans/policies

    (2) Should DGC or the coordinating agency be responsible for ensuring that
    district plans and policies are used/checked during State consistency reviews?
           I1=YES   5 -NO

    Please explain:
           *districts' responsibility - keep in local hands
           0 districts aware of local issues/plan not DGC
           0 only for major projects
           *need to more actively use district plans/policies

    (3) Can you suggest any ways that coastal district plans and policies could be
    improved to ensure that they can be effectively used and implemented during
    State consistency reviews?
          4 =YES  I =NO   I =DON'T KNOW

    Please explain:
           S periodic updates/amendments to district plans
           0 make plans more user-friendly - enforceable policies separate, plan summary
           * make sure district policies are enforceable
           S clarify who has authority to implement what
           S strengthen ACGMP standards
           * districts need training about the process and technical issues

    (4) 'What do you see as the biggest obstacle or obstacles to the successful
    implementation of district policies via the State consistency review process?
    All 6 respondents answered

    Please explain:
        slack of district input/participation
       * non-enforceable district policies
           * frustrated districts - especially those without zoning powers
           slack of technical expertise at local level
           estate/local conflicts over policy interpretation

                                                                                       .7

                 �lack of staff at the state level

          (5) On occasion, State agency and DGC staff are assigned draft plans to review.
          This should occur at the PHD and CAD stages in the planning process. I would
          like to ask you a few questions about these procedures:

                 (a) Have you ever reviewed draft plans?
                 4 = YES  2 = NO

                        (1) IF YES, Do you feel that this process was useful?
                               4 = YES

                        Please Explain:
                               *can point out unenforceable and/or unpractical policies
                               egood for areas with high permit activity because familiar with
                               area
                               *ex. Aleutians West - needed DEC technical expertise

                        (2) IF YES, Can you list any problems that have or may hinder
                        this process?
                               2 = YES   2 = NO

                        Please explain:
                               �low priority - consistency deadlines are higher priority
                        ~      *time constraints

    (E) Do you have any other comments, concerns or suggestions?
          Oprocess is complex and burden to process
          *process is not that useful for the districts
          *agency has less time now to communicate with districts
          edistrict staff need training
          �need better communication between State agencies
          *districts often want role in non-ACMP issues/permit reviews
          eDGC needs to have stronger role in providing technical expertise to districts

                             SUMMARY OF SURVEY RESULTS
                                DFG - PROJECT REVIEWERS
                            Implementation of Coastal District Plans

    (A)Backeround Information
          Distribution of Respondents:
                        4 - SE
                        2 = SC
                        2=N
          Total: 8

          # Years Working with Coastal Consistency Reviews:
                 1 = 0-3
                 2 = 4-7
                 1 = 8-11
                 4-= 12-15

          # Years in Coastal Work (ACMP or other):
                  1 = 0-3
                 2 = 4-7
                 0 = 8-11
                 4 = 12-15
                  1 = 16-19

          District Plans/Policies
          (1) When proposed projects are within the boundaries of coastal districts (which
          have approved coastal management plans), do you use these plans in any way
          during project reviews?
                 (a) 0 = NO

                 (b) If Yes, how often?
                 8 = YES (includes sometimes or always)
                        0 = always
                        4 = frequently*
                        1 = � time
                        3 = rarely
                        0 = never
                        0 = don't know

                 *one respondent frequently contacts districts when projects being reviewed are within districts
                 but rarely contacts districts otherwise - logged as a frequently response since this study is looking
                 primarily at projects inside district boundaries)

          (2) In what review situations or for what types of projects are you most likely to
          use district plans?
          All 8 respondents answered

    c***    *know plans/policies are useful
    '***    *project is inside a district
           *not familiar with the area - look over plan/policies
            controversy or of interest to state or local government
           *seaplane/airplane facilities
           *roads/culverts
           *seafood waste disposal
           *mining
           *tideland and wetlands fills
           *docks/ports

    (3) Do you use certain district plans more than others?
          6 = YES (4 SE, 1 C, 1 N) 2 = NO (1 SC, 1 N)

          (a)&(b) What districts and why those districts?
                 SE:   Sitka, Craig, Juneau -most
                        Hoonah, Thorne Bay, Haines, Kake - next most
                 SC:   Mat-Su Borough
                 N:    Bering Straits, NW Arctic

          Please explain:
          ***    *activity concentrated here
                 *** only district(s) in area or other districts don't have plans
          ** *   *other districts have weak/non-specific plans
          ***    *base use on where projects are*
          also given as a reason for answers of YES

    (4) Do you use both general coastal and Area Meriting Special Attention plans?
          4 =- YES   4 = NO

          (a) IF YES, in your experience, has either type of plan (and its policies)
          been more useful?
                 3 = YES       1 = NO

          SE (ex. Sitka Swan Lake, Angoon, Thorne Bay, & Hydaburg AMSAs)
          2 = GENERAL
          ***    *policies not very enforceable - just indicates that area is important
          ***   *not many projects within AMSAs
                 *AMSAs enforced more through local processes
          SC (ex. Bristol Bay CRSA Nus.-Mul. Rivers AMSA)
           1 = AMSA
                 *more detail/specific policies

    (5) Do you use district enforceable policies during project reviews?
          8 = YES   O = NO

    Please explain:
          edistricts familiar with - i.e projects concentrated in
          ewhen don't have T16 authority - use district policies with Habitat standard
          *discuss policies with districts before giving DFG approval
           *sometimes defer to district instead of approving project
           ein controversial situations
           ewhenever they apply

          (a) IF YES, Based on your use of the policies, would you agree that they
          are clearly written and easy to interpret and implement?
          4 = YES       6 = NO  (2 responses were both YES and NO)

          Please explain:
                 * certain plans/policies are clear - mainly the more recent
                 *not specific - vague/weak and open to interpretation
                 clink between goals and objectives and policies is often missing
                 *some policies reference outdated State regulations
                 *loop holes in many of the more enforceable policies
                 *no enforcement of homeless stipulations
                 *ignored by state and districts to further other agendas

          DEC/DFG/DNR ONLY - IF YES:
          (b) Do you ever cite them in your comments? 7 = YES 1 = NO

          (c) Do you ever base comments on them?            7 = YES   1 = NO

    (6) During project reviews, do you ever use particular sections of district plans,
    for example maps, boundary information, resource inventories or resource
    analyses?
          8 = YES   0 = NO

          (a) IF YES, what sections:
          ***  e0boundary info.
          ***  emaps
          **'~   *resource inventories
                 enot the resource inventories - have better info. available
                 *implementation section
                 *definitions

    (7) During project reviews, do you contact districts:
           1 = always
          2= frequently
          2= -1 time
          1 = rarely
          2= never
          0= don't know

                 (a) Can you give one or more reasons why you would contact a coastal
                 district during a project review?
                 7 respondents answered

                 *** equestions about interpretation of district policies
                        *edistrict is active/responsive
                        eneed local info./expertise
                        ewant local support for DFG position
                        ethe project is important to state or district
                        eonly way to get district input - rarely comment on projects
                        eonly for DFG-coordinated reviews

          (8) During project reviews, do the districts contact you:
                 0 = always (one respondent gave two answers)
                 1 = frequently
                 4 - � time
                 4 = rarely
                 0 = never
                 0 = don't know

                 (a) Can you give one or more reasons why you a district would contact
                 you during a project review?
                 7 respondents answered

                 *** ewant resource info./technical expertise
                 ***~ S district is active/responsive
                        * controversial project
                        *want to know DFG position

    (C) The following statements refer to the coastal districts in general. Please give an answer
    of stronglv aeree. agree. neutral. disagree. stronglv disagree. or don't know. Additional
    comments are welcome.

          (1) The districts usually agree with/don't object to the consistency comments
          you submit during DGC or single agency reviews.
                 0 = strongly agree
                 6 = agree
                 1 = neutral
                 1 = disgree
                 0 = strongly disagree
                 0 = don't know

          Comments:
                 *issue dependent and district dependent

          (2) Coastal districts generally expect State agency staff or DGC to raise any

           concerns instead of carefully reviewing the projects themselves.
                  I = strongly agree
                 2 = agree
                  2 = neutral
                  1 = disagree
                 0= strongly disagree
                 2   don't know

           Comments:
                  *district/issue dependent
                  eDFG has to raise district attention

           (3) The responsibility for using and implementing coastal districts' enforceable
           policies lies with the districts, not with State agency staff or DGC.
                 0 = strongly agree
                  2 = agree
                  0 = neutral
                 4 = disagree
                 2 = strongly disagree
                 0 = don't know

           Comments:
                  *both state and local government are responsible
                  enot state responsibility but do need familiarity with district plans
                  =should be state and local responsibility but state doesn't implement

           (4) Coastal districts' enforceable policies have been effectively used/implemented
           during State consistency reviews.
                  I = strongly agree
                  1 = agree
                 2 = neutral
                 2 = disagree
                 2 = strongly disagree
                 0 = don't know

          Comments:
                  *disagree that policies have been implemented by the districts

    (D) DGC/Coordinatine Azencies Ouestions

          (1) What role, if any, do you think DGC or the coordinating agency should play
          in the implementation of district policies via the State consistency process?
          All 8 respondents answered

          Please explain:
          ***    *be familiar with district plans/policies but give due deference - let district

    use
                 �consolidate comments only
                 *watchdog - over use of district policies

                 *more of a lead role - check/use district policies for districts that don't
                 *as defined in 6 AAC 50
                  coordinate preapplication meetings, reviews and facilitate discussion
                 between parties involved

                 (a) Does this differ from the current role of DGC or the coordinating
                 agency?
                        3 = YES   4 - NO   1 - DON'T KNOW

                        (1) IF YES, how does it differ?
                               *DGC sometimes tries to interpret policies and/or questions
                               agency expertise
                               epolitical projects - DGC advocates a particular position
                               instead of coordinating
                               *SAR - state regulations take prevail over district policies

          (2) Should DGC or the coordinating agency be responsible for ensuring that
          district plans and policies are used/checked during State consistency reviews?
                 3 = YES   5 = NO

          Please explain:
          �***    *encourage/assist districts
           �** *~  role of State resource agencies and districts
                 *both state and districts should
                 *for districts that won't
                 *yes but this never happens

          (3) Can you suggest any ways that coastal district plans and policies could be
          improved to ensure that they can be effectively used and implemented during
          State consistency reviews?
                 8 - YES   0 - NO

          Please explain:
          �***    *clear/strong enforceable policies - designate limits, areas, etc.
          ***    *need stronger district role - give more control over program
           *$*    *update plans regularly and more frequently than now do
                  *revise older plans - vague and open to interpretation
                 �increase district participation
                 �*make sure that policies are linked to goals/objectives
                 *increase funding for implementation
                 *issue a coastal consistency permit

          (4) What do you see as the biggest obstacle or obstacles to the successful
          implementation of district policies via the State consistency review process?
          All 8 respondents answered

          Please explain:
          ***  clack of district participation
                 * districts need/want more power - plan/policy approval, implementation,
                 enforcement and monitoring
                 *interference of local politics - see plan as impediment so don't follow or
                 consult, new district staff without understanding of how plan developed and
                 what compromises were made, "political" implementation
                 estate and local governments ignore coastal policies to further political
                 agendas
                 eincompatibility of State/local CZM needs/goals
                 S costs of implementation/lack of adequate funds
                 clack of state staff to implement program
                 *too many activities found to be categorically consistent or generally
    concurrent

          (5) On occasion, State agency and DGC staff are assigned draft plans to review.
          This should occur at the PHD and CAD stages in the planning process. I would
          like to ask you a few questions about these procedures:

                 (a) Have you ever reviewed draft plans?
                        8 = YES   0 = NO

                        (1) IF YES, Do you feel that this process was useful?
                               7 = YES   1 = NO

                        Please explain:
                        ***  ehelped to clarify/improve policies and resource info.

                        (2) IF YES, Can you list any problems that have or may hinder
                        this process?

                        Please explain:
                               *workload/time
                               *not a high priority
                               ecomments/concerns not incorporated
                               chard to determine district intent
                               edraft plans and State regulations do not always mesh

    (E) Do you have any other comments. concerns or suggestions?
          eif districts won't participate and implement plan, remove funding and let DGC do
          e need to understand districts agendas
          eclarify who has what authority

                            SUMMARY OF SURVEY RESULTS
                       DGC- PROJECT REVIEW COORDINATORS
                         The Implementation of Coastal District Plans

    (A)Backeround Information
          Distribution of Respondents:
                 2 = SE
                 5 - SC/N
    Total: 7

          # Years Working with Coastal Consistency Reviews:
                 5 = 0-3
                 1 = 4-7
                 1 = 8-11
                 0 = 12-15

          # years in Coastal Work (ACMP or other):
                 1 = 0-3
                 3 = 4-7
                 2= 8-11
                 1= 12-15
                 0= 16-19

          District Plans/Policies
          (1) When proposed projects are within the boundaries of coastal districts (whiich
          have approved coastal management plans), do you use these plans in any way
          during project reviews?
                 (a) 0 = NO
                 (b) If Yes, how often and when?
                 7 = YES (includes sometimes or always)
                       1 - always
                       3 = frequently
                       1 = 1A time
                       1 - rarely
                       0 = never
                       1 = don't know

          (2) In what review situations or for what types of projects are you most likely to
          use district plans?
          All 7 respondents answered

          Please explain:
          *** e know district won't participate and/or won't check policies
                 * questions about interpretation of district policies
                 enew coastal district contact and need to educate about policies
                 edistrict has useable plan

                 *when state or district comments reference a district policy'
                 eknow district interested in project/issue
                 *when unfamiliar with district plan or applicable policies
                 eresidential development projects
                 *waterfront development - water dependent/related policies and intertidal
    fills

          (3) Do you use certain district plans more than others?
                 5 = YES   1 = NO    1 = DON'T KNOW

                 SE - **Sitka, Juneau, Ketchikan, Hoonah, Thorne Bay
                 SC/N- **Kenai, Anchorage, Mat-Su, North Slope, Valdez
                 (**more than 1 respondent listed)

                 (a) Why these districts or plans?
                 ***    eprojects concentrated in certain districts
                        * district plans/policies are well written
                 ***    *know districts participate in process
                        *district participation is higher quality/more professional

          (4) Do you use both general coastal and Area Meriting Special Attention plans?
          5 - YES   2 = NO

                 (a) IF YES, in your experience, has either type of plan (and its policies)
                 been more useful?  4 = YES           I = NO

                 SE (examples - Hydaburg & Sitka Swan Lake AMSAs)
                 i = GENERAL CZMPs
                        *AMSAs don't provide protection districts' wanted
                 1 = SAME
                        *few SE projects inside AMSAs
                        *State does seem to give projects near AMSAs special consideration
                 SC/N (examples - Ship Creek AMSA)
                 3 = AMSAs
                 ***    *specific policies for smaller areas with use/resource conflicts
                 ***    *more info. on resource/use functions and values

          (5) Do you use district enforceable policies during project reviews?
                 7 = YES   0 = NO

                 Please explain:
                 ***    *see which might apply at beginning of review
                 ***    *"watchdog" role - check to see if policies used correctly
                        *determine policy intent but defer to districts

                 (a) Based on your use of the policies, would you agree that they are

          clearly written and easy to interpret and implement?
           I -YES   6 -NO

          Please explain:
               *need to be more clear and specific for stipulations
               *open to interpretation
                  0 districts adopt/adapt policies from other plans that are not
                 applicable to their situations or just aren't good
                  * draft policies need more extensive review
                  S majority are good/poor ones have been discussed at conferences

    (6) During project reviews, do you ever use particular sections of district plans,
    for example maps, boundary information, resource inventories or resource
    analyses?
           7=-YES   O.-=NO

           (a) If YES, what sections:
              * maps/boundary info.
               *resource inventories - useful info. on district
              * Srarely resource inventories/analyses

    (7) During project reviews, do you contact districts:
          2 -always*
          3 = frequently
           I = �h time
           2 = rarely*
           o = never
           o = don't know
          *one respondent answered always and rarely for districts active and inactive in the process,
          respectively

          (a) Can you give one or more reasons why you would contact a coastal
          district during a project review?
          All 7 respondents answered

              *M district needs to clarify/improve comments - rationale, etc.
              * need local info. from district
               *district is active
                  * know district is interested in review/issue
                  *itrrtto questions (district policy) - especially smaller districts
                  * discuss concerns/objections of others (state, applicant, etc.)
                  0 make sure district received info.

    (8) During project reviews, do the districts contact you:
          o = always
          2 - frequently

                 4 = � time
                 1 = rarely
                 0 = never
                 0 = don't know

                 (a) Can you give one or more reasons why you a district would contact
                 you during a project review?
                 All 7 respondents answered

                        *process questions
                  ***echeck on status of review - is State aware of, when will review
                        begin, what info does the state have?
                        *ediscuss project - concerns, comments, stipulations
                        * responding to DGC inquires and correspondence
                 *** eamore active districts contact DGC

    (C) The following statements refer to the coastal districts in aeneral. Please Live an answer
    of strongly aeree. aeree. neutral. disagree. stronglv disagree. or don't know. Additional
    comments are welcome.

          (1) The districts usually agree with/don't object to the consistency comments
          submitted during DGC reviews.
                 3 = strongly agree
                 4 = agree
                 0- neutral
                 0 = disagree
                 0- strongly disagree
                 0= don't know

          Comments:
                 *work out problems with agencies before gets to DGC

          (2) Coastal districts generally expect State agency staff or DGC to raise any
          concerns instead of carefully reviewing the projects themselves.
                 0= strongly agree
                 2- agree
                 1 = neutral
                 2 = disagree
                 0 = strongly disagree
                 2 = don't know

          Comments:
                 edepends on the district and the situation

          (3) The responsibility for using and implementing coastal districts' enforceable
          policies lies with the districts, not with State agency staff or DGC.

                 1 - strongly agree
                 2= agree
                 0= neutral
                 2= disagree
                 2= strongly disagree
                 0 don't know

          Comments:
                 call agree that the State has some responsibility - how much varies

          (4) Coastal districts' enforceable policies have been effectively used/implemented
          during State consistency reviews.
                 0 = strongly agree
                 3- agree
                 1 = neutral
                 0 = disagree
                 0 = strongly disagree
                 3 = don't know

          Comments:
                 *district dependent
                 �paperwork has been correct but no monitoring

    (D' DGC/Coordinatine Aeencies Ouestions

          (1) What role, if any, do you think DGC or the coordinating agency should play
          in the implementation of district policies via the State consistency process?
          All 7 respondents answered

          Please explain:
                 *encourage district participation - provide the opportunity
                 * "watchdog" - policy interpretation and process
                 *use district plans/policies but give district due deference
                 eencourage state agencies to use district plans/policies
                 *increase district control over program

                 (a) Does this differ from the current role of DGC or the coordinating
                 agency? 1 = YES   5 = NO           1 = DON'T KNOW

                        (1) IF YES, how does it differ?
                               *DGC does not use district plans/policies as much as should

          (2) Should DGC or the coordinating agency be responsible for ensuring that
          district plans and policies are used/checked during State consistency reviews?
                 4 = YES  3 = NO

    Please explain:
    ***    *but don't always have the time
           *some plans/policies are not useable
           *when the district does not comment
           *when district comments are "off the wall"
           *when projects are "important"
           *as way to encourage district participation
           *need policies to be more user friendly - computerize
           *give districts more control over program
           *encourage state agencies and districts to use plans/policies
           eonly responsible for distributing info.

    (3) Can you suggest any ways that coastal district plans and policies could be
    improved to ensure that they can be effectively used and implemented during
    State consistency reviews?
           6 = YES       1 = NO

    Please explain:
    ***    *make vague, unenforceable policies clear, concise and enforceable
    ***    *periodic plan amendments - either parts or whole
           *need more performance-based policies
           *improve maps - larger, more features marked, clarify what type of
           boundaries are shown, have keys
           *need more direct involvement between district and applicants
           *need better communication between state and districts
           *keep records of problems with plans/policies
           *make review of draft plans/policies a higher priority for coordinators
           *not just plans/policies - districts without planning powers will have difficult
           time with implementation
           *DGC/state should not tell the districts how to write plans/policies

    (4) What do you see as the biggest obstacle or obstacles to the successful
    implementation of district policies via the State consistency review process?
    All 7 respondents answered

    Please explain:
    ***    *district contacts/staff need more training about ACMP and own plan
    ***    *districts that don't participate and/or have bad attitudes about the
    process/ACMP
           estate agencies don't use district plans/policies
           *need to improve state/district communication
           *coordinators need to review comments and stipulations more critically
           estate should not interpret district policies - this is role of districts

    (5) On occasion, State agency and DGC staff are assigned draft plans to review.
    This should occur at the PHD and CAD stages in the planning process. I would

          like to ask you a few questions about these procedures:

                 (a) Have you ever reviewed draft plans?
                 5 YES  2 = NO

                       (1) IF YES, Do you feel that this process was useful?
                              4 = YES   1 = DON'T KNOW

                       Please Explain:
                              *state can highlight policies that would be problematic from
                              consistency process standpoint
                              *works well when districts open to comments

                        (2) IF YES, Can you list any problems that have or may hinder
                       this process?
                              4 = YES   1 - DON'T KNOW

                       Please Explain:
                        ~   *don't have time to review/review adequately
                              enot set high priority for coordinators
                              *need to be more involved in entire planning process
                              *state changes district intent

    (E) Do you have any other comments. concerns or suggestions?
          - contact frequent applicants/consultants about experiences with districts
          *talk to those who crafted ACMP regarding intent for district participation
          etalk to previous coordinators

                             SUMMARY OF SURVEY RESULTS
                                DNR - PROJECT REVIEWERS
                            Implementation of Coastal District Plans

    (A)Backeround Information
          Distribution of Respondents:
                        2 = SE
                        2 = SC
                        1 =N
                        1 = Statewide
          Totals:      6

          # Years Working with Coastal Consistency Reviews:
                 3= 0-3
                 1 = 4-7
                 1 = 8-11
                 1 = 12-15

          # Years in Coastal Work (ACMP or other):
                 2 = 0-3
                  1 = 4-7
                 2 = 8-11
                 1 = 12-15
                 0= 16-19

          District Plans/Policies
          (1) When proposed projects are within the boundaries of coastal districts (which
          have approved coastal management plans), do you use these plans in any way
          during project reviews?
                 (a) 1 = NO
                        (1) Why don't you use the plans?
                               *solicit district comments instead

                        (2) What would have to change for you to use the plans during
                        project reviews?
                               *more time and more staff

                 (b) If Yes, how often?
                 5 = YES (includes sometimes or always)
                        0 = always
                        1 = frequently
                        0 = 1 time
                        4 = rarely*
                        0 = never
                        0 = don't know
                 *one respondent frequently uses plans during DNR-coordinated reviews but rarely uses them during DGC-coordinated reviews.
                 Logged as rarely since this study focuses on DGC-coordinated reviews

    (2) In what review situations or for what types of projects are y6u most likely to
    use district plans?
    5 respondents answered              1 = N/A

    Please explain:
    ***    *DNR coordinated reviews but rarely during DGC coordinated reviews
          *know issue/use is controversial in district
          *tideland uses - look for restricted areas
          enew material sales
          *mining and exploration projects

    (3) Do you use certain district plans more than others?
          5 =YES   O = NO    1 =N/A
                 SE:    Sitka, Juneau - most
                       Hoonah, Pelican - rarely
                 SC:   Bristol Bay CRSA, Kenai, Kodiak, Valdez, Mat-Su
                 N:   North Slope, NW  Arctic, Bering Straits, Nome, Cenuliariit

          (a) Why these districts or plans?
          ***    *projects concentrated in these districts

    (4) Do you use both general coastal and Area Meriting Special Attention plans?
          4 = YES   1 =NO    1 =N/A

          (a) IF YES, in your experience, has either type of plan (and its policies)
          been more useful?  4 = Yes          0 = No
          SE/N          (ex. Sitka Swan Lake, Angoon AMSAs)
          3 = GENERAL
                 *AMSAs for areas with no projects/conflicts
          SC (ex. Bristol Bay CRSA Nus.-Mul. Rivers AMSA)
          1 = AMSA
                 *rore specific than general plan/policies

    (5) Do you use district enforceable policies during project reviews?
          4 =YES   1 = NO    1 = N/A

    Please explain:
          *rarely - no enforcement mechanism for district stipulations
          efloathouse policies

          (a) IF YES, Based on your use of the policies, would you agree that they
          are clearly written and easy to interpret and implement?
                 4 =NO    0=YES   1 = N/A

          Please explain:
              *** vague/not specific and open to interpretation

                 operformance standards interpreted differently for each project
                 *district policies not stringent - if consistent with state regulations
                 then consistent with local plan

          DEC/DFG/DNR ONLY - IF YES:
          (b) Do you ever cite them in your comments? 3 = YES 1 = NO 1 =
          N/A

          (c) Do you ever base comments on them?            3 = YES  1 = NO  I =
          N/A

    (6) During project reviews, do you ever use particular sections of district plans,
    for example maps, boundary information, resource inventories or resource
    analyses?
          4 = YES  2 = NO
          (a) If Yes, what sections?
          ***    eboundary info.
                 emaps
                 *:resource inventories/analyses

    (7) During project reviews, do you contact districts:
           1 = always
           1 = frequently
          0 = 1h time
          4 = rarely
          0 = never
          0 = don't know

          (a) Can you give one or more reasons why you would contact a coastal
          district during a project review?
          7 respondents answered
                 *clarify district policy/intent
                 *discuss resource uses in district
                 eneed local expertise
                 oproject is inside a district
                 eresolve a local issue
                 e answer district correspondance

    (8) During project reviews, do the districts contact you:
          1 = always
          2 = frequently
          0 = 1 time
          2 = rarely
           1 = never
          0 = don't know

                 (a) Can you give one or more reasons why you a district would contact
                 you during a project review?
                 6 respondents answered
                        *respond if project inside district
                        erespond to DNR coordinated reviews
                        edistricts only contact DGC
                        ewhen district wants stipulations placed on DNlR permit

    (C) The following statements refer to the coastal districts in general. Please yive an answer
    of stronvly agree. agree. neutral. disagree. stronglv disagree. or don't know. Additional
    comments are welcome.

          (1) The districts usually agree with/don't object to the consistency comments
          you submit during DGC or single agency reviews.
                 2 = strongly agree
                 3 = agree
                 0 = neutral
                 0 = disagree
                 0 = strongly disagree
                 I = don't know

          (2) Coastal districts generally expect State agency staff or DGC to raise any
          concerns instead of carefully reviewing the projects themselves.
                 I = strongly agree
                 0 = agree
                 1 = neutral
                 3 = disagree
                 0 = strongly disagree
                 1 = don't know

          Comments:
                 esome districts don't even understand/know their plans

          (3) The responsibility for using and implementing coastal districts' enforceable
          policies lies with the districts, not with State agency staff or DGC.
                 I = strongly agree
                 2 = agree
                 0 = neutral
                 2 = disagree
                 1 = strongly agree

          Comments:
                 *both are responsible
                 *agree but state should listen to district concerns
                 eDGC must assure that projects are consistent with district plans - at least
                 for districts that aren't organized boroughs

          (4) Coastal districts' enforceable policies have been effectively used/implemented
          during State consistency reviews.
                 0 = strongly agree
                 5 = agree
                 0 = neutral
                 0 = disagree
                 0 - strongly disagree
                 1 = don't know

          Comments:
                  * usually consistent with district plan if consistent with state regulations

    (D) DGC/Coordinating Azencies Ouestions
    *one respondent did not answer any questions in this section

          (1) What role, if any, do you think DGC or the coordinating agency should play
          in the implementation of district policies via the State consistency process?
           5 respondents answered

          Please explain:
                 �coordinate review/consult with districts
                  *actively use district plans but give due deference to districts
                  *ensure that proposed stipulations are necessary

                 (a) Does this differ from the current role of DGC or the coordinating
                 agency?
                  I = YES*    4 - NO          *no explanation of yes response

          (2) Should DGC or the coordinating agency be responsible for ensuring that
          district plans and policies are used/checked during State consistency reviews?
                 3 = YES   2 -= NO

          Please explain:
           *** *DGC or coordinating agency should just contact the districts

          (3) Can you suggest any ways that coastal district plans and policies could be
          improved to ensure that they can be effectively used and implemented during
          State consistency reviews?
                 3 = YES  2 = NO

          Please explain:
           *      *state resource agency staff need to develop good relationships with district
    staff
           ***   *state reviewers need training in use/updates of plans/policies - including a
                 need to receive updates
                  �need "good" representatives for each district

                 emake plans shorter and more readable

          (4) What do you see as the biggest obstacle or obstacles to the successful
          implementation of district policies via the State consistency review process?
          5 respondents answered

          Please explain:
                 *process is complex
                 *better communication between state agencies
                 eincompatible state and local CZM goals/needs
                 *agencies using/viewing consistency process as just regular permit process
                 eworkload - can't review adequately, can't meet deadlines
                 eDGC holds up complete applications for too long before starting review

          (5) On occasion, State agency and DGC staff are assigned draft plans to review.
          This should occur at the PHD and CAD stages in the planning process. I would
          like to ask you a few questions about these procedures:

                 (a) Have you ever reviewed draft plans?
                        5 = YES   0 = NO

                        (1) IF YES, Do you feel that this process was useful?
                               5 = YES   0 = NO

                        Please explain:
                        ***  echance to comment/be involved early in process

                        (2) IF YES, Can you list any problems that have or may hinder this
                        process?
                               I = YES   3 = NO

                        Please explain:
                               estate rewrites/requires changes in district intent

    (El Do you have any other comments, concerns or suggestions?
          e districts want but don't have authority to enforce in zone of influence
          eABC list is often ignored
          eACMP has centralist bias
          *clarify how authorities mesh
          efederal/state/local CZM goals may not be compatible
          *district energy/interest can be decreased by promise of power that isn't there

    APPENDIX D

                         DISTRICT PLANNING WORKING GROUP
                                    MEETING SUMMARY
                                       December 7, 1993

    Following is an outline of issues identified and some preliminary recommendations developed at
    the District Planning Working Group meeting held in Anchorage on December 7, 1993.

    Criteria for AMSAs

      1.   Districts need better understanding of the options for specialized planning, whether
           ACMP vehicles or otherwise. Also need to consider other sources of funding.

     2.   justification for AMSAs: need a better description in the regulations and statutes.
           Need to consider whether there are conflicts and multi-jurisdictional issues.

     3.   Sometimes districts prefer a local plan over an ACMP plan because of the lengthy
           ACMP process. Some municipalities can assert zoning on federal lands. CRSAs and
           some smaller communities do not have this option.

     4.   Also need to consider whether there is local commitment or support for the
          planning effort before ACMP funds are committed. One form of local commitment
          is a district funding match requirement.

     5.   Need flexibility for districts to allow the planning to evolve (such as Unalaska Bay
          AMSA). Sometimes the problems and issues change during the planning process, or
          the need for more detailed research is identified.

     6.   A planning manual should have a process or diagnostic questions to force an
          analysis and identification of the problem planning would address.

    Funding

     7.   Should do an upfront, preliminary analysis (scoping process) to look at possible
          impacts, existing policies, and determine which is the best way to go for further
          planning: revise the basic coastal management plan, do an AMSA plan, or other
          specialized planning.

     8.   Need for better indication of local support/implementation for specialized planning.
          [Review funding criteria/applications for the district grant process]

                                                I

      9.   Should have a district grant vre-at~ilication  planning meetings with districts, State
           and federal agencies to identify need/support for the plan. State and federal agencies
           may have recommendations on where else to go for solutions to problems, or for
           funding.

      10. Mid-year district contingency funds: need to improve the language in the district
           grant process about what is eligible for funding.

      1I. Should we reallocate funding from monitoring and compliance to district planning?
           We need to set ACMP program priorities. Should also consider doing fewer, but
           more detailed plans.

    Plannine Process

      12. The ACMP planning process is too lengthy, especially the amendment process.
           Districts are reluctant to revise or undertake plans for this reason. Need to consider
           revising the regulations to streamline the amendment process.

      13. When you are dealing with controversial issues, the planning process is more
           lengthy (such as wetlands plans).

      14. A major concern for the districts is that all substantive comments are not made by
           the agencies on the public hearing draft. They are often faced with late, substantive
           comments after the municipality has conceptually approved a draft. Require agencies
           to give substantive comments at this phase.

     15. DGC should do its preliminary findings on the public hearing draft so districts have
           more assurance the document has met the ACMP criteria for approval.

     16. If the district has made significant changes to the public hearing draft, it should
           prepare a pre-concept approved draft.

     17. Need more meetings during the planning process to resolve issues and agree on
          policy language.

    Federal Commitment

     18. Federal commitment to district plans is a problem for coastal districts. Federal
           agencies can deny or modify projects/permits under their own authorities regardless
          of the district plan intent.

     19. One way to improve federal participation and commitment is to hold early meetings
           before the planning process begins. Better communication does help.

                                                2

      31. District policies can be more restrictive than the ACMP standards, but you may end
           up with a "homeless stipulation" problem.

    Implementation

      32.  The implementation section needs to better describe the implementation,
           monitoring and enforcement responsibilities at the local, state and federal levels.
           Need to identify who is responsible for taking enforcement actions. Could you
           develop a matrix for each policy?

      33. Better communication among the agencies and districts would improve plan
           implementation. Agencies respond to active districts.

      34.  How should Title 29 powers and ACMP interact at the local level? How do local
           zoning and district policies interact? Need to provide guidance for districts and
           agencies.

      35. We need to do more research on implementation of district plans at the local level -
           and better describe implementation options.

    Participants

    Chuck Degnan, BSCRSA
    Rick Thompson, DNR
    Darcy Richards, AWCRSA
    Linda Freed, KIB
    Maureen McCrea, MMS
    Sara Hunt, DGC
    Christine Valentine, DGC
    Janet Burleson, DNR
    Rob Walkenshaw, DNR
    Carmen Denny, DGC
    Nicole Faghin, Reid Middleton
    Sue Flensburg, BBCRSA
    Jon Isaacs, Jon Isaacs & Assoc.
    Beth Kerttula, DOL
    Mary Pearsall, KPB
    John Purcell, LPB
    Glenn Seaman, DFG
    Thede Tobish, MOA
    John Gliva, DCRA
    Gretchen Keiser, DGC

                                              4

                         DISTRICT PLANNING WORKING GROUP
                                 Summary of 5/31/94 Meeting

    Planning
           Define what the problems (key issues) are with the district's plan before a plan
           amendment is initiated. Conduct an analysis of the plan, and identify the best way
           to address the problems identified. Also need to consider what other problems are
           occurring in the district that are not a function of plan implementation or should be
           addressed through means other than a district plan.

    2.     Require districts to do a complete plan analysis every 3-5 years. Given the length of
           time it takes to complete a plan, a resource inventory/analysis could be 7+ years
           old if you wait 5 years for a review.

    3.     Interact with the implementors (district and agency staff) early in the planning
           process. Ground truth proposed policies. Review draft plans for "workability".
           The ACMP coordinators and DGC have some responsibility for involving agency
           permitting staff and DGC project review coordinators in plan reviews. District staff
           should also talk to the permitters.

    4.     Hold agency/district meetings early in the planning process, before the public
           hearing draft goes out for review. Be sure that participants have -written materials
           (draft issues, goals, objectives) before a meeting.

    5.     The lengthy amendment process is a deterrent to revising plans. Streamline the
           process.

    6.     Develop a tracking system (or use existing DGC RBase) to document problems with
           specific policies. Need to define what is meant by the success or failure of a policy.
           Consider the policy language, how active the district is, and how agencies respond
          to district recommendations for stipulations based on policies.

    7.     Develop guidance on strategic planning.  Do the regulations need to be modified to
           allow strategic planning? AMSAs or SAMPs usually focus on more defined areas
           within a district, or on specific resources or activities. Strategic planning may be
          appropriate in those instances. Strategic planning may also be an appropriate
          approach in a new or revised basic district plan. Also explore using the
          comprehensive plan as the foundation for a district plan.

    8.     If a district plan contains more specific policies, the district may also want to
          include a variance or exemption procedure or special exception to a policy. Need
          very specific criteria so a variance procedure is not misused. Consider a variance
          procedure that could either be policy specific, or plan specific. Should agencies -be

           involved in the variance procedure as part of the consistency review?

    9.     Consider development of a "socioeconomic" standard. A socioeconomic standard
           may highlight or strengthen the district's ability to define public need for a project.
           Currently, socioeconomics are discussed as part of the public need considerations
           under the Coastal Development and Habitat standards, or where the term feasible
           and prudent occurs in a policy. A socioeconomic standard could also be used to
           review and mitigate the socioeconomic impacts of major development projects (such
           as mining or oil and gas development), or to support a cost/benefit analysis of a
           proposed project.

    10.    Need to clarify the relationship between ACMP district plans and DNR area plans.

    Plan Imrtlementation
    11.    Revise the district annual reporting form to ask more detailed, diagnostic questions
           and use them to report problems with plan policies or plan implementation.

    12.    Agencies should review/analyze problems with plan implementation in their
           quarterly reports to DGC.

    13.    DGC should summarize the district and agency comments on problems with
           implementation of the ACMP and district plans, give feedback, and take appropriate,
           action. Some of the issues could be brought to the ACMP working group for
           discussion and resolution.

    14.    What are the specific problems districts have with how DNR, DEC, DFG
           implement the district plans?

    15.    Identify and assess the success of other local implementation tools, besides the
           consistency review process. Do different local tools affect how a coastal plan should
           be developed?

    16.    Improve the local/state coordination of consistency reviews. Redundancy
          sometimes occurs when both the local district and the DGC or other agency
          conducts a consistency review. Part of the problem is a different scope of review.
          Clarify and strengthen the local implementation tools in the district plan.

    General ACMP Imolementation
    17.    Improve communication among districts and agency permitters.

    18.    Identify and recognize the different perspectives of DEC, DFG, DNR, DGC, and
          the districts on how the ACMP fits into the big picture of issuing permits, leases
          and other authorizations.

                                                2

    19.    What are the incentives for DEC and DNR to participate in the ACMP? DFG and
           the districts access more power, or standing through the process. What incentives
           can be offered to DNR and DEC? DNR sees the ACMP as "circumventing" its
           process in some cases. Can the DEC, DFG, or DNR and ACMP review processes
           be better aligned or combined?

    20.    The ABC list is underutilized and moving projects from the C to the B list would
           help streamline the consistency review process.

    21.    Clarify the current implementation, monitoring and enforcement that occurs at the
           local and state level. What are the district and agencies' authorities and
           responsibilities and how does each agency conduct consistency reviews? Do we
           need an official ACMP enforcement procedure in statute or regulation. Are the
           currently available enforcement mechanisms too difficult or expensive to apply?

    22.    Investigate further the problems with monitoring and enforcement.  Are homeless
           stipulations really a significant problem? The problem with monitoring and
           enforcement is a larger issue than the ACMP.

    23.    Explore different approaches to implementation of the ACMP. Is it time to
           consider a shoreline or coastal permit, with appropriate monitoring and enforcement
           powers going to a single agency?

    24.    Because of dwindling budgets, agencies are prioritizing what they will review under
           the ACMP. Either projects are not being reviewed by all agencies, or in some cases
           permits or other authorizations are being waived. Need to keep this fact in mind.
           Also, can DGC take more responsibility for reviewing projects?

    Participants
    Louisa Rand Moore           Jon Isaacs
    Walt Wrede                  Frankie Pillifant
    Glenn Seaman                Sara Hunt
    Susan Braley                Gabrielle LaRoche
    John Gliva                  Darcy Richards
    Sue Flensburg               Mary Pearsall
    Maureen McCrea              Christine Valentine
    Thede Tobish                Rob Walkinshaw
    Gordon Lewis                Nicole Faghin
    Beth Kerttula

                                                3

     20.  Consider developing MOAs with the federal agencies to secure commitment.

     21.  Need to consider that the different levels of government have different
           perspectives/agendas at the district, regional or headquarters level. Make sure you
           involve the right people at the right time.

    Plan Content

     22.  Should consider a "strategic planning" approach, especially for special area plans, to
           focus on specific issues or conflicting uses. Determine the information needed by
           the agency whose authority addresses the problem - that's the information to focus
           on in the district planning process. Do you want quantity or quality? Analyze the
           problem to discover the data you need.

     23. Do need to consider that a complete resource inventory is important for the
           consideration of cumulative impacts. Need to consider historical uses and activities.

    Policies

     24.  Need to be clear and specific in the policy language. If language is unclear, it could
           be considered arbitrary in court.

     25.  Performance based policies need to be more specific, yet allow flexibility to fit the
           circumstance.

     26.  Refer to the Department of Law manual for drafting regulations for guidance on
          policy language.

     27.  Who get deference on the interpretation of policies? Should agencies use
          stipulations based on district policies (for example, habitat stipulations) or their own
           authorities, or should the district develop the stipulations? Need to clarify these
          responsibilities.

     28.  Should district plans reference or incorporate local ordinances? If ordinances, or
          ordinance like policies are incorporated in the plan, the ACMP amendment process
          must be followed if the district wants to revise policy language, or revise the
          ordinances.

     29.  District policies should match the "issues, goals, and objectives" section of the plan.

     30.  Should "state or federal" issues be carried in the district plans, or should the plans be
          focused on locally driven issues?

                                                 3