Special area management under the Alaska coastal management program summary report to the District Planning Working Group

[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

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.

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

* 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.

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.

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.

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:

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.

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:

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. 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.

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;

� 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.

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

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

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

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

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.

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.

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)

* 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.

* 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)].

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.

* 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.

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.

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.

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

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).

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

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

* 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

* 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.

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.

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

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.

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

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.

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)

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.

* 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.

(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.

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

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

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.

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

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)].

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.

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.

* 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.

* 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).

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.

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

* 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

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.

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.

_ 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.

_ 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.

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

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.

� 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.

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.

. 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.

_ _ 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.

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.

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;

(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

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.

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

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

(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

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:

'(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;

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

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)

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-

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

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;

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;

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

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.

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

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)

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

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

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

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

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

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.

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

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;

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

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

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

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):

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?

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?

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

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?

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.

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)?

OTHER

28. Any other comments?

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.

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?

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)

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

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.

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,

(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.

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?

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:

(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

(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

*** 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

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

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?

(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

(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'

(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) 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

(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!!!!

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

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

(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

*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

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:

*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

�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

(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

(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

(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

(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

(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

(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]

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.

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

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.

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

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?