Opinion ID: 2604579
Heading Depth: 4
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: The language of the Act

Text: Alaska Statute 38.05.855 uses the term identify to direct action that shall be taken by the Commissioner regarding districts and sites. AS 38.05.855(a), (d). Identification suggests a conscious act and determination. DNR simply designated all of Southcentral and Southeast Alaska as districts. It failed to explicitly close any portion of these regions to aquatic farming. In reality it relied on existing general land use plans, which were created without consideration of aquatic farming, and delegated specifying which areas are suitable for farming to the permitting stage. Further, DNR chose to open all of both regions despite extensive testimony from various groups that particular areas should be closed to farming. [3] There is no documentary proof that this decision was reached after weighing and analyzing the evidence presented. [4] District identification pursuant to AS 38.05.855(a) is both a procedural and substantive step. It has a procedural aspect because it allows DNR to categorize applications for permits according to geographic region. It also involves an important substantive policy decision because it requires DNR to identify districts within which farmsites may be selected. The may be selected language indicates that DNR must distinguish between those areas of Alaska that will be open to farming and those that will be closed. DNR cannot reasonably make this decision without analyzing facts relevant to the suitability of various areas of Alaska to aquatic farming. By simply publishing maps of aquatic farm districts based on general land use plans, DNR neglected its responsibilities under AS 38.05.855(a).