Opinion ID: 1191743
Heading Depth: 4
Heading Rank: 4

Heading: Consistency with local district management programs

Text: Finally, NTC charges that the CCD is invalid because DNR failed to comply with the relevant DCMPs  for the Kenai Peninsula Borough (Kenai), the Matanuska-Susitna Borough (Mat-Su), and the Municipality of Anchorage (Anchorage). NTC argues that DNR is obligated to make an independent determination that the Sale is consistent with each DCMP, and that DNR failed to apply the requirements of the DCMPs to the Sale.
Under the ACMP, DNR must find that Sale 78 is consistent with the Kenai, Mat-Su, and Anchorage DCMPs. The ACMP regulations provide: Uses and activities conducted by state agencies in the coastal area must be consistent with the applicable district program and the standards contained in this chapter. 6 AAC 80.010(b) (emphasis added). An agency can authorize a use or activity in the coastal zone only if the agency finds that the use or activity is consistent with the applicable district program. Id. The State argues that DNR could rely on the districts' concurrence with its consistency determination as the basis for its finding that Sale 78 was consistent with the applicable district program[s]. Agencies give substantial deference to a district's interpretation of its CMP requirements. According to ACMP regulation 6 AAC 50.120(a) (1995), an agency rendering a CCD should give deference to the comments of affected coastal districts with approved programs. The regulation observes that [a] coastal resource district whose district program has been incorporated into the ACMP is considered to have expertise in the interpretation and application of its program. 6 AAC 50.120(a). Because the regulations mandate such deference to the districts themselves, DNR can rely on the concurrence of coastal districts as one basis for its conclusion that a sale is consistent with the DCMPs. [14] This deference does not, however, relieve DNR of the duty to independently determine that the Sale is consistent with the affected DCMPs. 6 AAC 80.010(b).
If an affected coastal district does not expressly concur in DNR's CCD, DNR must apply the local DCMPs to the extent it reasonably can at the lease sale stage. See 6 AAC 50.120(a) (1995).
The Kenai district expressed its concurrence by letter. Therefore, DNR could properly rely on the district's express finding that the Sale is consistent with its CMP. Nonetheless, and despite the deference DNR owes to the findings of a local district, 6 AAC 80.010(b) required DNR to determine independently that the Sale is consistent with the Kenai DCMP. The record does not indicate that DNR made any such determination. Instead, DNR's final finding is arguably inconsistent with the Kenai DCMP requirement that the cumulative effects of a consistency determination be examined. DNR stated that Cook Inlet was a mature petroleum province but did not address possible effects of the federal Cook Inlet leasing program or a coal processing project. Further, DNR's lease stipulations may squarely conflict with the express terms of the DCMP's mitigation standard. We remand to DNR with directions to independently determine whether the Sale is consistent with the Kenai DCMP.
The Municipality of Anchorage did not expressly concur in DNR's CCD for Sale 78. Therefore, 6 AAC 80.010(b) required DNR to apply the Anchorage DCMP standards to the Sale tracts within the Municipality of Anchorage to be consistent with the ACMP. NTC argues that DNR failed to comply with the Anchorage DCMP because it failed to prefer development of tracts in areas already developed. According to NTC, DNR failed to comply with this goal because, instead of looking at the specific areas in question, it considered the entire Cook Inlet as one developed area. The State responds that this approach is appropriate, as the tracts within the Municipality of Anchorage are designated by the DCMP as Class IV waters. Class IV waters are classified under utilization environment, which comprises areas recognized as being potentially suitable for future growth and development. The State argues that the preference for `development within already developed areas' is embodied in the classification of Class IV waters. Based on the Anchorage DCMP, the designation of an area as Class IV waters does not appear to mean that all parts of that area are in fact already developed; it means that they are subject to development. DNR discussed the Anchorage DCMP briefly, but nowhere considered the DCMP's goal that [e]mphasis should be given to development within already developed areas. Consequently, DNR did not comply with the Anchorage DCMP. We remand to DNR with instructions to consider the Anchorage DCMP's goal of emphasi[zing] ... development within already developed areas.
The Mat-Su Borough did not expressly concur in DNR's CCD for Sale 78. Therefore, DNR also had to apply the Mat-Su DCMP standards to tracts within that borough for the Sale to be consistent with the ACMP. NTC argues that, among other things, DNR failed to comply with the Mat-Su DCMP's mitigation technique requirements. The State replies that DNR reasonably addressed the mitigation concerns of the Mat-Su DCMP at the lease sale stage, and will apply the requirements more specifically at the exploration and development stages. Coastal Habitats Standard 6 of the Mat-Su DCMP provides that [m]itigation techniques ... shall include replacing stream bank vegetation where possible [and] creation of oil and grease separators prior to road development runoff entering rivers, lakes, and streams, creation of settlement systems prior to development runoff entering stream corridors thereby decreasing sedimentation. Lease Term 21 addressed this mitigation standard, and provides in relevant part: At the option of the state, all improvements such as roads, pads, and wells must either be abandoned and the sites rehabilitated by the lessee to the satisfaction of the state, or be left intact and the lessee absolved of all further responsibility as to their maintenance, repair, and eventual abandonment and rehabilitation. However, this lease term is vague and standardless, and gives DNR the discretion not to require revegetation at a later stage. It therefore does not satisfy the Mat-Su mitigation technique requirements. Accordingly, we remand to DNR with instructions to consider the Mat-Su DCMP's mitigation standard in rendering its CCD.