Opinion ID: 1191743
Heading Depth: 6
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: The Kenai district CMP

Text: 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.