Opinion ID: 1191743
Heading Depth: 5
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: District concurrence

Text: 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).