Opinion ID: 1200520
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: Did the board properly apply AS 16.05.251(e) in deciding to establish a chum cap on the June Fishery?

Text: The state contends that even if AS 16.05.251(e) applies to intra-commercial allocations, the board's action in this case did in fact comply with that statute. The state implies that the board's adoption of 5 AAC 39.205 (1990) satisfies the requirements of the statute. That regulation provides: Before adopting regulations that allocate fish among personal use, sport, and commercial fisheries, the board will, as appropriate to particular allocation decisions, consider factors such as those set out in AS 16.05.251(e). We have remarked that, [t]his court has repeatedly required that agency decisions, in exercise of their adjudicative powers, must be accompanied by written findings and a decisional document. Johns v. Commercial Fisheries Entry Comm'n, 758 P.2d 1256, 1260 (Alaska 1988) (and cases cited therein). This court has strongly suggested that non-adjudicative decisions of an agency must also be supported by an adequate decisional document. Southeast Alaska Conservation Council v. State, 665 P.2d 544, 549 (Alaska 1983). .. . In order to ensure careful and reasoned administrative deliberation and to facilitate judicial review, the decisions of [the board] must be adequately documented. Messerli v. Dep't of Natural Resources, 768 P.2d 1112, 1118 (Alaska 1989). No decisional document was prepared by the board when it established the chum cap. The record before us does include a transcript of extensive board hearings on the cap issue that indicates what was considered by the board in making its decision. However, because the validity of the cap is moot, we need not address whether this record would have been sufficient to sustain the cap regulation.