Opinion ID: 1119416
Heading Depth: 4
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Did DNR adequately document its decision?

Text: UCM asserts that DNR's decision was invalid because it was not supported by a decisional document. The State counters that a formal decisional document is not required as DNR's decision is adequately documented in the record. We have long held that `agency decisions, in exercise of their adjudicative powers, must be accompanied by written findings and a decisional document.' Messerli, 768 P.2d at 1118 (quoting Johns v. Commercial Fisheries Entry Comm'n, 758 P.2d 1256, 1260 (Alaska 1988)). We have also strongly suggested that non-adjudicative decisions of an agency must also be supported by an adequate decisional document. Id. (citing Southeast Alaska Conservation Council v. State, 665 P.2d 544, 549 (Alaska 1983)). However, this documentation need not occur in a formal, unified decisional document, as long as the record clearly reflects the reasoning underlying the agency's decisions. Id. In this case, DNR did not issue a formal decisional document in determining that UCM had miscalculated its adjusted gross value. However, the communications between DNR and UCM clearly reflect the reasoning underlying DNR's decision. UCM was repeatedly informed that its calculations of adjusted gross value were erroneous, as they contained deductions not authorized under 11 AAC 85.225 (1996). We also find that the record reveals a careful and reasoned administrative deliberation by DNR in determining the meaning of gross value as provided in 11 AAC 82.225. [25] Messerli, 768 P.2d at 1118. Consequently, we hold that DNR's decision was adequately documented, and that UCM's argument regarding the lack of a decisional document is meritless.