Opinion ID: 1314438
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Adequacy of DNR's Mitigation Measures

Text: Trustees' second major argument is that DNR's consistency determination is inadequate because it lacks an objective evaluation of whether the mitigation measures [proposed by DNR for inclusion in the leases] will work under the conditions prevalent in the Camden Bay area, and whether, even if they work, the activity will then be consistent with the coastal management program. In short, Trustees argue that DNR was arbitrary and capricious because it never addressed the effectiveness of the mitigating measures on which it relied to conclude that the sale is consistent with ACMP standards. DNR responds that DNR's mitigation measures are arguably not even required at the lease sale stage, but even if required, are as thorough and forward-looking as they can be as a practical matter at the lease sale stage. We have already noted that DNR erred in failing to discharge its responsibility to identify known geophysical hazard areas and archeological sites prior to the lease sale. Trustees seek to impose an additional duty, requiring DNR to evaluate the effectiveness of mitigating measures before even receiving detailed development proposals. We find DNR's position reasonable. In our view, DNR's mitigation measures provide sensible guidelines to minimize the harmful effects of oil and gas development. Most importantly, the lessees cannot develop their leases until they submit detailed plans, which must satisfy the ACMP regulations. If the plans do not satisfy the ACMP regulations, DNR can impose additional mitigation measures that assure that the regulations are complied with. Thus we reject Trustees' argument to the extent that it would tie the reasonableness of DNR's consistency determination to its developing and assessing detailed mitigation measures even before knowing which activities it needs to mitigate.