Opinion ID: 1314438
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Historic, Pre-Historic and Archeological Resources

Text: The applicable standard pertaining to historic, prehistoric and archeological resources (henceforth, archeological sites) is 6 AAC 80.150. 6 AAC 80.150 provides: Districts and appropriate state agencies shall identify areas of the coast which are important to the study, understanding, or illustration of national, state, or local history or prehistory. The regulation therefore directly commands state agencies to identify areas of the coast that are important to the study, understanding, or illustration of relevant history or prehistory. Although the record includes a number of studies identifying onshore archeological sites adjacent to the sale area, DNR did not conduct cultural resource surveys regarding archeological sites within the sale area. Instead, it delegated this task to the Sale 50 lessees, and required them to carry it out if and when they explored and developed the leased sites. [9] DNR defends its decision to delegate and postpone identifying archeological sites as follows. It argues that 6 AAC 80.150 does not require it to identify such sites prior to a lease sale. Instead, DNR reads the regulation as leaving it the discretion to determine  how and when such identification must take place. Its decision not to identify archeological sites at the lease sale stage was appropriate because [t]he existence of ... such resources on offshore areas is unlikely, because DNR and the Sale 50 leases stipulated that the lessee would report the discovery of any such resources and ... make every reasonable effort to protect them ... until instructed by DNR, [10] and because any development of the leased sites will be subject to an independent ACMP consistency review. Finally, DNR argues that it would be poor public policy for a court to require it to conduct and pay for detailed studies prior to merely conducting an oil and gas lease sale which authorizes no activity to take place on the leased tracts. DNR's decision to defer identification of archeological sites does not comply with 6 AAC 80.150. The regulation clearly requires the identification of archeological sites, but it does not state when they are to be identified. In the context of an oil lease sale, there are a number of possible ways that the regulation may be interpreted. Identification may be required: 1) before any sale; 2) at the time permits for exploration activity are sought; or 3) at the time permits for development are sought. There are also at least two possible levels of identification: 1) identification of known sites, necessitating only literature surveys and personal contact with individuals who may have knowledge concerning such sites; and 2) identification of unknown sites, necessitating field surveys and exploration. In our view the regulation is most reasonably interpreted to require, among other things, the identification of known archeological sites at the initial sale stage. Our reasons parallel those set forth above concerning the need to identify geophysical hazards. Protection and preservation of archeological sites is an objective of the ACMP. The statute requires that the ACMP. shall be consistent with the following objectives: ... . (5) the protection and management of significant historic, cultural, natural and aesthetic values and natural systems or processes within coastal area[.] AS 46.40.020. It may be that a particular area is so rich in archeological values that it could not be sold consistently with the ACMP. Further, reliance on the lessees to separately evaluate each lease on a site-by-site basis runs the risk of undervaluing the cumulative cultural significance of the region as a whole. Moreover, the lessees may have a conflict of interest that leads to the underreporting of archeological sites, since the presence of a site on a leasehold may make its development more difficult and costly. These possibilities may be remote in the context of an offshore lease sale. However, compliance with the identification requirement at the sale stage is not difficult, and our decision in this case will apply to future cases where archeological sites may be more abundant. Our holding that 6 AAC 80.150 requires identification of known archeological sites before a lease sale does not mean that more intensive duties are not required by this regulation at later stages of development. Nor does it mean that archeological sites are necessarily of overriding importance under the ACMP. What it does mean is that a regulation that calls for the State to identify areas that are important archeologically cannot be ignored when the State takes a significant step in committing an area to a particular type of development. DNR must comprehensively survey the known data, set out the results, and state its conclusions. As it has not done so in this case, a remand to DNR is necessary.