Opinion ID: 1191743
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: The Best Interest Finding

Text: NTC asserts that DNR improperly issued its BIF, as direct conflicts will inevitably arise between oil and gas exploration and development activities and fishing in parts of the Sale area. NTC argues that DNR failed to resolve these conflicts in its BIF, and instead improperly deferred imposing restrictions which could address these conflicts until the exploration and development stages. The State responds that DNR considered potential conflicts between fishing and any future oil and gas development to the extent reasonably possible at the lease sale stage, and that it did not defer the resolution of such conflicts until the future. This court reviews DNR's best interest determination only to the extent necessary to ascertain whether the decision has a `reasonable' basis, and to ensure that it was not arbitrary, capricious, or prompted by corruption. Camden Bay I, 795 P.2d at 809 (quoting Hammond v. North Slope Borough, 645 P.2d 750, 758, 759 (Alaska 1982)). If an agency does not consider an important factor, its decision is regarded as arbitrary, and those important factors which it did consider, must be discussed in the decisional document. Camden Bay I, 795 P.2d at 811. Before DNR can approve the disposal of State land, the Commissioner, or the director of the DNR division with jurisdiction over the disposition in question acting with the consent of the Commissioner, must make a written finding that the interests of the state will be best served by such action. AS 38.05.035(e). [15] In this case, the Director of the Division of Oil & Gas, James Eason, determined that Sale 78 would be in the State's best interest. [16] In approving the Sale, DNR considered and addressed potential conflicts between fishing and oil and gas exploration and development at the lease sale stage. The BIF contains a separate section entitled Current and Projected Uses in the Sale Area, Including Uses and Values of Fish and Wildlife. This section discusses the fisheries the lease area supports and their importance and value, including the salmon set and drift net fisheries. At numerous points throughout the BIF, DNR recognized the possibility that oil and gas activities might conflict with these fisheries. DNR prescribed specific mitigation measures in the BIF to minimize the impact of these potential conflicts. [17] DNR also discussed its belief that fisheries would be sufficiently protected through application of various statutory and regulatory authorities designed to minimize the negative impacts of oil and gas activities, including the ACMP, at the time lessees seek permission to undertake specific activities. [18] DNR is not required to resolve all potential conflicts, but it must address them and, to the extent permitted by available knowledge, prescribe measures to minimize them. DNR attempted to harmonize conflicting uses so that both fishing and oil and gas activity could take place; however, it was not required to give an absolute priority to one over the other. Because DNR considered the potential conflicts between fishing and oil and gas activities in reaching its decision that Sale 78 is in the State's best interest, and because it discussed these factors in its decisional document, we hold that DNR gave the necessary hard look in issuing its BIF. Therefore, we AFFIRM the superior court's holding that the BIF was valid.