Opinion ID: 1191743
Heading Depth: 5
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: Application of the standard at the lease sale stage

Text: NTC also argues that DNR's CCD is invalid because it did not satisfy the coastal development standard. NTC contends that in its CCD DNR failed to determine specifically which activities are water-dependent, and then failed to give priority to any water-dependent uses and activities, particularly fishing, as required by the regulations. The State responds that it properly applied the coastal development standard and prescribed general mitigation measures at the lease sale stage. [4] The State argues that it could not make a specific determination that a lessee's proposed activities would be water-dependent or water-related at this stage, [5] because it could not know whether the tract to be developed was located onshore or offshore. [6] A more focused application of the coastal development standard is reserved until lessees seek specific permission to undertake exploration. [7] The ACMP coastal development standard provides: In planning for and approving development in coastal areas, districts and state agencies shall give in the following order, priority to: (1) water-dependent uses and activities; (2) water-related uses and activities; and (3) uses and activities which are neither water-dependent nor water-related for which there is no feasible and prudent inland alternative to meet the public need for the use or activity. 6 AAC 80.040(a) (1995). [8] In applying the coastal development standard, DNR impliedly found that lessees' proposed activities at the lease sale stage were either water-dependent or water-related. In accordance with this finding, DNR proposed more than twenty general mitigation measures designed to prevent significant interference with other water-dependent and water-related activities.... (Emphasis added.) In Trustees for Alaska v. State, Department of Natural Resources, 851 P.2d 1340, 1346-47 (Alaska 1993) ( Camden Bay II ), Trustees challenged an oil and gas lease sale CCD on the basis that DNR did not make an objective determination that the mitigation measures prescribed to ensure the sale's consistency with the ACMP would be effective. This court rejected that argument, holding that it was reasonable for DNR to prescribe general mitigation measures at the lease sale stage. Id. at 1347. The court explained: 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. Id. In this case, DNR prescribed general mitigation measures which provide sensible guidelines to minimize the effects of development on other water-dependent and water-related activities. These measures include Term 13, which authorizes the director to restrict lease-related use to prevent unreasonable conflicts with subsistence and commercial fishing operations. Because DNR determined that the proposed activities were either water-dependent or water-related, and prescribed general mitigation measures at the lease sale stage to ensure that these activities do not interfere with other water-dependent and water-related uses, we find that the coastal development standard is satisfied at this stage of the project. [9]