Opinion ID: 1191743
Heading Depth: 5
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Feasible and prudent alternative

Text: DNR also found that the second element of the 6 AAC 80.130(d) analysis was satisfied, because there is no feasible and prudent alternative available to meet the public need for the proposed oil and gas lease sale. [12] The State maintains that while it might be feasible to offer less promising areas for lease, it would not be prudent because potential lessees have expressed an interest in the Sale 78 area. NTC argues that DNR failed to demonstrate that there is no feasible and prudent alternative to Sale 78. In Camden Bay I, DNR based its finding that the sale was in the State's best interest in part on the fact that if development occurred it would make development of existing oil deposits near the sale area economically feasible. 795 P.2d at 810. In Camden Bay II, DNR found that industry interest in the area was significant, and concluded that it would not be prudent to lease areas of lesser potential. Accordingly, we found that DNR had articulated sufficient support for its finding that no feasible and prudent alternative existed for the proposed sale. 851 P.2d at 1348. In this case, DNR also considered economic factors in determining the existence of a feasible and prudent alternative, including the prudence of offering the area selected for development as opposed to another area. DNR found that [t]he only feasible alternative to offering lands in the coastal zone is to offer lands outside of the coastal zone. Given the public need for oil and gas revenues, however, this is not a prudent alternative in Alaska because most of the prospective acreage and facilities infrastructure lies in coastal areas. Because DNR had a reasonable basis for finding that there was no feasible and prudent alternative available, we hold that DNR satisfied the second part of the tripartite test.