|
State’s Beaufort Sea best interest finding affirmed by court
Kristen Nelson PNA News Editor
Superior Court Judge Sigurd Murphy has affirmed in all respects the Department of Natural Resources best interest finding for the Beaufort Sea areawide oil and gas lease sale scheduled for Nov. 15.
The best interest finding was challenged by the Sierra Club, Alaska Wilderness League, Greenpeace Inc. and the Wilderness Society who asserted that DNR did not sufficiently consider methods and relative risks of methods most likely to be used to transport oil and gas from the sale area; failed to consider cumulative effects of the lease sale on caribou herds; and failed to comply with the habitat standards of the Alaska Coastal Management Plan.
In an Oct. 13 ruling, Judge Murphy noted that according to state statute the burden in an appeal of a best interest finding is upon the party seeking to establish the invalidity of the finding.
The judge said that phasing is permitted in best interest findings and that it was proper for DNR to phase its best interest finding for the Beaufort Sea sale. The sale meets the requirements for a phased development under state statute, and “the phasing review does not allow DNR to avoid thorough review of the project or avoid consideration of potential environmental, sociological or economic effects,” Murphy said.
He also said the state’s Alaska Coastal Management Plan standards have been met, including adequate consideration of oil and gas transportation methods and risks, and wildlife issues concerning the four caribou herds in the area. Quantifying revenue not required The coastal management plan requires determination that there is a significant public need for the Beaufort Sea sale. The Sierra Club argued that DNR must “estimate what percentage of the state’s revenue the sale might reasonably generate.” DNR had used seismic data and well information to determine a relative estimate of the petroleum potential of the area and Judge Murphy said the Alaska Supreme Court has never required DNR to quantify estimates of recoverable reserves and there was no legal basis for the Sierra Club’s contention that DNR must estimate revenue potential for the sale to adequately determine a significant public need for the sale.
The Sierra Club argued that to meet the coastal management plan habitat standards, DNR was required to remove tracts “that members of the public most strongly objected to,” tracts of “significant environmental value” or, alternatively, to prohibit surface occupancy on certain tracts.
The judge said that “a smaller, patchwork, lease sale does not afford the same potential for revenue as the areawide sale” and ruled that “DNR’s decision that there is no prudent and feasible alternative to the subject sale was neither arbitrary nor capricious.” The record shows, he said, that DNR took the requisite “hard look” at the sale area before issuing its consistency determination. Close to protected areas The Sierra Club emphasized the sale’s proximity to areas of significant environmental value, such as the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge and Teshekpuk Lake in the National Petroleum Reserve-Alaska. Judge Murphy said these areas are already protected by executive action “and this protection has not been deemed necessary for the adjacent lands…”
The Sierra Club argued that DNR “must consider the benefits and risk of all alternative energy sources against the benefits and risks of the subject lease sale.” Judge Murphy noted that DNR “did not consider all alternative energy sources, to include nuclear fusion and tapping the Aurora Borealis…” but said “DNR is not required to consider every possible alternative energy source, only those that both fulfill the public need for revenue and maintain or enhance the habitat. The Sierra Club has not demonstrated that its proposed alternatives would generate the same revenue or maintain or enhance coastal habitats.”
| 