Opinion ID: 2538601
Heading Depth: 4
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: The Division reviewed all uses and activities for the broad project.

Text: In Cook Inlet Keeper v. State , we explained that a consistency determination must encompass the entire project it covers and should comprehensively consider[ ] or finally determine[ ] the consistency of all permitted uses and activities included in the whole project at issue. [16] We determined that a consistency review should specifically focus[ ] on the consistency of the activities encompassed by all necessary ... project permitsthose already issued and those still to be issued. [17] Basing its argument on its view of the specificity required in a project, ACE alleges that the Division did not identify all permits needed for each item on the Revised Uses list in the consistency determination, mentioning only the Corps permit and the certificate of reasonable assurance from the Department of Environmental Conservation, and ignoring the Airport building permit, Airport ground lease, and perhaps other resource agency permits that any private party using the filled bogs would need. [18] ACE therefore argues that the Division did not review all uses and activities that might occur in developing the bogs, did not focus separately on each use or activity on the non-exclusive lists, and did not identify where any particular facility on those lists would be located or what its effects would be. ACE thus contends that the Division could not and did not evaluate the `entire project' in the meaningful way that the ACMP requires. The State counters ACE's assertions by arguing that the Division evaluated the probable effects of complete destruction of wetlands through intensive development of airport-related facilities, basing its evaluation on the limited uses it would allow in the bogs and employing a model of the mix of uses that would constitute intensive development. [19] The State maintains that the Division analyzed the overall and secondary effects that would result from this worst-case intensive development scenario, rather than analyzing individually the effects of each use. In other words, the State views the project holistically, as it is described in the consistency determination by the Division: a 10-year permit from the U.S. Corps of Engineers to be issued to Anchorage International Airport (AIA) to fill up to 5.8 million cubic yards of classified fill into 240 acres of wetlands in Turnagain Bog and Postmark Bog. As explained above, we agree that airport expansion as a whole is a valid project, and it was the project before the Division for review. The Airport building permits, ground leases, and any other permits that private parties using the filled bogs might need are only for specific developments that might occur later in expansion, not for expansion as a whole. Similarly, ACE's focus on the Division's failure to specify the location or effects of any particular facility associated with one of the listed uses incorrectly presumes a high level of required specificity in the project the Division was evaluating. Nevertheless, the reviewing agency must consider `the probable cumulative impact of all anticipated activities' that will be part of the project. [20] The State asserts that the Division considered the effects of future leases and permits in the area by limiting the uses for which such permits could be issued, studying the cumulative impacts of those uses in an intensive development model, evaluating secondary effects on water, air, traffic, and noise related to those uses, imposing conditions to address unforeseen circumstances, and incorporating additional stipulations imposed by the Corps and the Department of Environmental Conservation. The State maintains that postponing review until each use in the project area was fully defined was not required and would be less comprehensive. The State notes that [t]he elements of an airport, and the effects on people and the environment, are well-known and can be studied as a whole to allow comprehensive review. The State argues that adopting a holistic approach here is good policy and is within the discretion of the agency. We agree. We have recognized the benefits of comprehensive evaluation of environmental risks, noting that the more segmented an assessment of environmental hazards, the greater the risk that prior permits will compel [the agency] to approve later, environmentally unsound permits. [21] Limiting the types of development allowed on the filled lands and imposing conditions and stipulations address the cumulative impacts of possible future developments. [22] Given the broad project at issue here, we affirm the comprehensive approach taken by the Division.