Opinion ID: 2538601
Heading Depth: 4
Heading Rank: 5

Heading: Transportation and utilities standard

Text: The transportation and utilities standard dictates that [t]ransportation and utility routes and facilities in the coastal area must be sited, designed, and constructed so as to be compatible with district programs. [84] The Division noted the Municipality's determination that the proposed uses and associated safeguards would allow development of the transportation facilities in a manner that is compatible with the [Anchorage] CMP. ACE charges that although deference is due the Municipality's opinion, the Division erred in completely deferring to the Municipality because the Division still had a duty to independently determine consistency. [85] In Ninilchik, we stated that despite the deference due to districts in interpreting their own coastal management programs, [t]his deference does not ... relieve [the reviewing agency] of the duty to independently determine that the [project] is consistent with the affected [programs]. [86] The State responds by claiming that the local coastal district does not have specific standards to review for consistency with this standard and that instead, the district reviews the program as a whole and so transportation and utility routes were reviewed in the context of the project as a whole. Specifically, the State contends that the Division considered the transportation and utilities standard through its consideration of whether the project was consistent with the coastal development, geophysical hazard, habitats, air, land and water quality standards and related coastal district policies. ACE counters that there is a specific standard for review of the transportation and utilities standard, since the Anchorage CMP's policies for coastal wetlands and preservation freshwater wetlands include a policy to [a]void or minimize, any identified adverse impacts to coastal or freshwater marshes and wetlands (as identified in Anchorage [Wetlands Management Plan]) from public works activities such as transportation projects and utility, sewer and drainage activities. ACE charges that since the Division did not discuss this policy, its decision is arbitrary. ACE is correct in identifying the existence and applicability of this policy, but the State is correct in arguing that the Division established that the policy was satisfied in its discussions of other standards. The Division explicitly addressed the Anchorage CMP policies for coastal and preservation wetlands, noting that [f]eatures of the permit that ensure the wetland values are assessed appropriately and necessary protection is incorporated into the project have been discussed previously under A and B Wetlands policies of the [Anchorage Wetlands Management Plan] and the Development, Habitats, and Air, Land, and Water Quality statewide standards of the ACMP. These analyses addressed the concerns about minimizing adverse impacts to wetlands. The Division noted the numerous conditions and stipulations designed to maximize conformance with the requirements of the habitats standard and the air, land, and water quality standard to maintain habitat characteristics and protect water quality and patterns. The Division also discussed the measures taken to meet the policies for various types of wetlands under the Anchorage Wetlands Management Plan, specifically mentioning the Plan's explicit acknowledgment that use of Airport wetlands for airport-dependent activities is allowable due to the lack of practicable alternatives. The Division thus took a hard look at the Anchorage CMP's policies, even if it failed to mention them explicitly in its discussion of the transportation and utilities standard. Accordingly, we conclude that the Division had a reasonable basis for finding that standard to be satisfied.