## In the



# U n ited S ta tes Co urt o f Ap p ea ls

F o rth eS e v e n th C ir cu it
N o. 12

- 3187 H O O SIER E NVIR ONM ENTAL C OUN CIL an d C ITIZENS FO R A PPROPRIAT E R URAL R OADS, P laint if fs -App el lants , v.
U NI T ED S TATE S A RM Y C ORPS OF E NG INEERS, etal. , D efend a nts-A pp ellees , an d I NDI ANA D EPART MENT OF T RA NS PO RT A T I ON, Interv eno r D efend a nt-A pp ellee
.
A pp eal from the United S t ates Di strictC our t fo r the S outhernDi stricto f Indian a, Indian apolisDiv isi on. No . 1:11- cv-00202- LJM-D ML

—L arry J . M cKinn ey, Judge
. A RG UE D F EB RU AR Y 25, 2013

— D ECI DE D J UL Y 16, 2013

Befo re B AUER, P OSNER, a nd S YKES, C ircu it Judges . P OSNER, Cir cu i tJudg e . T hi s appe alr equi r es us t o c o nsi der the sc ope o fthe du ty i m posed on the Arm y Cor ps of En g i ne e r s b y s e c t i o n 4 0 4 o fthe Cl e a n W a t e r Ac t, 3 3 U. S
. C.2 N o. 12

- 3187 § 1 344, and i ts i m ple m en tin g regula ti ons, to pro tect wet l an ds th at co nt ain o r ar e co ve r ed by wat er s of th e Uni te d S ta te s (an d s o a r e wi th i n fede r alj ur i sdi ct i o n) fro m envi ro nm enta l d egr adati on by

— i n thi s ca se

— th e co ns truct i o n o fa hi g hway

. W et la nds a r e en vi r o nmen t a l l y s i g ni f i c a ntb e c a us e the y h e l p r e c ha r g e g r o un dwa t e r s o ur c e s, f i l t e r wa t e r, c o nt r o lfl o o di ng, a nd p r o v i de a habi ta t for m an y a ni m ala nd pl an t spe ci es , a s do the str eam s that ca rr y waterto wetl ands, and ar e a lso of concern i n thi s ca se. S ec ti o n 4 04 ( a) of t he Acta utho r i ze s th e S ec r et ar y o fthe Arm y ( i n pr ac ti ce , the Army Co r ps o fEng i ne er s) t o i ss ue perm i ts “f or t h e d i schar ge ofdredge d orfi l lm ate ri ali nto the nav i g ab l e wa t e r s ” o fthe Uni t e d S t a t e s . 3 3 U. S
. C. § 1 34 4(a ). I m p l e m e n tin g re gu lat ion s s ta te th at a p er m it w i l lbe denie d i fthe Corps fi nd s that there i s “ a practi cable alt er n at ive to th e pr op os ed d isc h ar ge w h ich w o u ld h av e le ss ad ve rs e im p ac t o n t h e a q u at ic e c os ys te m ,” 40 C.F. R. § 230. 10( a) , o r i fthe disc harg e “ w oul d be c o nt r a r y t o the pu blic in terest
. ” 33 C. F
. R. § 3 20
. 4( a) ( 1)
. The ter m s we’v e i tal i ci zed ar e the o nes c ri ti calto thi s ca se. I -69 is a n int erstate highw ay (part of the fed eral int erst at e hi g hway s y st em) tha t when co m pl et ed wi l lr un fro m Canada to M exi co ( and o f course i n the opposi te di r ec ti o n a s wel l ) thr o ug h a numbe r o fst ates inc l udi ng I nd i ana. A t pr ese nt, however, the hi ghw ay consi sts o f disj oi nted seg m ents. O n e ofthe bre aks i s be tw een Ind i an a p o l i s i n c e n t r a lIn d i a n a a n d E v a n s v i l l e i n th e e x t r e me southwestern cornero fthe sta te. A federa li nter sta te high w ay (I -70) run s betw een Ind ianap oli s and TerreN o. 12

- 3187 3 H aute. A l ess erfedera lhi ghw ay , Route 41, r uns bet w een Te r r e Ha ut e a nd Ev a ns v i l l e . As s ho wn i n the m ap b elo w , th es e t w o h igh w ay s fo rm th e s id es of an ap p ro x imat e r i g ht t r i a ng l e . Th e di r e c t r o ut e b e t we e n I nd i ana po l i s an d E vansv i l l e i s th e hy po te nus e an d thus the s hor tero f t h e tw o ro utes

— 142 m i l es ra therthan 155 m i l es l ong. The ro ads on the dir ect ro ute (th e h ypote
n u se ) te n d t o b e n ar ro w an d cr ow d ed w ith tru c k t ra ffic an d to ex p er ien c e a n ab ov e-a ve ra ge inc id en c e o f tra ffic ac ci den ts
. The F ede ral H i g hway Adm i ni st r at i o n a nd the Ind i ana D ep ar tm ent o fTra nsport ati on ( the l att er a defendant i n thi s s uitbyenvi ro n m en talgr oups; th e o th er p rin c i p a l d efe n d an t is th e A rm y C or p s o f E n gine er s) de ci ded th ata wor th whi l e co nt r ibut i o n t o the co m pl et i o n o f I

- 69 woul d be to bui l d an i nt er st ate highw ay on the hyp ot en use. The hi ghw ay w oul d thus be a seg m ent o fI

- 69. The ci rcl ed ar ea on t h e m ap i nd i cate s a co m ple ted se cti on o f t h e new hi ghw ay, se cti on 3 , that i s the i m m edi ate subj ect ofthi s l aw sui t.4 N o. 12

- 3187 A LT ER NAT I VE R OUTES FOR I - 69 F RO M I NDI ANA PO LI S T O E VAN SV I LL E

Env i r o nm en ta l i st s o ppo se d b ui l di nga hi g hway o n the dir ect ro ute on the gr ound that i t would dest ro y wetl ands, disrup t f or est s, and a l so disrup t “ka rs t” ec osyste m s,N o. 12

- 3187 5

unu suall andscapes per m eat ed by cave s and otherf or m ati ons that provi de ri ch habi tat s forwil dli fe, i ncl ud i ng such endanger ed and thre ate ned speci es as the Ind i ana ba t ( endanger ed) and the ba l d eagl e ( thre ate ned). S ee U
. S. Fi sh & W ild life Se rv ice M id w es t R eg ion, “K ar st E c os ys te m s,” ww w. fws . g o v/mi d we s t/e c o s y s t e mc o n s e r v a t i o n/k a r s t
. h t ml ( vi si te d J ul y 1, 2 01 3)
. M o sto fthe e nv i r o nm en ta lc o nc erns have been re sol ved, however ; thi s ca se i s c on c er ned j ust w i th the fi l l i ng o fwetl ands and ofst re am cr oss i ngs. Fil ling stream crossings m ean s p lacing gravel, rock, or dirt i n a st r e a m i n o r d e r t o s u p p o r ta r o a d th a tb r i d g e s the strea m o r ev en bl o ck s i t, i n whi ch ev en t ho wev er a cul ver t ca n be bui l t in or der t o conduct the str eam under t h e r oa d . Th e C lea n W at er A c t re q u ire s a p er m it t o fill str eam s that a re waters o fthe U ni ted S tat es

— that i s, that ar e withi n federa l j uri sdic ti on, as the w ate rs affecte d by th e hi g hwa y a r e . T h e p e r mi tg r a n t e d b y th e C o r p s a l l o ws si x str eam s in sec ti on 3 to b e fi l l ed w here the hi ghw ay cro sse s them , i n add i ti on to perm i tting th e d est ructi on of w etl ands. The tw o types ofac ti on

— destr oying wetl a n d s a n d fi l l i n gs t r e a ms

— ar e the act i ons chal l enged as vi o l at i o ns o fthe Cl ea n W at erAct
. To si m pl i fy e xpo si ti o n, w e’ l li gnor e the st re am s. The pla i nti ff s a dvocate , i n l i eu o fthe new hi ghw ay, s i mpl y u pg r a di ngt o fe de r a li nt e r s t a t e h i g hwa y s t a nd a r ds the 8 8- m i l e s tr etch of Route 41 fro m Ter re H aute to Evansville

. T h at w ou ld br in g t h e e n tir e In d ian ap olis -E va n sv ille ro ute u p to those st andards. The envi ro nm entali m pact w oul d be s l i ght b ecause al lthatwould be i nvol ved w oul d be upgra ding an exi sting hi ghw ay that occupi es on ly 5 7 p er c en t (8 8/ 15 5 m iles ) of th e in d ire c t ro u te . Th is6 N o. 12

- 3187 sugge ste d al ternati ve to th e new hi ghw ay w oul d al so be $1 bill ion ch eap er ($1 bi ll ion versu s $2 bil li on). The fed eraland sta te hi ghw ay author i ti es fi l ed, as they w er e r equi re d to do, Envi ro nm entalIm p act St ate m ents, w hi c h c o nc l ud e d tha tb ui l di nga n e w i nt e r s t a t e h i g hw ay o n the d ir ec t r o ut e was pr efer ab l e to upg r adingthe i nd i re ct r oute. A fter a sui t co ntending that the hi ghw ay w oul d vi ola te the Nati onalEnvi ro nm entalPro tect i on A c t fa iled , Hoos i e rEnvi r onment al C oun ci l v. U
. S. D ept
. of Tran s por t at i on , N o . 1 : 0 6

- c v - 1 4 4 2

- D F H- T AB , 2 0 0 7WL 4302 642, at* 1 ( S. D. I nd

. Dec. 10 , 20 07) , t h e hi ghw ay au th o r i ti es b eg ana ddr es singthe e xa ctl ocat i o n o fthe hi ghw ay w i thin the dir ect ro ute a nd the pla cem ent o f str uctures anci l l ar y t o the ne w hi ghw ay, such a s br i dges an d c u lve rt s. T h e pr op os ed h igh w ay w as d ivid ed int o s ix sect i ons. S ecti ons 1 thro ugh 3 hav e be en bui l t; se cti ons 4 th ro u gh 6 h av e n otye t b ee n bu ilt th ou gh se c tio n 4 is u n d e r c o n s t r u c t i o n . S e c t i o n 3 , a 2 6

- mi l e s t r e t c h, i s a s we sa i d the i m m edi at e su bj ect of th i s ca se . The g r an t o fthe Cl e a n W a t e r Ac tp e r m i t fo r s e c t i o n 1 wa s n o tc ha l l e ng e d. The gr an to fth e p e r mi tf o r s e c t i o n 2 wa s c h a l l e n g e d , b ut th at ca se h as be en st ay ed to aw ait t h e o u tc om e o f th is c as e. W e d on ’t k n o w th e c u rre n t s ta tu s o f ch alle n ge s, if any, to the othe r sect i ons. I n c o ns i der i ngthe pe r m i t appl i ca ti o n fo r sect i o n 3 , the Cor p s c oncen tr at ed o n the l i k ely e ffec t o n wet l an ds ( an d on s tr eam cr oss i ngs, b ut as we sai d w e’ re i gnor i ng tho se i n the i nter esto fsi m pli ci ty) o fthe six b ri dges pl anned t o c r o s s the n e w hi ghw a y i n tha ts e c t i o n. T he Co r ps conc l ud e d tha tthe b r i dg e s wo ul dn ’ tv i o l a t e the Cl e anN o. 12

- 3187 7 W at erActb ec au se no l es s en vi r o nm en ta l l y da m ag i ng al te r na ti ve was pr ac ti cabl e an d thi s se ct i o n o fthe hi g hw ay w as not c ontr ar y t o the publ i c i nter est
. Dam age to wet land s w oul d b e m o des t an d woul d b e o ff se t bythe cr ea ti o n of n ew wet l an ds, a s woul d b e r equi r ed bythe Clea n W ate r A ct per m i t that the Cor ps w oul d i ssue. The pla i nti ff s don’ t d i sag re e w i th the Cor ps’ concl usi on that the pla n f or sect i on 3 of the hi ghw ay m ini m i zes the wetl and effects o fthatse ction
. Thei r obj ecti on i s t o the c hoi ce o fthe dir ect ro ute ( the hy potenuse) , o fwh i ch sect i on 3 i s j ust o ne sl i ce, o ve r the ind i re ct o ne. They ar gue tha t th e C or ps f ai l ed to c o ns i derwhethe r the dir ect ro ute a s a wh ol e, r athert h an one se cti on o fi t, w oul d be in the pu bl i c i nt er es t an d w hetherthe i nd i re ct r o ut e ( up g r a de d a s we e xp l a i ne d e a r l i e r ) wo ul d be a pr ac ti cabl e al te r na ti ve . Butthe d i st r i ctc o ur t f o und the Cor ps’ a na l y si s ade qua te t o j us ti fy the g r an t o fthe perm i t a nd so awarded sum m ar y j ud gm ent t o the defen d an ts , pr ec ip ita tin g t h is a p p ea l. The I nd i ana Depart m ent o fTra nsport ati on a rgues that the c a s e i s mo o t
. S e c t i o n 3 o fI

- 6 9 h a s b e e n b ui l t, was opened to tr affi c l astN ove m ber, and i s no w i n fulluse. I t is to o l at e, th er efo r e, th e Depa r tment ar g ue s, f or a cour t t o provi de the re l i efso ught bythe pla in tiff s. That i s no t c o r r e c t
. A c a s e i s moo t o nly i f“i t i s im possi blef or a cou rt to grant a n y effectu al r eli ef w ha teverto the prevai l i ng par ty, ” D eck er v. N o r t hw est E nv iro nm enta l D efense C e n t er, 1 33 S
. Ct
. 1 32 6, 1 33 5 ( 20 13 ) ( emphas i s adde d ), qu o t i ng K nox v. Se r vi ceEm pl oye e s Int ’ l U ni on, Lo ca l 10 00, 13 2 S
. Ct
. 2 27 7, 2 28 7 ( 20 12 ) , a s w he n a ca se i s se tt l ed. One8 N o. 12

- 3187 possibi l i ty f orr el i efi n thi s ca se w oul d be a n i nj un c ti on re quir i ng the defendants to r i p up se cti on 3 and r ec re at e t h e w et lan d s ith as d es tr oy ed . See , e.g., H il ls dale Envi r onment al Lo s s Pr e ve nt i on, Inc . v . U.S
. Ar m y Corps of E ng ineers , 702 F.3d 11 56 , 116 6-6 7 (1 0t h C ir. 20 12 ); U n i t ed Sta tes v. B a iley, 5 7 1 F
. 3 d 7 9 1 , 8 0 4

- 0 6 ( 8 th Ci r . 2 0 0 9 ) ; Mar kC. Rouval i s, Com m ent, “Res tor ati on ofW etl ands U nd er Se cti on 4 04 ofthe Clea n W ate r A ct: A n A nal yti calS ynthesi s o fS tatutor y a nd Case Law Princi ple s, ” 1 5 Bost on Coll ege Envi r onment al Af

f ai rs L. Re v. 29 5, 29 8- 300 ( 1988 ). That woul d b e ane xt r eme m ea su r e, unl i k ely to be o r der ed, b ut the fa ct that re l i efis unli kel y d oes n ot re nd era case m oo t. Bu t w e fi nd al m osti ncom prehensibl e the pl ai nti ff s’ f ai l ur e, whi chthe y do no t m en ti o n i n th ei r b r i ef s an d w er e unabl e t o expla in a t the o ra lar gum ent, to have soughta prel i m i naryi nj uncti on a gainst the co nstr ucti on o fs ec ti o n 3

— o r i nde ed ag ains t th e co ns truct i o n o fa ny seg m ent o fthe I

- 69 proj ect, since thei r conte nti on i s that the ind i re ct r oute i s s up er i orto the di re ct o ne and that t h e C or p s w as req u ire d to co m p ar e b ot h rou te s in th eir en ti r ety . A m o tion f o r a pr el i m i na r y i nj unc ti o n mi g ht w ell ha ve been d en ied, bu t th e d en ial of a p r e lim inary i nj uncti on i s i m m ed i ate l y a pp eal abl e a nd would have b ro u gh t t h e litig at ion to a sw ifte r c on c l u s i on . B y t h eir l as si tu de th e pl aint i ff s ha ve i nc r ea se d s ubs ta nt i al l y the c os t o f th e re lief th ey s e e k , f o r n ow th at co st w ou ld i ncl ud e the co st ofdestr oy i ng se cti on 3 ; a n d the cos t o f an inj un c t i o n i s a ma t e r i a lc o ns i de r a t i o n i n whe the r to g r a n ti t
. B u t t hi s i s n o ta n i s s u e we n e e d p u r s u e , a s we do n’ t th i nkthe pl aint i ff s ar e ent i tl ed to r el i efi n a ny eve nt. A nyw ay al lthi s has nothi ng to do with m oo tness
.N o. 12

- 3187 9 S o o n t o the me r i t s , wh e r e the fi r s ti s s ue i s the s c o pe ofthe Co r ps o fEn g i ne e r s ’ du t y t o c o ns i de r a l t e r na ti ves to propos ed p ro j ec ts that thre ate n w etl ands. Did i t a dequatel y c onsi der whether the in d ire c t route was a pr acti c ab l e a l t e r na t i v e t o the di r e c t r o ut e ? I f i t was pr a c t i c ab l e , a nd s up e ri or f r o m a n e nv i r o nme nt a ls t a nd

poi nt, then the “ pract i cabl e a l ternati ve” re gul ati on r equir ed the Corps t o deny a C lea n W ate r A ct per m i t for the di re ct r oute. A n al ternati ve i s “ pract i cabl e” i fi t is “c apabl e o f be i ngdo ne a fter taki ngi nt o c o ns i der at i o n c o st, e xi st i ng tech nology, an d l ogistics i n li gh t of overall p roj ect p urposes . ” 4 0 C. F. R. § 230. 10(a) ( 2)
. W i th co st, te chnol ogi cal feas ibi l i ty, and re l ati ve en vir onm entali m pacts not dispu ted, the onl y quest i on i s whether the ind i re ct r oute w ou ld ac h iev e t h e “ ov er all p roj ec t p u rp os es .” Because o fthe m ag n itu d e o fthe proj ect to fi l lthe I

- 69 g ap be twe enIndi an apo l i s an d Ev an sv i ll e, the pl anni ng f o r i t ha s, as i s a utho r i ze d, 23 C. F
. R. § 7 71
. 11 1( g ) ; 4 0 C. F
. R. § § 15 02 .20 , 150 8.2 8; se e, e.g ., Ne v a d a v . Dep t
. o f En e rgy, 4 57F. 3d 7 8 , 9 1

- 9 2 ( D. C
. C i r . 2 0 0 6 ) , p r o c e e d e d i n t wo se p ar at e s ta ge s, co n ve n tio n ally bu t u n illu m in at in gly ter m ed “Ti erI ” a nd “Ti erI I
. ” “ Tierin g re fer s t o the c over age o fge nera lm att er s in br oaderenvi ro nm ental i m pact s tat em ents ( such as nati onalpro gram o r pol i cy sta tem en ts) w i th subse quent nar ro w erst ate m ents or e nv i r o nme nt a la na l y s e s ( s uc h a s r egi o na lo r b a s i nwi de prog ra m st ate m ents orul ti m ate l y s i te- speci fi c st ate
m ents) i ncor pora ti ng byr eference the gener aldi scussi o ns a nd c o nc en tr at i ngs o l ely o n the i ss ue s spe ci fi c to the10 N o. 12

- 3187 sta tem ent s ubsequentl y pr epare d.” 40 C. F. R. § 1508
. 28. T ieri ng enabl es age nci es “to el i m i nate re peti ti ve disc ussi ons ofthe sam e i ssues and to f ocus on the actual i ssues r i pe f ordeci si on a t e ach le velo fenvi ro nm ental re vi ew . ” § 15 02. 20. Tie ring i s co m m on in hi ghw ay pr ojects, se e She nan doah Vall ey Net workv. Capka , 669 F.3d 1 9 4 , 196-97 (4th C ir. 2 0 1 2 ) ; Sierra C lub v . U .S. A rm y C o rps o f E ng ineers , 29 5 F .3 d 1 20 9, 12 20 -21 (11 th C ir. 20 02 ); Cons e r vat i on Law Fou ndat i on v. Fe de r al H igh w a y Adm i ni s t r at i on , 24 F. 3d 1465 , 14 74- 75 ( 1stCi r. 19 94) , wh i ch ( federa lhigh w ay pr oj ec ts i n pa r ti cul ar ) o fte n a r e bo thc o m pl i cate d a nd pr o tr ac te d. The a i m o fthe T ier Ia na l y si s o fthe In d ian ap olis -E va n sv ille p roj ec t w as to p ick th e “ c or rid or”

— the r o ut e , ab o ut 2 0 0 0 fe e t wi de , wi thin w hi ch th e hi g hway woul d b e l o ca te d. I t was a t Ti erItha t th e d ire c t ro u te w as p ick ed ov er th e i n d ire c t o n e. O b vio u sly th e highw a y i t s e lfw ou ld n ot be 2000 feet w ide. Det erm i ni ng i ts ex ac t pl ac ementwi th i n the c o r r i do r ( i ts “ al i g nm ent”) was defe rr ed to the Tie r I Ianal ysi s. I t was atT i erIIthat the prefer re d al ternati ve

— a hi ghw ay on the di re ct r oute

— wa s d i v i d e d i nt o s i x s e c t i o n s . As the p l ai nti ff s point o ut, the hi ghw ay author i ti es m ay n o ts h i r kr e s p o n s ib l e a n a l y s i s o fe n v i r o n me n t a lh a r ms by “se gm entat i on, ” Swai n v . Br i negar, 542 F
. 2d 364, 36 8- 71 ( 7 t h C ir. 19 76 ) (en ba n c ); In d i a n L o o k o u tA l l i a n c ev . V o l pe, 48 4 F
. 2d 11 , 1 9- 20 ( 8th Ci r . 1 97 3) , tha t is, b y e va l ua ting th o se ha r m s se ve r al l y r athe r tha n j o i nt l y . The e nv iro nm en ta lha r m s ca us ed bys ec ti o n 3 a r e m o des t when th e po ss ibi l i tyo fr e- cr ea ting th e wet l an ds des tr o y ed bytheN o. 12

- 3187 11 sect i on i s t ake n i nto acco unt. But w i thout an es ti m ate o f th e e n vir on m en ta l ha rm s like ly to be ca u se d by a ll six sect i ons, the Corps o fEngi n ee rs would be unabl e t o deter m i ne the ag gr ega te envi ro nm entaldam age thata high w ay o n the di r ec t r o ut e woul d c au se . Ye t g i ve n the align m en t ( l oca ti onal ) o pti ons w i thi n each ro ute ( that i s, w h er e preci sel y t o l oca te a hi ghw ay i n each 2000

- f oo t co r r i do r sli ce) a nd a l so the o pti o ns c o nc erni ngthe num berand si ti ng o fanci l l ar y s tr uctures such a s br i dges, c u l v e r t s , a n d r e s t ar e a s , a n a t t e mp ta ta n e x a c tc o mpari son of the effect on wetl ands ofal lposs ibl e a l ternati ve ro utes w oul d have m ade the Tie r Ianal ysi s unm anage abl e. There i s a di ffer ence between “s egm entat i on” i n i ts pej o r at i ve s en se , a nd

— w hat i s withi n adm i ni str ati ve disc re ti on

—br ea k i nga c om pl ex i nv es ti g at i o n int o manag ea b le b its
. Kle m m ev. Si e r r a Cl ub , 4 27 U
. S. 39 0, 41 2- 15 ( 19 76 )
. The F ede r alHi g hway Adm i ni st r at i o n’ s Env i r o nm en tal I m p act Stat em en t, issued as pa rt of t h e T ier I an aly si s, had co m par ed th e effec ts o n wet l an ds o fthe tw o cor ri dors. I t had f ound t h at t he i nd i re ct r oute w oul d h arm o nl y b etween 22 and 40 a cre s o fwetl ands and the di re ct r oute 75 a c res. The al i gnm ent o f t h e highw ay an d the n um ber an d l ocat ion of an cil lary str uctures co uld affect these fi gure s, but thos e dete rm i natio n s w er e p ro p er ly d efe rre d to T ier II
. T h e C or p s’ r o l e w as sim p lified by th e fa c t t h at it is r equi r ed to a ss es s the envi r o nm en ta li m pac ts o nl y o fthe “p racticab le” al tern atives. Th e selection o f t he corri d or, i nvol vi ng a com pari son ofal ternati ves that i s l i kel y t o i l l um i nate p ra cti cabi l i ty, i s a ta sk i n the fi rs t instance12 N o. 12

- 3187 f orthe tr anspor tat i on a genci es, i n thi s case the Fe deral H i g hway Adm i ni st rati o n a nd the Indi an a Depa r tment of T ra n sp or ta tio n . Th e C or p s o f E n gin ee rs is n otres p on sib l e f o r th e i n t e r s t a t e h i g h wa y sy s t e m. A tth e s a me t i me th e tr an spo r ta ti o n a g en ci es a r e no t fr ee to i gno r e en vi r o nm en ta li m pac ts
. The y mus t i ndi ca te i n the Env i r o nm entalI m pact S tat em ent that i s r equi re d for a n y m aj or pr oj ec t, s ucha s ani nt erst at e hi g hway, the l i k ely e nv i r o nmen t a lc o ns e qu e nc e s o fthe i r c ho i c e o fc o r r i do r . 4 2 U. S
. C. § 4 33 2(2 )(C ); 23 C .F.R . § 77 1.1 33 ; S i mm on s v . U. S
. A r my C o rps o f E ng ineers , 12 0 F
. 3d 664, 66 6 ( 7th Ci r. 19 97) ; se e al so Council on En vi ro nm ental Qu al i ty, “Th e N atio nal En vi ro nm enta lPol i cy A ct: A S tudy ofI ts Effecti venes s A fterTw enty- fi ve Years ” 9 ( J anuary 1997 ) , ww w . bl m . gov/ or/regulations/fil es/n ep a25fn

. p d f (visi ted J uly 1, 2013 ). Th e d e s t r u c t i o n o fw e t l a n d s i s a n e n v i r o n me n t a lh a r m. Ex e c ut i v e Or de r 1 1 9 9 0 , “ Pr o t e c ti on o fWet l a nd s , ” 4 2 F e d. Reg. 26 961 ( M ay 24, 19 77)
. S o the hi ghw ay age nci es m ust e stim ate the i m pact o fa propos ed hi ghw ay on w etl ands. A nd to do that they m u st consultag enci es tha th a ve en v i r o nme nt a lr e s po ns ib i l i t i e s , 4 2 U. S
. C. § 4 332( 2) ( C), such as the EPA and the Corps o fEngi neer s. The h igh w ay age nci es did thatand w i th the advi ce they re cei ved co ncl ud ed that up gr ad i ng the i nd i re ct r oute w as not a pra cti cabl e a l ternati ve

— the dir ect rou te w as the l eas t e nv iro nm ental l y dam aging co rr i dor al ternati ve that w as pract i cable

. A nd wh i l e the dam age was gr eat erthan w oul d res ultfro m upgradi ng the i nd i re ct ro u te, i t was m odest

— 7 5 a c r e s o fwe t l a nd s ( l e s s tha n 12 perce nt o fo ne squar e m i l e) to be re - cre ate d el sewhere.N o. 12

- 3187 13 The Co r ps o fEng i ne er s r ev i ew ed a dr aft o fthe Envi r o nm en ta lI m pac t S ta te m en t be f o r e i t was i ssued a nd concurr ed i n the st at em ent’ s a nal ysi s o fthe al ternati ves ( the di re ct a nd indir ect ro utes)
. Itd i d not for m al l y a pp ro ve t h e d i r ec t ro u te atT ier I b ec au se it w an te d th e a d d iti onali nfo rm atio n that the Ti erI Ianal ysi s would pro

v i de

— i nf o r m at i o n tha t woul d e nabl e i t to determ in e th e effects o n w etl ands ofalt er nati ve hi ghw ay confi gura ti ons w i thi n the prefer re d c or ri dor. S o al though par ti ci pati ng i n the Ti e r I c o r r i do r de t e r mi na t i o n the Cor ps defe rr ed i ts consi derat i on o fthe detai l ed i m pact o n w etl ands, and on the publ i c i nter estm ore bro adly( f or re m em berthe tw o separ ate reg ula ti ons that i t m ust ap p ly b efo re it m ay iss u e a C lea n W at er A c t p er m it), u n til as a resu lt ofthe T ier II a n a lysi s it kn ew exac tly w he re the ne w hi ghw ay a n d i ts cro ssings a nd any othe r anci l l ar y s tr uctures were pla nned to b e. The Tie r I Ianal ysis r equi re d sect i oni ng i n or der t o be m an ageabl e. Once i t was deci ded thatthe agg re gat e w etl ands dam age thatthe new hi ghw ay w oul d cre ate w as m odest, the further t asko fdeter m i ni ng the o pti m al al i g nm en t o fthe hi g hway, a nd the o pti m all o ca ti o n a nd desi gn o fanci l l ar y s tr uctures , withi n each sect i on t o m i ni m i ze w etl ands dam age co uld be st b e per f or m ed pie cem eal

. The hi ghw ay w asn’ t g oi ng to b e buil t a l lat o nc e. C ons truct i o n wo ul d s ta r t ati ts s o uthe r nm o stpo i nt and C l ean W ate r A ct perm i ts w oul d be gra nted or deni ed w hen the anal ysi s of the w etl and e ffects of al ternati ve c o nfi g ur a t i o ns wa s c o mpl e t e d fo r e a c h s e g men t
. T he Co r ps m i ght ha ve had ei therto d evo te si x ti m es the res ourc es to conduct the perm i t a nal ysi s foral lsi x sec ti ons at once, to14 N o. 12

- 3187 the pr ej ud i ce o fi ts othe r ass i gnm ents, o r to have del aye d the s tar t a nd co m ple ti on o fco nstr ucti on fo r yea rs as a sm al l erst affdi d fi rs t s ecti on 1 , and then se c tio n 2, an d so fort h bu t d i d n otgra n t a p er m it u n til i t had analyze d al lsi x sec ti ons. Instea d, m oving se cti on by sect i on a nd co m i ng t o se c tio n 3, the Corps a sse sse d the i m pact o n w etl ands both ofalter n ativ e l oca ti ons of the hi ghw ay w i thi n the cor ri dor and ofal ternati ve l oca ti ons f or the cro ssings i n sect i on 3, and i t decid ed that the p lanned l oca ti ons w er e s up er i orto any othe r po ss ibl e l o ca ti o ns i n tha t se ct i o n. The Co r ps e xpl aine d tha t “ i n l i g htof[ th e F ede r alHi g hw ay A d m in i s t ra tio n ’s] d et aile d alt er n at ive s a n aly sis [in Tie r I ] o fal ternati ve c or ri dors f orthe I nter sta te 69 proj ect, ” which had deter m in ed thatthe dir ect ro ute was the l eas t e nvi ro nm ental l y dam aging practi cableal ternati ve, the Cor ps needed to co nsi der o nl y the choi ce b etween o n the o ne ha nd a l te r na ti ve ali g nm en ts wi th i n the di r ect rou te , a nd o n the o th erha nd no t bui l di ngthe hi gh w ay atal li fthe dir ect ro ute was al so i m pract i cabl e. F o r i t w as appar en t fr o m the Ti erIa na l y si s th atthe i nd i re ct r oute had too m any s er iou s d ra w back s t o be con s idered “p racticab le. ” Th e d irect route w as sh orter, w ou ld p ro vid e c on ve n i e n t ac c es s t o m or e t ow n s, n ot ab ly B loo m in gt on w ith its larg e p u b lic u n ive rs ity (th e m ain ca m pus o fIndi an a Uni ve r si ty ) , a nd woul d r edu ce the n u m b er of tr affic ac c id en ts . Th e in d i r e c t r ou te w ou ld r edu ce tra ve lt i m e be twe eno nl y a few t o wns in s o uthwes t I ndi an a an d do l i tt l e to r edu ce t r affi c co ng es ti o n, tr affi c ac ci dents, o r p oll uti on fro m tr affi c. The effect on w etl ands ofei therr oute w oul d as we know be m odest.N o. 12

- 3187 15 A lth ou g h th e C or p s h as an ind ep en d en t re sp on sibi l i t y t o e nfo r c e the Cl e a n W a t e r Act a nd s o c a nn o tj ust r ubb er st amp an o th era g en cy ’ s as su r an ces c o nc erni ng pract i cabi l i ty and e nvi ro nm ental harm , i t i sn’ t r equi re d to r e i nv e ntthe whe e l

. I fa no the r a g e nc y h a s c o nd uc t e d a r es po ns ibl e an aly si s th e Co r ps ca n r elyo n i t i n mak i ng i ts own deci sio n . A fteral l, i t i s per m i tte d to re l y ( though n otu n c rit ica lly) on su b m iss ion s b y p riv at e p er m it a p p licants and on co nsul tants , se e Va n Abbem a v. Fornel l , 80 7 F.2 d 63 3, 6 3 8

- 4 2 (7 th C ir. 19 86 ); H i l l s dal eEnvi r onment al Lo ss P reven tio n, Inc. v. U .S. A rm y C o rps o f E ng in e e rs , sup ra , 702 F. 3d at 1170

- 71; Gre at e rYe l l owst oneCoal i t i on v. Flo w ers , 359 F.3d 12 57, 127 0-7 1 (1 0t h C ir. 20 04 ); Fr i e nds of the E arth v. H intz , 8 00 F
. 2d 82 2, 8 34 ( 9th C ir. 1 986 ) ( “the C orp s’ regulations d o not req uire the C o r p s to un d ert a k e a n i n d e p e n d e n ti n v e s t i g at i o n o r t o g a th e r i t s o wn i nfo rm at ion upon wh i ch to bas e” an envi ro nm ental ass ess m ent) , and i t necess ar i l y rel i es heavi l y on them

— so w h y n oton fed er a l ag en c ies th at h av e re lev an t re sp on sibi l i ti es and experi ence? Forthe Corps t o ass um e uni l ateral r esponsibi l i ty f ordeter m i ni ng the acc eptabi l i ty fro m a tr anspor tat i on stan d p oint of alternat ive highw ay p roj ects w ou ld u su rp the r esp on sibi l i ty that federa land sta te l aw have ass i gned t o federa land sta te tr anspor tat i on a uthor i ti es. Th e we t l a nd s t a i lwo ul d b e wa g g i ngthe h i g hwa y dog. The Corps would have to bul k o ut i ts sta ffwith e xperts o n hi g hway des i g n, co ns truct i o n, and tr an spo r ta ti o n. The du ty ofthe Corps i s “ to deter m i ne the fea sib ili ty of the l eas t e nvi ro nm ental l y dam ag in g a l ternati ves that ser ve the b asi c proj ect purpose. ” U ta hn s fo rB e t ter Tran s-16 N o. 12

- 3187 por t at i on v. U
. S. D ept
. of Tr ans por t at i on , 30 5 F
. 3d 1152 , 1189 ( 1 0 th Ci r . 2 0 0 2 )
. T he b a s i c p ur po s e o fthe I

- 69 hi ghw ay proj ect w as to be, and has been, deter m i ned el sewhere i n go ver nm ent. The Corps’ r el i ance o n fi nd i ngs o fo therag enci es re l ati ngt o the c e nt r a lfun c t i o ns o ftho s e a g e nc i e s i s an ex am p le ofw ha t econ om ists callthe d ivi s io n o f labor; i t r ea ps th e ben efi ts o fs pec i al i za ti o n; i t i s bo the ffi ci en t a n d i n e v i t ab l e . D i ffe r e n ta g e n c i e s h a v e d i ffe r e n tc o mpar at i ve a dva nt ages in r es o l vingdi ffer en t i ss ue s an d ther efo re need notdup l i cate ea ch others ’ stud i es; instea d th e y c a n us e the r e s ul t s o f tho s e s t ud i e s a s i np ut s i nto th eir ow n d et er m in at ion s. U n su rp ri s i n gly th e a p p lica b le r egula ti o ns e xpe ctthe a g en ci es t o c o l l ab o r at e, 4 0 C. F
. R. § 230
. 1 0 ( a ) ( 4 ) , a s the y di d in r e g a r d t o the I

- 6 9 p r oj ect. The hi g hway a dm i ni st r at i o ns de te r m i ne d no t unr ea so nabl y tha tthe o v e r a l lp ur po s e s o fthe n e w h i ghw ay pr oj ec t cou ld no t be ful fi l l ed bythe i ndi r ec t r o ut e. The Co rp s c oul d procee d fr om ther e t o deter m i ne wh ether th e e ffec t o n w et lan d s o f th e d ire c t r o u te h ad be en m in imi z e d. The C o r p s f o u n d th a tth e p l a n min i mi z e d d a mage to wetl ands i n sec ti on 3 b y th e way i t co nfi gure d th e al i g nm en t o fthe hi g hway a nd the numbe r, l o ca ti o n, an d d es ign of th e a u x iliary st r u c t u r e s a n d by th e p ro visi o n fo r r e - c r e a t i n ge l s e wh e r e th e we t l a n d s th a tthe hi ghw ay w oul d destro y. The pla i nti ff s cr i tici ze som e o fthe anal ysi s co nd ucted by th e hi g hway admi ni st r at i o ns an d ado pte d by the C or p s. T h ey n ot e a n err on eo u s s ta te m en t in th e a n aly sis ofal ternati ve ro utes i n the En vi ro nm entalI m pact S tat e-N o. 12

- 3187 17

m en t: th e in d ire c t ro u te “ p r ov id es n o b en efiton . . . i ncre ase d a cces s to m aj or i nsti tuti ons of hi gher ed u c ati on. ” Actually the i nd i re ct r oute w oul d enabl e 1 22, 000 m or e per sons to dri ve to a m aj orins ti tuti on o fhi gher educati on ( defined as a n i nsti tuti on e nro l l i ng m or e than 50 00 st u d e n t s) w ith inan h ou r. B u t t h e d ire c t ro u te w ill gi ve 446, 000 perso ns the sa m e i m p ro ved acce ss to hi gher educati on. A n d thi s i s j ust o ne o fthe i m prove m ents th at th e d i r e c t r o u t e wh e n c o mpl e t e d wi l l ma k e to t he tr anspor tat i on netw or k o fso uthw est er n I nd i ana. A s e c o nd e r r o r a l l e g e d i s tha tthe a na l y s i s o fa l ter nativ es rejec te d th e in d ire c t ro u te in p ar t b ec au se it “w ou ld re quir e the l ar ges t num bero fbu sin ess r el oca ti ons ( 70- 131) as wellas a m oder ate l y hi gh n u m b ero fhom e r el oca ti on s ( 264- 335) , ” when in tr uth the dir ect ro ute r equi r es c o m par ab l e number s: “ 76 b us i ne ss r el o cati o ns an d 3 9 0 h om e re loc at ion s.” So w h ich rou te w ou ld re quir e m or e r el oca ti ons i s uncl ear, an d o fco urse r el oca ti o ns may di fferg r ea tlyi n the i r c o ns eque nc es . But th ere w as no error; the figures are correct an d w ere ackno w l ed ge d i n the anal ysi s. The pl ai nti ff s j ust wis h t h e h ighw ay agen cies had w eighed this factor m ore he av ily. They were notr equi re d to do so

. The am ount o f re l oca ti on was neve r thought to be deci si ve; i t was j ust o ne f ac tor a m o ngmany t o b e co ns i der ed i n a ss es sing the pr acti cabi l i ty ofthe al ternati ve cor ri dors. W e hav e y et to consi der wheth er t h e C or ps of E n g i n e e r s c o n d u c t e d a n a d e q u a t e p u b l i c i n t e r e s tr e v i e w, as re quir ed by the s eco nd r egul ati on that we quoted fro m atth e o u ts et an d n ow m u st qu ot e in fu ll:18 N o. 12

- 3187 The deci si on wh etherto is sue a per m i t wil lbe base d o n a n e va l ua ti o n ofthe pr o babl e i m pac ts , i nc l udi ng cum ula ti ve i m pacts, o fthe proposed act i vi ty and i ts i ntended use on the publ i c i nter est. Eval uati on o f the pr obab l e i m pact wh i ch the pr op osed acti vi ty m ayha ve o n the pub l i c i nt er es t r equi r es a c ar eful w eig h in g of all th os e fac to rs w h ich b ec om e rele va n t in ea c h p ar tic u lar ca se . Th e b en efit s w h ich rea so n ab ly m ay be expected to accr ue fro m the propos al m ust b e b ala n c ed ag ain st its rea s o n ab ly for es ee ab le d et rim en ts . Th e d ec isio n w h eth e r t o a u th or ize a p ro p os al, and i fso , the condi ti ons und er w hi ch i t w i l lbe al l owed t o o c c u r, a r e th e r e f o r e d e t e r mi n e d b y th e o u t c o me ofthi s g ener albal anci ng pro cess . That deci si on shoul d refl ect the nat ion alco ncer n f orbo th pro tectio n an d u tiliz at ion of im p or ta n t r es ou rc es . A ll f acto rs wh i ch m ay be rel evantto the pro posalm ust be con side red includ ing th e cu m ulative effects t he reof: am ong thos e a re conser vati on, eco nom i cs, ae sthet i cs, generalenvi ro nm entalco ncer ns, wetl ands, hi sto ric proper ti es, fi sh and w i l dli fe v al ues, fl oo d hazar ds, fl oo dp l ai n val ues, l and use, navi gat i on, sh ore e ro si on and accr eti on, r ecr eat i on, water supp l y a nd co nser vati o n, wa t e r qu a l i t y, e n e r g y n e e d s , s a fe t y, f o o d a nd fiberpro du cti on, m i nera lneeds, co nsi derati ons of pr o per tyo wner sh i p a nd, i n g en er al, the ne eds a nd w el f ar e o fthe peopl e. 33 C.F
. R. § 320 .4(a )(1) ; se e a l so Sierra C lub v . Sigler, 69 5 F.2d 957, 975 (5th C ir. 1983).N o. 12

- 3187 19 I two ul d b e u nr e a l i s t i c to thinktha tthe Co r ps c o ul d, w i thi n a r eas onable t im e a nd with i ts l i m i ted r eso u rce s

— not to m enti on the l i m i ts ofhum an kno w ledge

— ac tu al l y a na l y ze e ac h o fthe se f actors i n de pth, att ach a w ei ght to each, and b y add i ng up al lth e w eig h ts deter m i ne wh etherto ap p ro ve a proj ect. The r egul ati on i s ov erl y a m bi ti ous, and shoul d perhaps be co nsi dered as p ira tio n al. E sp ec ially w h e n as in t h is c as e t h e C or p s is gi ven a chance to and does w ei gh i n on the hi ghw ay agenci es ’ an aly si s o f th e r el at i ve be ne fi ts an d co st s of a propos ed hi ghw ay pr oject, i t s houl d be abl e t o re l y o n th ata na l y si s, i fi t is a r es po ns ibl e an aly si s, whi l e co nd u c tin g its ow n an aly sis of th os e fa c to rs th at are w i t h in i ts com petence, such a s e ffects o n w etl ands. I nde ed as a n o r i g i na lmatt ero ne mightha ve thought that si nce the concern of the Clea n W ate r A ct is w i th w at e r, the r e qu i r e men to fa s s e s s i ngthe p ub l i c i nt e r est w as i ntended onl y t o m ake sur e that the C or p s d id not ca su all y s ur r en deri ts duty t o pr o te ctwet l an ds ( an d navi gabl e water s of the Unite d Sta tes m or e g ener al l y) to v a g u e i n v o c a t i o n s o f“p ub l i c i n t e r e s t
. ” B u tth e S u p r e me C ou rt has held that, no, th e regulatio n i s t o be interp re te d liter ally an d so req u ire s t h e C or p s t o e va lu at e a ll t h e fa c to rs liste d in it . C f. U ni t e d S t at e s v. Al as ka , 50 3 U
. S. 56 9, 58 0-8 3 ( 1992 )
. A nd the Corps di d thi s, so f aras i t was p ossibl e t o do. Fo r i n concl ud i ng tha t g ra nti ng a Cl ea n Wa t e r Ac t p e r mi t f o r s e c t i o n 3 wo u l d b e i n t he pu bl i c i nter estthe Corps a nal yze d a r em ar kabl e nu m ber ofpubli c i nter estf acto rs : subst ra te; curr ents, ci rcul ati on ordrainage patterns ; suspended parti cul ate s; turbi dity; wat erqua l i ty ; fl o o d c o nt r o lfunc ti o ns ; s to r m , w ave a nd20 N o. 12

- 3187

er osi on buffer s; er osi on a nd cr eat i on patt er ns; aqui fer re charg e; base fl ow; m i xi ng zone; speci al aquati c sites; ha bitat for fi sh and other aq ua tic organism s; w il d li fe habi tat; endanger ed orthr eat ened specie s; bi ol ogi cal av aila b ility of p os sib le c on ta m in an ts in d re d ge d o r fill m ate ri al ; exi sting and pote nti alwater supp l i es, water conse rv ati on, w ate r- re l ate d rec re ati on; ae sthet i cs; park s, nati onaland hi sto ri c m onum ents, wil d and sc eni c r i ver s, w i l derness ar eas , r ese ar ch si tes , et c. ; tr affi c/ tr anspor tat i on pat te r ns ; e ne r g y c o ns um pti o n o r g en er at i o n; na vi g at i o n; safety ; ai r quali ty; noi se; hi sto ri c pro perti es; l and-use qu a l i fi c a t i o n; e c o no mi c s ; p r i me a nd u ni que f a r ml a nd ; f oo d and fiberpro du cti on; ge nera lwater quali ty; m in eral needs; co nsi derat i on o fpri vate pro p er ty; cum ula ti ve an d s ec o nda r y i m pac ts ; e nv i ro nm en ta lj us ti ce ; the r el at i ve e xt en t of th e publ i c an d pr i va te ne ed f o r the p ro p os ed w or k; th e p r a c tic ab ility of u sin g re as on ab le al te r na ti ve l o ca ti o ns a nd m etho ds to a cc o m pl i shthe o bj ecti ve o fthe pr o po se d s tructur e o r wor k ; a nd the ex te n t a n d p er m an en c e o f th e b en efic ial a n d /or d et rim entaleffe cts the pr opose d str uctures o r w or k m ay h av e o n th e p u b lic a n d p riv at e u se s t o w h ich th e a re a is s ui t e d. T he pl aint i ff s ha ve no t sh o wn th atthe c o nc l usio n th e C or p s d re w fr o m i ts d et aile d an d h igh ly te c h n i c a l an aly sis

— th at se c tio n 3 of th e d ire c t ro u te is i n the pu bl i c i nter est

— w as unreas onabl e. I t’ s true tha t th e Cor ps ha sn ’ t do ne a nd won ’ t be do i ng a publ i c i nter estanal ysi s o fthe enti re proj ect

— al l s ix sect i ons. Bu t ther e doe s no t a pp earto be a di spute o verN o. 12

- 3187 21 whethe r the pr oj ec t as a who l e i s con tr ar y t o the pu bl i c i nter est

— an d i t m i g htb e ani m per tine nc e for th e Corps o fEngi neer s t o d ecide that a si ste r federa lag ency, the F edera lH i ghw ay A dm i ni str ati on, was propos i ng a pr oj ec t th at was no t i n th e publ i c i nt er es t. Anyway the hi ghw ay age nci es’ Envi ro nm entalI m pact S tatem ents had cove re d m ost, m aybe al l, o fthe gr ound that a pub l i c i n t e r e s ta n a l y s i s wo u l d h a v e c o v e r e d

. T h e p l ai ntiffs argue n either th at th e projec t a s a w hole is con trary to the publ i c i nter estnorthati t was se c tio n ed i n or der t o p r e v e n tc o n s i d e r a t i o n o fi t s t o t a le n v i r o n me n t a lh a r ms ( i m proper“s egm entat i on, ” di scusse d ear lier)

. They m ay b e pla yin g a d ela y gam e: m ak e th e C or p s d o a p u b lic i nter est anal ysi s fro m the gr ound up ( al ong w i th an al l

- atonce si x-s ecti on per m i t a na l ysi s) i n the hope thatat l ea stunt i lthe a na l y si s i s co m pl et ed th er e wi l lb e no furtherco nstr ucti on, so thatunti lthen the hi ghw ay w ill en d a t th e no r th ernm o stt i p o fsectio n 3

— m aking i t a ro ad to now here

. A FFI RMED .

7- 16- 13