Title: WILDERNESS ASSOC v DNRC
Citation: N/A
Docket Number: 81-354
State: Montana
Issuer: Montana Supreme Court
Date: July 9, 1982

No. 81-354 I N THE SUPREME COURT O F THE STATE O F M O N T A N A 1982 STATE EX REL. , M O N T A N A WILDERNESS ASSOCIATION, e t a l . , P e t i t i o n e r and A p p e l l a n t , BOARD OF NATURAL RESOURCES AND CONSERVATION O F T H E STATE OF M O N T A N A , e t a l . , Respondents and Respondents. Appeal from: D i s t r i c t Court of t h e F i r s t J u d i c i a l D i s t r i c t , I n and f o r t h e County o f Lewis & C l a r k , The Honorable J. M. Salansky, Judge p r e s i d i n g . Counsel of Record: For A p p e l l a n t : Goetz, Madden & Dunn, Bozeman, Montana W i l l i a m L. Madden a r g u e d , Bozeman, Montana For Respondents: James F. Walsh, Pamela I<. Merrell, B u t t e , Montana Donald MacIntyre a r g u e d , Dept. o f N a t u r a l Resources, Helena, Montana Richard J. A n d r i o l o a r g u e d , Bozeman, Montana C o r e t t e , Smith, Pohlman & A i l e n , B u t t e , Montana R. D. Corette, Jr., a r g u e d , B u t t e , Montana Amicus C u r i a e : S c h u l z , Davis & Warren, D i l l o n , Montana Submitted: December 2 , 1981 Decided: J u l y 9 1 1982 F i l e d : L7ji,jL 9 - 1982 C l e r k M r . Chief J u s t i c e Frank I. H a s w e l l d e l i v e r e d t h e Opinion of t h e Court. The Board of N a t u r a l Resources & C o n s e r v a t i o n (BNRC) g r a n t e d t h e Montana Power Company (MPC) p e r m i s s i o n t o c o n s t r u c t a 1 6 1 KV e l e c t r i c a l t r a n s m i s s i o n l i n e from Bozeman to E n n i s to D i l l o n w i t h a 161 KV s p u r from Ennis to Big Sky. Montana W i l d e r n e s s A s s o c i a t i o n , I n c . (MWA) and Environmental I n f o r m a t i o n C e n t e r , Inc. ( E I C ) appealed BNRC1s d e c i s i o n to t h e District Court o f Lewis & C l a r k County. The ~ i s t r i c t Court a f f i r m e d . M W A and E I C now a p p e a l the ~ i s t r i c t Court d e c i s i o n to t h i s c o u r t . On J u n e 4 , 1974, MPC f i l e d w i t h t h e Board an a p p l i c a t i o n f o r a C e r t i f i c a t e of Environmental C o m p a t i b i l i t y and P u b l i c Need, p u r s u a n t t o t h e p r o v i s i o n s of t h e U t i l i t y S i t i n g A c t of 1973, s e e k i n g a u t h o r i z a t i o n f o r c o n s t r u c t i o n and o p e r a t i o n of 1 5 5 m i l e s o f 1 6 1 KV electric t r a n s m i s s i o n l i n e e x t e n d i n g from Clyde P a r k to a s u b s t a t i o n i n t h e Upper Yellowstone valley, t h e n to Big Sky, and t h e n t o a s u b s t a t i o n o u t s i d e of D i l l o n . A d d i t i o n a l l y , approxi- m a t e l y 17 m i l e s of 69 KV electric transmission- w a s proposed from t h e s u b s t a t i o n i n t h e Upper Yellowstone V a l l e y to G a r d i n e r . The U t i l i t y S i t i n g A c t was amended by t h e l e g i s l a t u r e e f f e c t i v e ~ p r i l 21, 1975, and became known as t h e "Montana Major F a c i l i t y S i t i n g A c t " . On J u n e 30, 1975, MPC f i l e d an amended a p p l i c a t i o n r e q u e s t i n g , i n l i e u of t h e l i n e s p r e v i o u s l y sub- s u b m i t t e d , a p p r o v a l of 198 miles of t r a n s m i s s i o n l i n e s a l l o f which were to be t r e a t e d as one p r o j e c t or f a c i l i t y , con- s i s t i n g o f t h e f o l l o w i n g : a ) Clyde P a r k to Emigrant--161 KV l i n e ; b ) Emigrant to Gardiner--69 KV l i n e ; c ) Clyde P a r k to Bozeman--161 KV l i n e ; d ) Bozeman to Ennis--161 KV l i n e ; and e ) illo on to E n n i s to B i g Sky--161 KV l i n e . P u r s u a n t to t h e mandates of t h e Montana Environmental P o l i c y A c t (MEPA) and t h e S i t i n g A c t ( S e c t i o n 75-20-216, MCA) . t h e Department of N a t u r a l Resources and c o n s e r v a t i o n (Department) s t u d i e d and e v a l u a t e d t h e proposed f a c i l i t y and its e f f e c t s . The Department p u b l i s h e d a d r a f t environmental impact s t a t e m e n t i n . . I... _ - ,.. : - . a : ; w..... - J a n u a r y of 1976 and, a f t e r reviewing comments from MPC, v a r i o u s 1 government a g e n c i e s and i n t e r e s t e d members of t h e p u b l i c , t h e Department published its f i n a l EIS i n A p r i l of 1976. The Department ' s recornmenda t ion was to approve t h e r e q u e s t e x c e p t t h a t c o n s t r u c t i o n of t h e 161 KV t r a n s m i s s i o n l i n e to Big Sky was t o be routed from Bozeman to Big Sky through t h e G a l l a t i n 8 2 Canyon c o r r i d o r , r a t h e r than from Ennis to Big Sky through J a c k Creek/Cedar Creek C o r r i d o r . On A p r i l 10, t h e first prehearing c o n f e r e n c e w a s h e l d w i t h Joe Sabol, a Bozeman a t t o r n e y and Chairman of the Board, a s h e a r i n g s o f f i c e r . O n A p r i l 20, 1976, t h e Board commenced formal " c e r t i f i c a t i o n proceedings" on the a p p l i c a t i o n , deeming the m a t t e r a c o n t e s t e d c a s e w i t h i n t h e Montana A d m i n i s t r a t i v e Procedure A c t (IYAPA) . P r e t r i a l d i s c o v e r y and c o n f e r e n c e s followed and on May 7, 1976, MWA g a v e n o t i c e of its i n t e n t to become a p a r t y to t h e proceedings. On May 12, t h e d a t e of t h e second p r e c o n f e r e n c e hearing ( a l s o p r e s i d e d over by S a b o l ) , M W A member Rick Applegate f i l e d a n a f f i d a v i t of d i s q u a l i f i c a t i o n , r e q u e s t i n g t h a t Sabol d i s - q u a l i f y himself from p a r t i c i p a t i n g a s a h e a r i n g s o f f i c e r and v o t i n g member of t h e Board. The r e a s o n s g i v e n f o r d i s q u a l i f i c a - t i o n included c h a r g e s t h a t Sabol had p r e v i o u s l y p u b l i c l y criti- c i z e d t h e MWA ( i m p l i c i t l y r e f e r r i n g to an a r t i c l e which appeared on February 15, 1976, i n the Bozeman newspaper) and t h a t S a b o l , b e i n g a paid l e g a l r e p r e s e n t a t i v e of Ski Yellowstone, Inc. ( a proposed resort whose f u t u r e energy demands w e r e l i k e l y to be an i s s u e i n t h e proceeding, according to t h e af f i d a v i t ) could not r e n d e r an i m p a r t i a l judgment. Sabol v o l u n t a r i l y withdrew a s h e a r i n g s o f f i c e r on September 1, 1976, b u t r e f u s e d to r e l i n q u i s h h i s voting p o s i t i o n on t h e Board and t h e Board voted unanimously t o deny t h e r e q u e s t t h a t he be d i s q u a l i f i e d . On September 23 and 24, p u b l i c h e a r i n g s were h e l d b e f o r e t h e Board where t h e p r e f i l e d w r i t t e n testimony of w i t n e s s e s was I a d m i t t e d , o r a l examrnation taken and e x h i b i t s s u p p o r t i n g and opposing MPC'S a p p l i c a t i o n introduced. According to t h e depos i- t i o n of Donald HacIntyre ( c o u n s e l f o r DNRC) and Applegate, Sabol spoke to MacIntyre i n t h e lobby d u r i n g one of the recesses and, a c c o r d i n g t o Applegate, t o l d MacIntyre n o t to examine MWA's w i t - nesses because Madden ( a p p e l l a n t s ' a t t o r n e y ) was b u i l d i n g a record f o r appeal. A f t e r the September h e a r i n g s , t h e p a r t i e s each f i l e d pro- posed Eindings of f a c t and c o n c l u s i o n s of law w i t h a p p r o p r i a t e e x c e p t i o n s t h e r e t o - --- = f i l e d by t h e opposing p a r t i e s . S a b o l ' s term on the Board terminated on December 31, 1976, and on A p r i l 21, 1977, the p a r t i e s p r e s e n t e d t h e i r f i n a l o r a l arguments to the Board. O n October 28, 1977, t h e Board rendered its d e c i s i o n and granted t h e c e r t i f i c a t e to MPC, a u t h o r i z i n g c o n s t r u c t i o n along t h e c o r r i d o r p r e f e r r e d by MPC. P a r t i c u l a r l y , t h e Board found t h e Ennis-Jack Creek-Big Sky c o r r i d o r to be pre- f e r a b l e to t h e Ennis-Cedar Creek-Big Sky and G a l l a t i n Canyon c o r r i d o r s , r e j e c t i n g t h e Department's recommendation of using t h e G a l l a t i n Canyon r o u t e . On December 1, 1977, MWA and E I C f i l e d a p e t i t i o n w i t h t h e District Court of t h e F i r s t J u d i c i a l District, seeking review o f t h a t p a r t of t h e Board's d e c i s i o n approving c o n s t r u c t i o n of t h e l i n e from Bozeman to Ennis to D i l l o n , w i t h a 161 KV s p u r from Ennis to Big Sky through t h e J a c k Creek c o r r i d o r . The segment of t h e l i n e from Bozeman eastward h a s a l r e a d y been c o n s t r u c t e d and is n o t h e r e i n i s s u e . A f t e r v a r i o u s motions and t h e f i l i n g of e x t e n s i v e b r i e f s by the p a r t i e s , t h e trial c o u r t heard f i n a l arguments and deemed t h e c a s e submitted on December 13, 1979. On J u l y 14, 1981, t h e - District Court e n t e r e d an o r d e r d i s p o s i n g of a l l i s s u e s r a i s e d by MWA and E I C i n f a v o r of MPC. T h i s appeal followed. On August 7, 1981, MPC o b t a i n e d from t h e Board an o r d e r approving c e n t e r l i n e l o c a t i o n f o r c o n s t r u c t i o n of t h e l i n e . A p p e l l a n t s , by motion dated August 10, 1981, a p p l i e d to t h i s Court f o r a s t a y of c o n s t r u c t i o n a c t i v i t i e s pending appeal and f o r an expedited b r i e f i n g schedule. W e denied t h e s t a y b u t g r a n t e d an e x p e d i t e d b r i e f i n g schedule. The i s s u e s on appeal can be s t a t e d i n t h i s manner: I. A r e the environmental impact str'atements inadequate a s a m a t t e r of law? 2. A r e the Board's f i n d i n g s , c o n c l u s i o n s and C e r t i f i c a t e of Environmental Compatabili t y and P u b l i c Need i n conformity w i t h s t a t u t o r y requirem'ents and supported by t h e evidence? 3 . Did S a b o l ' s involvement deny M W A and EIC a hearing b e f o r e a f a i r and i m p a r t i a l t r i b u n a l i n v i o l a t i o n of due p r o c e s s requirements? A t t h e o u t s e t , w e must determine t h e proper s t a n d a r d of review of t h i s appeal. Our s t a n d a r d of review is governed by t h e Montana A d m i n i s t r a t i v e Procedure A c t . S e c t i o n 2-4-704, MCA, p r o v i d e s i n p a r t : " ( 2 ) The c o u r t may n o t s u b s t i t u t e its judgment f o r t h a t of t h e agency as to t h e weight of t h e e v i d e n c e on q u e s t i o n s of f a c t . The c o u r t may a f f i r m t h e d e c i s i o n of t h e agency or remand t h e c a s e for f u r t h e r proceedings. The c o u r t may r e v e r s e o r n o d i f y t h e d e c i s i o n i f s u b s t a n t i a l r i g h t s of t h e a p p e l l a n t have been p r e j u d i c e d because the a d m i n i s t r a t i v e f i n d i n g s , i n f e r e n c e s , c o n c l u s i o n s or d e c i s i o n s a r e : " ( a ) i n v i o l a t i o n of c o n s t i t u t i o n a l or s t a t u t o r y p r o v i s i o n s ; " ( b ) i n e x c e s s of t h e s t a t u t o r y a u t h o r i t y of t h e agency; " ( c ) made upon unlawful procedure; " ( d ) a f f e c t e d by other error of l a w ; " ( e ) c l e a r l y erroneous i n view of t h e reliable, p r o b a t i v e and s u b s t a n t i a l e v i d e n c e on t h e whole r e c o r d ; " ( f ) a r b i t r a r y or c a p r i c i o u s or c h a r a c t e r i z e d by abuse of d i s c r e t i o n or c l e a r l y unwarranted exer- cise of d i s c r e t i o n ; or "(g) because f i n d i n g s of f a c t , upon i s s u e s e s s e n t i a l to t h e d e c i s i o n , were n o t made a l t h o u g h requested." - 4 - Ir A p p e l l a n t s urge t h a t t h e scope of review based on t h e above s t a t u t e is whether t h e d r a f t and f i n a l environmental impact s t a t e m e n t s a r e " i n v i o l a t i o n of t h e c o n s t i t u t i o n a l or s t a t u t o r y p r o v i s i o n s n or " a f f e c t e d by o t h e r error of lawn, c i t i n g s e c t i o n and 2-4-704(2) ( a ) R d ) , MCA, s u p r a . A p p e l l a n t s also cite T r o u t Unlimited v. Morton (CCA 9 , 1 9 7 4 ) , 509 F.2d 1276, f o r t h e asser- 1 - t i o n t h a t a p p e l l a t e c o u r t s a r e not bound by t h e " c l e a r l y e r r o n e o u s " s t a n d a r d t h a t governs f i n d i n g s of an agency o r t r i a l c o u r t . In T r o u t Unlimited, s u p r a , t h e f e d e r a l a p p e a l s c o u r t s a i d t h e following r e g a r d i n g t h e c o r r e c t s t a n d a r d : "The p r o p e r s t a n d a r d by which to review t h e adequacy of t h e EIS h a s been t h e s u b j e c t of some c o n f u s i o n i n t h i s c o u r t . The n a t u r e of t h e con£ u s i o n h a s been whether t h e ~ d m i n i s t r a t i v e Procedure A c t , 5 U.S.C. S 7 0 6 ( 2 ) ( A ) , t h e ' a r b i t r a r y , c a p r i c i o u s , an [ d l a b u s e of d i s c r e t i o n ' s t a n d a r d , or S 7 0 6 ( 2 ) ( D ) , t h e ' w i t h o u t observance of procedure r e q u i r e d by l a w ' s t a n d a r d o r some t h i r d sta'ndard n o t p r e c i - s e l y conforming t o e i t h e r s 7 0 6 ( 2 ) ( A ) or s 7 0 6 ( 2 ) ( D ) is t h e p r o p e r s t a n d a r d . See Environmental Defense Fund v. Armstrong, 487 F.2d 814 ( 9 t h C i r . 1 9 7 3 ) ; L i f e of t h e Land v. B r i n e g a r , 485 F.2d 460 ( 9 t h C i r . 1 9 7 3 ) ; J i c a r i l l a Apache T r i b e of I n d i a n s v. Morton, 471 F.2d 1275 ( 9 t h C i r . 1 9 7 3 ) . T h i s c o n f u s i o n was e l i m i n a t e d from o u r l a w by Lathan v. B r i n e g a r , 506 F.2d 677 ( 9 t h C i r . 1 9 7 4 ) . W e h e l d t h a t t h e S 7 0 6 ( 2 ) ( D ) s t a n d a r d was t h e p r o p e r one because NEPA is e s s e n t i a l l y a: " ' p r o c e d u r a l s t a t u t e . Its purpose is to a s s u r e t h a t , b y f o l l o w i n g t h e p r o c e d u r e s t h a t it p r e s c r i b e s , a g e n c i e s w i l l be f u l l y aware of t h e impact of t h e i r d e c i s i o n s when t h e y make them. The p r o c e d u r e s r e q u i r e d by NEPA, 42 U.S.C.A. S 4 3 3 2 ( 2 ) ( C ) , are designed to s e c u r e t h e accomplishment of t h e v i t a l purpose of NEPA. T h a t r e s u l t can be achieved o n l y i f t h e p r e s c r i b e d p r o c e d u r e s a r e f a i t h f u l l y followed ; g r u d g i n g p r o forma compliance w i l l n o t do. W e - t h i n k t h a t t h e c o u r t s w i l l b e t t e r perform t h e i r n e c e s s a r i l y l i m i t e d role i n e n f o r c i n g NEPA i f t h e y a p p l y S 7 0 6 ( 2 ) ( D ) i n reviewing environmen- t a l impact s t a t e m e n t s f o r compliance w i t h NEPA . . . ' Lathan v. Bririegar, s u p r a , a t 692-." 509 F. 2d a t 1282. W e have p r e v i o u s l y d i s c u s s e d o u r scope of r e v i e w of an agency d e c i s i o n under t h e Montana A d m i n i s t r a t i v e P r o c e d u r e A c t a t some l e n g t h i n Northern P l a i n s Resource Council v. Board of N a t u r a l Resources and C o n s e r v a t i o n ( 1 9 7 9 ) , 181Mont. 500, 594 - - P.2d 297, 36 S t - R e p . 666. W e emphasized how c o u r t r e v i e w of agency d e c i s i o n s is l i m i t e d : " T h i s C o u r t r e c e n t l y set f o r t h t h r e e b a s i c p r i n - c i p l e s u n d e r l y i n g s e c t i o n 82-4216 which a District C o u r t must c o n s i d e r i n d e t e r m i n i n g what t h e scope of review of an a d m i n i s t r a t i v e d e c i s i o n s h o u l d be: ( I ) t h a t l i m i t e d j u d i c i a l review of a d m i n i s t r a t i v e d e c i s i o n s s t r e n g t h e n s t h e admi- n i s t r a t i v e p r o c e s s by e n c o u r a g i n g t h e f u l l pre- s e n t a t i o n of e v i d e n c e a t t h e i n i t i a l - a d m i n i s t r a t i v e h e a r i n g ; ( 2 ) j u d i c i a l economy r e q u i r e s c o u r t r e c o g n i t i o n of t h e e x p e r t i s e of. a d m i n i s t r a t i v e a g e n c i e s i n t h e f i e l d of t h e i r r e s p o n s i b i l i t y ; and ( 3 ) l i m i t e d j u d i c i a l review is n e c e s s a r y to d e t e r m i n e t h a t a f a i r p r o c e d u r e was u s e d , t h a t q u e s t i o n s of l a w were p r o p e r l y d e c i d e d , and t h a t t h e d e c i s i o n of t h e admi- n i s t r a t i v e body was s u p p o r t e d by s u b s t a n t i a l - e v i d e n c e . Vita-Rich D a i r y , I n c . v. Department - of B u s i n e s s R e g u l a t i o n ( 1 9 7 6 ) , 1 7 0 Mont. 341, - 553 P.2d 980." 1 8 1 Mont a t 509 , 594 P.2d a t - 303, 36 St.Rep. a t 67. W e a l s o quoted from t h e case of Vermont Yankee N u c l e a r Power Corp. v. N a t i o n a l Resources Defense C o u n c i l , I n c . ( 1 9 7 8 ) , 435 U.S. 519, 98 S.Ct. 1197, 55 L.Ed.2d 460: " ' . . . t h e r o l e o f a c o u r t i n r e v i e w i n g t h e s u f f i c i e n c y o f an a g e n c y ' s c o n s i d e r a t i o n of e n v i r o n m e n t a l f a c t o r s is a l i m i t e d o n e , l i m i t e d b o t h by t h e time a t which t h e d e c i s i o n was made and by- t h e s t a t u t e mandating review. " ' " N e i t h e r t h e s t a t u t e n o r its leaislative h i s t o r y c o n t e m p l a t e s t h a t a c o u r t - s h o u l d s u b s t i - -- t u t e its iudqment f o r t h a t o f t h e a a e n c v a s to - - - a ---- 2 * -- t h e e n v i r o n m e n t a l c o n s e q u e n c e s o f its a c t i o n s . " -- [ C i t a t i o n o m i t t e d . ] ' Vermont Yankee, 4 3 5 U.S. a t I 555, 98 S.Ct. a t 1217. (Emphasls s u p p l i e d . ) " 1 8 1 Mont. a t 511 , 594 P.2d a t 304, 36 St.Rep. -- a t 672. W e are n o t persuaded by a p p e l l a n t s t h a t we s h o u l d move from o u r p o s i t i o n t a k e n i n N o r t h e r n P l a i n s . It is a n a c c u r a t e s t a t e m e n t o f what kind of c o u r t r e v i e w s h o u l d be g i v e n to agency d e c i s i o n s . F u r t h e r m o r e , w e n o t e t h e mandates o f t h e Montana r e v i e w s t a t u t e c i t e d above ( s e c t i o n 2-4-704 ( 2 ) , MCA) which con- t a i n s a clear i n d i c a t i o n t h a t t h e l e g i s l a t u r e i n t e n d e d t h a t a c o u r t r e v e r s e or modify t h e lower d e c i s i o n where t h e agency d e c i s i o n is c l e a r l y e r r o n e o u s , a r b i t r a r y , or c a p r i c i o u s , r e s u l t i n g i n t h e a p p e l l a n t s ' r i g h t s b e i n g s u b s t a n t i a l l y p r e j u d i c e d . With regard to the f i r s t i s s u e on a p p e a l , a p p e l l a n t s c l a i m t h e d r a f t and f i n a l E I S ' s a r e i n a d e q u a t e a s a m a t t e r of law on s e v e r a l grounds: t h e f a i l u r e to c o n s i d e r t h e need f o r and alter- n a t i v e s to t h e proposed f a c i l i t y i n t h e Upper Madison/Lower Ruby v a l l e y s and a t Big Sky; t h e f a i l u r e to c o n s i d e r t h e "no a c t i o n " a l t e r n a t i v e ; t h e f a i l u r e to undertake an a d e q u a t e cost/benef i t ' : a n a l y s i s ; and the c o n t e n t i o n t h a t d e f i c i e n t Environmental Impact S t a t e m e n t s cannot be rendered adequate by r e f e r e n c e to the record o u t s i d e t h e documents. W e w i l l c o n s i d e r each i n t u r n . A p p e l l a n t s f i r s t c h a r g e t h a t t h e f a i l u r e t o c o n s i d e r t h e need f o r , and a l t e r n a t i v e s t o , t h e f a c i l i t y i n t h e Upper Madison/Lower Ruby v a l l e y s r e n d e r s t h e EIS I s l e g a l l y i n a d e q u a t e . Chapter Three of t h e d r a f t EIS d i s c u s s e s t h e need of t h e proposed f a c i l i t y and o u t l i n e s t h e needs f o r t h e a r e a s of Big Sky, Bozeman, Yellowstone N a t i o n a l Park and, t h e Yellowstone V a l l e y . Chapter Four a d d r e s s e s a l t e r n a t i v e t r a n s m i s s i o n methods g e n e r a l l y and s p e c i f i c t r a n s m i s s i o n a1 t e r n a t i v e s to t h e f o u r above a r e a s . . I n n e i t h e r c h a p t e r is t h e r e a d i s c u s s i o n of t h e Upper Madison/Lower Ruby v a l l e y s . A p p e l l a n t s r e f e r to s e v e r a l p o i n t s i n t h e record where t h i s d e f i c i e n c y was n o t e d by v a r i o u s i n d i v i d u a l s . The Department, i n its b r i e f s to t h e D i s t r i c t Court and to t h i s Court,acknowledges t h a t t h e E I S ' s c o n t a i n no a d e q u a t e con- s i d e r a t i o n of a l t e r n a t i v e s t o a 161 KV l i n e s e r v i n g t h e Upper Madison/Lower Ruby v a l l e y s . The Department j u s t i f i e s t h i s o m i s s i o n by s t a t i n g t h a t MPC f a i l e d to comply w i t h t h e S i t i n g A c t and t h e r u l e s adopted p u r s u a n t t h e r e t o i n i d e n t i f y i n g i n MPC's a p p l i c a t i o n t h e need f o r a f a c i l i t y to s e r v e t h e demand i n t h e Upper Madison/Lower Ruby v a l l e y s . It is t r u e t h e r e is no s e p a r a t e s e c t i o n of t h e d r a f t E I S devoted to c o n s i d e r a t i o n of a 1 t e r n a t i v e s to t h e proposed electri- c a l t r a n s m i s s i o n l i n e s e r v i n g the Upper ~ a d i s o n / L o w e r Ruby v a l l e y area. However, Chapter T h r e e of t h e d r a f t EIS c o n t a i n s sta- - 7 - . . tistics and d a t a on the needs of the Upper Madison/Lower Ruby v a l l e y i n c l u d i n g r e g u l a t i o n s t a t i s t i c s , e x i s t i n g t r a n s m i s s i o n s p r i n k l i n g l i n e d a t a , a map showing a s i g n i f i c a n t growth i n / i r r i g a t i o n per- which would m i t £ i l i n g s / c o n s t i t u t e . a d d i t i o n a l e l e c t r i c a l demand, a showing t h a t V i g i l a n t e ~ 1 e c t r i c C o o p e r a t i ~ e which u s e s M P C t r a n s m i s s i o n l i n e s i n t h e a r e a p r o j e c t s almost doubling t h e e l e c t r i c a l load a 1. between 1972 and 1978, a n d / t a b l e showing s u b s t a n t i a l i n c r e a s e s i n peak e l e c t r i c a l l o a d s a t s u b s t a t i o n s i n t h e a r e a . C h a p t e r Four of t h e d r a f t E I S d i s c u s s e s a l t e r n a t i v e s to MPC's proposed 161 k i l o v o l t t r a n s m i s s i o n l i n e a s a whole i n c l u d i n g expansion of MPC's Madison h y d r o e l e c t r i c p l a n t s , upgrading and a d d i t i o n s t o e x i s t i n g t r a n s m i s s i o n f a c i l i t i e s , and underground t r a n s m i s s i o n l i n e s . Chapter S i x i n c l u d e s an a n a l y s i s o f environmental impacts on t h e Upper Ma4 ison/Lower Rcby v a l l e y . W e n o t e what t h e f e d e r a l c o u r t s have s a i d w i t h regard to environmental impact s t a t e m e n t s under t h e ~ a t i o n a l Environmental P o l i c y A c t . I n T r o u t Unlimited v. Morton, s u p r a , t h e Ninth C i r c u i t Court of Appeals s t a t e d : "That is, i n o u r o p i n i o n an E I S is i n compliance w i t h NEPA when its form, c o n t e n t , and p r e p a r a t i o n s u b s t a n t i a l l y ( 1) p r o v i d e d e c i s i o n - makers w i t h an environmental d i s c l o s u r e suf- f i c i e n t l y d e t a i l e d t o a i d i n t h e s u b s t a n t i v e d e c i s i o n whether to proceed w i t h t h e p r o j e c t i n t h e l i g h t of its environmental consequences, and ( 2 ) make a v a i l a b l e t o t h e p u b l i c , i n f ~ r m a t i o n of t h e proposed p r o j e c t s environmental impact and encourage p u b l i c p a r t i c i p a t i o n i n t h e develop- ment of t h a t information." 509 F.2d a t 1283. I n L i f e of t h e Land v. B r i n e g a r ( 9 t h C i r . 1973), 485 F.2d 460, 472, t h e c o u r t addressed what kind of c o n s i d e r a t i o n of a l t e r - n a t i v e s is mandated by NEPA: "NEPA1s ' a l t e r n a t i v e s 1 d i s c u s s i o n is s u b j e c t to a c o n s t r u c t i o n of r e a s o n a b l e n e s s . N.R. D.C. , Inc. v. Morton, s u p r a , 458 F.2d a t 834. C e r t a i n l y , t h e s t a t u t e should n o t be employed a s a c r u t c h Eor c h r o n i c f a u l t £ i n d i n g . Accordingly, t h e r e is no need f o r an EIS to c o n s i d e r an a l t e r n a t i v e whose e f f e c t cannot be r e a s o n a b l y a s c e r t a i n e d , and whose implementation is deemed remote and s p e c u l a t i v e . Id. a t 834. R a t h e r , t h e EIS need o n l y set f o r m t h o s e a l t e r n a t i v e s s ' s u f f i c i e n t t o permit a reasoned c h o i c e . ' I d . a t - 836." X h i l e it would have been p r e f e r a b l e i f t h e environmental impact s t a t e m e n t s i n t h i s c a s e had s e p a r a t e l y considered t h e need for t h e f a c i l i t y i n the Upper Madison/Lower Ruby v a l l e y s and a l t e r n a t i v e s t h e r e t o , the b a s i c i n f o r m a t i o n to e n a b l e t h e Board to reach an informed d e c i s i o n was b e f o r e the Board. The EIS's ' - s u b s t a n t i a l l y complied w i t h the mandates of MEPA and provided t h e Board "with an environmental d i s c l o s u r e s u f f i c i e n t l y d e t a i l e d to a i d i n t h e s u b s t a n t i v e d e c i s i o n whether to proceed with the p r o j e c t , " T r o u t Unlimited, s u p r a . W e f i n d no grounds f o r rever- s a l or m o d i f i c a t i o n of t h e Board's d e c i s i o n i n o u r l i m i t e d review under s e c t i o n 2-4-704, MCA, d i s c u s s e d above. A p p e l l a n t s ' n e x t c l a i m is t h a t t h e E I S ' s f a i l to ade- q u a t e l y a d d r e s s t h e need f o r , and a l t e r n a t i v e s to, t h e proposed f a c i l i t y a t Big Sky contending t h a t t h e r e w a s no i n v e s t i g a t i o n of t h e b a s i s of MPC1s p r o j e c t e d load which would j u s t i f y a d d i t i o n a l electrical t r a n s m i s s i o n s e r v i c e . A p p e l l a n t s reason t h a t a n a l y s i s o f c o n s e r v a t i o n a l t e r n a t i v e s is r e q u i r e d by both t h e S i t i n g A c t and NEPA, c i t i n g s e c t i o n 75-20-503(1) (a) and ( f ) ,MCA, and t w o c a s e s , Environmental Defense Fund v. Corps of Engineers ( 5 t h C i r . 1974) 492 F.2d 1123 and Libby Rod and Gun Club v. P o t e a t (D.C. Mont. 1 9 7 8 ) , 457 F.Supp 1177, a f f ' d i n p a r t and r e v l d i n p a r t ( 9 t h C i r . 1979) 594 F.2d 742. S e c t i o n s 75-20-503 ( l ) ( a ) and ( f ) , MCA, p r o v i d e a s follows : "Environmental f a c t o r s e v a l u a t e d . I n e v a l u a t i n g long-range p l a n s , conducting 5-year s i t e re- views, and e v a l u a t i n g a p p l i c a t i o n s f o r c e r t i f i - cates, t h e board and department s h a l l g i v e c o n s i d e r a t i o n to the following list of environ- mental f a c t o r s , where a p p l i c a b l e , and may by r u l e add to the c a t e g o r i e s of t h i s s e c t i o n : " ( 1) e n e r g y needs : a (a) growth i n demand and p r o j e c t i o n s of need; " ( f ) c o n s e r v a t i o n a c t i v i t i e s which could reduce t h e need f o r more energy; We have reviewed the nature of the project in Corps of Engineers, supra, as outlined in both the Fifth Circuit Court opinion and the District Court opinion (348 F.Supp. 916) and fail to see how the case either supports or weakens appellants' position. Corps of Engineers involved challenges to the Tennessee-Tombigbee Waterway, a navigation project, extending from Demopolis, Alabama, to the Tennessee River. Nowhere do we find discussion regarding electrical transmissions facilities and projected loads. Although the court rejected the Corps' defense that the development of alternatives need only take place where a project involves detrimental environmental impacts, we do not find that statement dispositive here. Poteat, supra, involved the proposed construction of add- tional electrical generating units ("LAURD") at Libby Dam. In the District Court opinion, Judge Murray addressed the Corps' projected load forecasts and the conservation alternative: "The peak-power deficit forecasts relied upon by the Corps reflect the years 1974-75, yet LAURD was not projected for completion until 1982-83. The current forecasts for the early 19801s, as projected by Bonneville Power Administration (BPA) and the Pacific Northwest Utilities Coor- dinating Council show a surplus of peaking power and a shortage of base-load power, even without LAURD . "The reference to the alternative of conservation is much too conclusory. The Corps discusses the importance of conservation, but dismisses it as a viable alternative to LAURD, saying 'there is not at present sufficient evidence to warrant delaying the on-line dates of Libby Additional Units.' Recent studies by the BPA and the General Accounting Office indicate there is evidence to conclude that conservation in the Pacific North- west will have a considerable impact. This in- formation should be explored and analyzed in greater depth by the Corps in preparing a new EIS." 457 F.Supp. at 1188-89. The Department justifies its failure to conduct an inde- pendent investigation of MPC's load projections by stating that, in 1975, the Department determined that its legal mandate did not extend to denying increased electrical energy to Montana consumers on the basis of the ultimate use of the elec- electrical tricity, or to setting a maximum amount of / energy that existing electric consumers may consume. The Department concedes, however, t h a t it has, subsequent to 1975, r e f i n e d its p r o c e d u r e s such t h a t t h e concerns r a i s e d by a p p e l l a n t s would be a d d r e s s e d . A d d i t i o n a l l y , a p p l i c a n t s a r e now r e q u i r e d , b y - A d m i n i s t r a t i v e Rules ef Montana, . s e c t i o n 3 6 . 7 . 3 0 4 ( l ) ( b ) ( i i ) and ( b ) ( B ) to p r o v i d e t o t h e Department t h e assumptions underlying load growth p r o j e c - t i o n s and how c o n s e r v a t i o n measures may e l i m i n a t e t h e . need f o r t h e proposed f a c i l i t y : "36.7.304 CONTENT OF APPLICATIONS FOR ELECTRIC TRANSMISSION LINESAND GAS OR LIQUID --- TRANSlYISSION LINES An a ~ n l i c a t i o n f o r a f a c i - r l i t y d e f i n e d In s u b s e c t i o n s 75-20-104 ( 1 0 ) ( b ) and 75-20-104 ( 1 0 ) ( c ) o f t h e A c t which is an electric t r a n s m i s s i o n l i n e or g a s or l i q u i d t r a n s m i s s i o n l i n e s h a l l c o n t a i n t h e following: " ( b) A p p l i c a t i o n s f o r electric t r a n s m i s s i o n l i n e s not based s o l e l y on t r a n s i e n t s t a b i l i t y c o n s i d e r a t i o n s s h a l l i n c l u d e t h e f o l l o w i n g : " ( ii) 10-year h i s t o r i c a l and 10-year p r o j e c t e d l o a d growth d a t a a t each p o i n t of d i s t r i b u t i o n i n t h e a r e a needing a d d i t i o n a l f a c i l i t i e s . These d a t a s h a l l be provided i n t a b u l a r and n o t be l i m i t e d to, assumptions about: popula- E n T r o w t h : chanqes i n electrical u s e per house- -- hold: - i n d u s t r i a l . - c o r n ~ r c i a l . and a a r i c b l t u r a l a - u s e o f e l e c t r i c a l e n e r g y and power; economic -- conditions a f f e c t i n g i n d u s t r i a l - and commercial a c t i v i t y ; c o n s e r v a t i o n ; and renewable a l t e r - n a t i v e energy u s e . The e f f e c t upon demand of chanqes i n t h e averaqe p r i c e and r a t e s t r u c t u r e f o r electric e n e r g y ; h a i l be a s s e s s e d . "(B) An e x p l a n a t i o n s h a l l be g i v e n of t h e e f f e c t s of t h e a p p l i c a n t ' s energy c o n s e r v a t i o n o r promotion programs, i f any, on p a s t and pre- s e n t energy consumption r a t e and on f u t u r e e n e r g y growth r a t e s . ' - The a p p l i c a n t s h a l l assess t h e p o t e n t i a l f o r c o n s e r v a t i o n and a r e d u c t i o n i n - - - - r o m o t i o n a l a c t i v i t i e s f o r r e d u c i n g or e l i m i n a - :inq t h e need f o r t h e proposed f a c l l E y . The ---- 7 a p p l i c a t i o n s h a l l l n c l u d e a d i s c u s s i o n of t h e c o n s i s t e n c y o f t h e proposed f a c i l i t y w i t h s t a t e , r e g i o n a l , and n a t i o n a l e n e r g y and c o n s e r v a t i o n policies and programs;" ( ~ m p h a s i s added. ) The a l t e r n a t i v e s , i n a d d i t i o n to c o n s e r v a t i o n , t h a t a p p e l l a n t s contend were not s u f f i c i e n t l y t r e a t e d by t h e E I S ' s i n c l u d e o n - s i t e d i e s e l g e n e r a t i n g f a c i l i t i e s , waste h e a t s o u r c e s , wind power, s o l a r power and t h e use of more i n s u l a t i o n . A l - though t h e Department might be w e l l advised to look behind any load growth p r o j e c t i o n s t o d e t e r m i n e t h e i r v a l i d i t y and l e g i t i m a c y because an a p p l i c a n t ' s p r o j e c t i o n s may v e r y w e l l be s e l f - s e r v i n g t o a c e r t a i n d e g r e e ( t o j u s t i f y t h e proposed p r o j e c t ) , f a i l u r e t o do so is not f a t a l i n t h i s case, a s MPC's load p r o j e c t i o n s d i d n o t form t h e b a s i s of t h e Board's d e c i s i o n . W e f u r t h e r n o t e t h a t , i n t h e f i n a l EIS, t h e Department s p e c i f i c a l l y s t a t e s t h a t MPC's load p r o j e c t i o n s d i d n o t c o n t r o l its d e c i s i o n and d i s c u s s e s t h e d i s c r e p a n c y between t h e p r o j e c - t i o n s and a c t u a l need: "The Department is n o t b a s i n g its d e c i s i o n - -- - r e g a r d i n g t h e need f o r a n a d d i t i o n a l l i n e t o Big ---- --- Sky o n t h e a c c u r a c y of t h e a p p l i c a n t ' s l o a d pro- 7 . - -- -- j e c t l o n s f o r Big Sky. A comparison of Table 2 , --- which c o n t a i n s t h e h i s t o r i c a l peak load d a t a f o r Big Sky, w i t h Big Sky p r o j e c t i o n s shown i n Table 3-7 o f t h e D r a f t EIS (page 23) d e m o n s t r a t e s t h a t growth is not o c c u r r i n g as p r o j e c t e d . Table 2 d a t a i n d i c a t e t h a t t h e peak load f o r w i n t e r 1975-1976 w i l l l i k e l y be about 9048 KW, t h e same a s t h e 1974-1975 w i n t e r peak. The p r o j e c t e d v a l u e s from Table 3-7 o f t h e D r a f t EIS were 10,950 KW f o r w i n t e r 1974-1975 and 12,455 KW f o r w i n t e r 1975-1976. With respect to comparisons between t h e a c t u a l Big Sky peak l o a d s and t h e a p p l i c a n t ' s p r o j e c t i o n s , t h e a p p l i c a n t has s t a t e d : " 'The c o n s t r u c t i o n schedule of Big Sky must be c o n s i d e r e d when a n a l y z i n g load p r o j e c t i o n s . The estimates prepared by M r . H i l d r e t h ( o f MPC) were based on i n f o r m a t i o n s u p p l i e d by Big Sky which showed c o n s t r u c t i o n of o v e r 700 condominium u n i t s and o v e r 50 r e s i d e n c e s by t h e 1975-1976 s e a s o n . The D r a f t Impact S t a t e m e n t , Clyde Park-Dillon, o n Page 21, i n d i c a t e s t h a t 37 homes have been b u i l t t o d a t e and 564 condominiums b u i l t to d a t e . (MPC March 1 5 , 1 9 7 6 ) . ' "The - p r e c i s e t i m i n g o f development a t Big Sky and -- - t h e f i n a l peak l o a d t o which it w i l l grow a r e - -- ---- n o t c e r t a i n t i e s . However. t h e maior con- - s i d e r a t i o n - a t p r e s e n t is t h a t a d d i t i o n a l -- t r a n s m i s s i o n c a p a c i t y to Big Sky is a l r e a d y -- - needed." ( ~ m p h a s i s added. ) I n t h e f i n a l EIS i n t h e i n s t a n t case, we n o t e t h e Departnent d i d a d d r e s s t h e need f o r a d d i t i o n a l power a t Big Sky: "With r e s p e c t t o Big Sky, Department s t u d i e s i n d i c a t e t h a t Big Sky peak demand h a s i n the p a s t reached the c a p a c i t y of t h e e x i s t i n g 69 KV l i n e . Table 3-1 on page 13 o f t h e D r a f t EIS Lists t h e c a p a c i t y of t h e Big Sky-Bozeman l i n e a s 9 ! 4 W . Table 2 c o n t a i n s t h e h i s t o r i c a l Big Sky peak demand d a t a s u p p l i e d by t h e a p p l i c a n t . The Big Sky load a t t h e J a c k Rabbit s u b s t a t i o n , which is t h e t o t a l Big Sky load (MPC March 15, 1976), was 9048 KW i n December 1974, December 1975, and J a n u a r y 1976. Because - t h e c a p a c i t y of t h e e x i s t i n q l i n e h a s been r e a c h e d , and b e c a u s e --- g r o w t h e c t r i c a l demand - w i l l c o n t i n u e -- a t Big Skv t h e ~ e p a r t m e n t must recognize t h e need f o r 4 ! - --- a d d r t i o n a l t r a n s m i s s i o n c a p a c i t y -- to Big Sky." ( Emphasis added. ) The f i n a l E I S also r e f l e c t s t h a t o t h e r a l t e r n a t i v e s were examined : "The need f o r a d d i t i o n a l t r a n s m i s s i o n c a p a c i t y --- t o Big Sky, which t h e Department i n t h i s case ----- acknowledges, d o e s n o t n e c e s s a r L l y i n d i c a t e a -7 needfornew-transmission l i n e s . O t h e r a l t e r - --- n a t i v e s e x i s t : a d d i t i o n of v o l t a g e compensation e q u i p x e n t , upgrading t h e e x i s t i n g l i n e by i n c r e a s i n g conductor s i z e while r e t a i n i n q t h e e x i s t i n g Goltage l e v e l , and r e b u i l d i n g the e x i s t i n g l i n e a t a h i g h e r v o l t a g e l e v e l . N e i t h e r of t h e f i r s t t w o of t h e s e a l t e r n a t i v e s would provide s u f f i c i e n t c a p a c i t y t o m e e t t h e peak p r o j e c t e d long-term demand a t Big Sky, n o r would a combination of t h e t w o . T h e i r implemen- t a t i o n would t h e r e f o r e mean unnecessary addi- t i o n a l expense to a l l Montana Power Company e l e c t r i c a l consumers. E i t h e r upgrading t h e e x i s t i n g l i n e t o 161 KV or b u i l d i n g a new 1 6 1 KV l i n e would r e s u l t i n less energy loss during t r a n s m i s s i o n (see page 59 o f t h e D r a f t EIS) , and p r o v i d e c a p a c i t y beyond the p r o j e c t e d maximum peak power demand of 32 MW a t Big Sky. C o n s t r u c t i o n of a new 1 6 1 KV t r a n s m i s s i o n l i n e ----- is t h e most a p p r o p r i a t e a l t e r n a t i v e , however, to --- - meet t h e need f o r t h e a d d i t i o n a l t r a n s m i s s i o n ----- c a p a c i t y ( s e e S e c t i o n I .C. 3 . ) ." (Emphasis added. ) F o r t h e foregoing r e a s o n s w e hold t h a t the Environmental not Impact S t a t e m e n t s i n t h i s case a r e / g r o s s l y i n s u f f i c i e n t as a m a t t e r of law i n t h e i r t r e a t m e n t of t h e need f o r and a l t e r n a t i v e s to t h e proposed t r a n s m i s s i o n l i n e . The primary f u n c t i o n of t h e EIS is to provide t h e decision-maker w i t h environmental r e p o r t s s u f f i c i e n t l y d e t a i l e d to allow a knowledgeable judgment and to allow p u b l i c feedback i n t h e development of t h a t i n f o r m a t i o n . W e cannot s a y t h a t t h e Board's d e c i s i o n w a s a r b i t a r y , c a p r i c i o u s or c l e a r l y e r r o n e o u s i n view of t h e E I S 1 s and documents t h a t it had b e f o r e it. A p p e l l a n t s n e x t a t t a c k the E I S ' s on t h e grounds t h a t they f a i l e d t o a d d r e s s or d i s c u s s t h e a l t e r n a t i v e of a second 69 KV l i n e going through the G a l l a t i n Canyon i n a d d i t i o n t o the e x i s t i n g one. Appellants contend t h a t t h i s a 1 t e r n a t i v e came i n t o being when it developed d u r i n g the h e a r i n g s t h a t the a d d i t i o n a l . 15 megawatts p r o j e c t e d by MPC was to s e r v e o n l y peak demands a t peak ti~nes of t h e y e a r . Hearings of Eicer ~ n d r i o l o suggested t h e p o s s i b i l i t y of two 69 KV l i n e s to t h e Board i n t h e September 16, 1977, h e a r i n g . I n t h e d r a f t EIS, w e f i n d t h e r e is c o n s i d e r a t i o n of h i g h e r k i l o v o l t l i n e s being routed from t h e Bozeman-Hot S p r i n g s s u b s t a - t i o n through the G a l l a t i n Canyon to Big Sky. The Department found, howe*rer, t h a t sole r e l i a n c e on one s u b s t a t i o n would pre- s e n t r e l i a b i l i t y d i s a d v a n t a g e s ( i n c a s e of an outage a t t h a t s u b s t a t i o n ) which would n o t be p r e s e n t i n a t r a n s m i s s i o n l i n e from D i l l o n to Ennis t o Big Sky. Two 69 RV l i n e s from Bozeman to Big Sky would s u f f e r t h e same i n f i r m i t i e s a s a h i g h e r k i l o v o l t l i n e along t h e same r o u t e . The D i l l o n a r e a r e c e i v e s its power from t h r e e d i f f e r e n t s o u r c e s and, i n an emergency, Big Sky could be served by t h e Madison hydro p l a n t n e a r Ennis. I n case of an outage a t any one s u b s t a t i o n , e l e c t r i c i t y from t h e o t h e r areas could be drawn upon to p r e v e n t a t o t a l pwer f a i l u r e . The f a c t t h a t t h e EIS's d i d n o t s p e c i f i c a l l y c o n s i d e r t h e p o s s i b i l i t y of a second 69 KV l i n e through alla at in Canyon does not r e n d e r them i n s u f f i c i e n t as a m a t t e r of law. Again, it is n o t r e q u i r e d t h a t an agency perform a n e x h a u s t i v e s t u d y of e v e r y p o s s i b l e a l t e r n a t i v e : "What is required is i n f o r m a t i o n s u f f i c i e n t to p e r m i t a reasoned c h o i c e of a l t e r n a t i v e s so f a r a s environmental aspects a r e concerned ." NRDC v. Morton (1972 D.C.Cir.), 458 F.2d 827, 836. A p p e l l a n t s f u r t h e r contend t h a t t h e Department should have addressed t h e "no a c t i o n a a l t e r n a t i v e i n c o n s i d e r i n g MPCVs pro- \ posed a1 t e r n a t i v e , I t is c l e a r t h a t a g e n c i e s must c o n s i d e r the "no a c t i o n " a l t e r n a t i v e , see P o t e a t , s u p r a , and L i f e of t h e Land v, B r i n e q a r , s u p r a . However, t h i s c l a i m of a p p e l l a n t s is similar to t h a t a t t a c k i n g t h e Departmentq s purported a c c e p t a n c e of MPC's load p r o j e c t i o n s and our response t h e r e t o is r e l e v a n t h e r e . I t is clear . . . t h a t the Departxient has c o r r e c t l y reversed its e a r l i e r p s i t i o n i n t h a t it now c o n s i d e r s ways t h a t the need f o r a proposed f a c i l i t y can be e l i m i n a t e d , ARM, s e c t i o n 36.7.304(1) ( b ) ( i i ) & (b)(B), s u p r a . Here the Department i m p l i c i t l y d e t e r - mined t h a t t h e "no a c t i o n " a l t e r n a t i v e would n o t be s a t i s f a c t o r y , is as i n t h e f i n a l EIS t h i s / s t a t e d . "The c u r r e n t need f o r a d d i t i o n a l e l e c t r i c i t y a t - -- Big Sky has been e s t a b l i s h e d , and according t o - -- t h e Sky Master P l a n , t h e c o r p o r a t i o n d e s i r e s i n c r e a s e d development, and, hence, i n c r e a s e d e l e c t r i c a l consumption ." (Emphasis added. ) A p p e l l a n t s n e x t c h a l l e n g e t h e E I S ' s on t h e ground t h a t t h e y do n o t c o n t a i n an adequate c o s t / b e n e f i t a n a l y s i s , v i z . , t h e Department should have considered t h e r e l a t i v e c o s t s and b e n e f i t s o f t h e proposed f a c i l i t y i n comparison w i t h a v a i l a b l e a l t e r n a - t i v e s . A p p e l l a n t s q u o t e House J o i n t R e s o l u t i o n N o . 7 3 which pro- v i d e s i n p e r t i n e n t p a r t . "That a l l a g e n c i e s of S t a t e government a r e h e r e b y d i r e c t e d to achieve f o r t h w i t h t h e f u l l implementation of the Montana Environmental P o l i c y A c t i n c l u d i n g t h e economic a n a l y s i s r e q u i r e m e n t s of S e c t i o n s 69-6504 through 69-6514 . . . and aBE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, t h a t economic a n a l y s i s s h a l l accompany environmental impact s t a t e m e n t s a s r e q u i r e d by t h e foregoing S e c t i o n s of t h e a c t and s h a l l encompass an a n a l y s i s of t h e costs and b e n e f i t s t o whomsoever they may a c c r u e , includ- i n g c o n s i d e r a t i o n s of employment, income, i n v e s t m e n t , e n e r g y , t h e social costs and bene- f i t s of growth, o p p o r t u n i t y costs and t h e d i s t r i b u t i o n e f f e c t s , . ." A j o i n t r e s o l u t i o n is not binding a s law on t h i s Court, b u t w e g i v e it c o n s i d e r a t i o n as a c l e a r m a n i f e s t a t i o n of t h e (1959) , l e g i s l a t i v e c o n s t r u c t i o n of MEPA. S t a t e v. Tbomey/ 135 Mont. 35, (19261, 335 P.2d 1051; S t a t e ex rel. Jones v. Erickson/ 75 Mont, 429, 244 The cost-benefit analysis required by MEPA, as construed by the legislature, encompasses a broad consideration of several factors categorized in House Joint Resolution No. 73, approved March 16, 1974. A reasonable cost-benefit economic analysis undertaken pursuant to these criteria would, in effect, accomplish most of the purposes sought to be served by an environmental impact statement. Appellants concede, however, that the Department's draft EIS undertakes an analysis of the indirect costs and benefits of MPC's proposal although not of the type appellants suggest. Neither the Siting Act nor MEPA explicitly requires such type of analysis. It should also be noted that after the draft EIS appeared, the Department promulgated rules which require EIS's prepared by the Department to include the following: "(e) economic and environmental benefits and costs of the proposed action (if a benefit-cost analysis is considered for the proposed action, it shall be incorporated by reference or appended to the statement to aid in evaluating the environmental consequences) ; "(f) the relationship between local short-term uses of man's environment with the effects on main- tenance and enhancement of the long-term produc- tivity of the environment;" MPC argues that MEPA does not require a formal and mathe- matically expressed cost-benefit analysis, citing Cady v . Morton (9th Cir. 1975), 527 F.2d 786. On this point we hold there has been sufficient compliance with MEPA so that the EIS is not insufficient as a matter of law. Although this area could have been more fully explored by the Department in preparing the EIS, the ETS's, when viewed in their entirety, sufficiently apprised the Board members of the project's cost and benefits to enable the Board to render a knowledgeable decision. A p p e l l a n t s n e x t charge t h a t a d e f i c i e n t EIS c a n n o t be ren- d e r e d s u f f i c i e n t by r e f e r e n c e to t h e record o u t s i d e t h e documents. The t r i a l c o u r t concluded t h a t " . . . t h e e n t i r e S i t i n g A c t p r o c e s s and t h e Board's d e c i s i o n based upon t h e e n t i r e r e c o r d is t h e f u n c t i o n a l e q u i v a l e n t of an Environmental Impact Statement." e. S i n c e w e have held t h a t the e n v i r o n m e n t a l impact s t a t e m e n t s a r e not i n s u f f i c i e n t a s a m a t t e r of law, w e need n o t a d d r e s s nor d e t e r m i n e t h e i s s u e of f u n c t i o n a l equivalency. In sum, u l e hold t h a t t h e record b e f o r e u s e s t a b l i s h e s t h a t t h e Board *s d e c i s i o n was n o t c l e a r l y e r r o n e o u s , a r b i t r a r y or c a p r i c i o u s ; t h a t s u b s t a n t i a l e v i d e n c e s u p p o r t s t h e Board's f i n - d i n g s and o r d e r ; and t h a t a p p e l l a n t s r i g h t s were not substan- t i a l l y prejudiced! W e o b s e r v e t h a t t e s t e d by h i n d s i g h t , it is n o t uncommon to uncover t e c h n i c a l shortcomings i n an environmen- t a l impact s t a t e m e n t or to p o i n t o u t areas t h e r e i n t h a t might have been i n v e s t i g a t e d or analyzed i n more d e t a i l . However, where a p p e l l a n t ' s r i g h t s a r e being p r e j u d i c e d by s u b s t a n t i a l d e f i c i e n c i e s i n an EIS, it is no less a n o b l i g a t i o n of a p p e l l a n t s t o s p e l l o u t i n some d e t a i l such d e f i c i e n c i e s to e n a b l e t h e Department t o c o r r e c t t h e same p r i o r to t h e Board h e a r i n g and a d j u d i c a t i o n which was n o t done h e r e . Otherwise t h e whole pro- c e s s of c e r t i f i c a t i o n would be n e e d l e s s l y drawn o u t and postponed t o t h e p o i n t t h a t such c e r t i f i c a t i o n would become economically p r o h i b i t i v e , a mockery, and i l l u s o r y . With r e g a r d to t h e second i s s u e ( w h e t h e r t h e Board's f i n d i n g s , c o n c l u s i o n s and C e r t i f i c a t e of Environmental Compatabil i t y and Need are s t a t u t o r i l y a d e q u a t e and supported by t h e e v i d e n c e ) , w e r e i t e r a t e t h e c i r c u m s c r i b e d n a t u r e of o u r s t a n - d a r d of review under MAPA. W e w i l l r e v e r s e or modify t h e d e c i - s i o n below i f t h e judgment is c l e a r l y e r r o n e o u s or a r b i t r a r y or c a p r i c i o u s or c h a r a c t e r i z e d by an abuse of d i s c r e t i o n , S e c t i o n 2-4-704(2) ( e ) & ( f ) , MCA. I n Western Bank of B i l l i n g s v. Montana \ S t a t e Banking Board ( 1 9 7 7 ) , 174 Mont. 331, 340, 570 P.2d 1115, 1120, w e s t a t e : " T h i s C o u r t h a s r e p e a t e d l y h e l d t h a t its func- t i o n on appeal is to d e t e r m i n e whether t h e r e is s u b s t a n t i a l e v i d e n c e i n t h e record to s u p p o r t t h e judgment. Strong v. Williams ( 1 9 6 9 ) , 1 5 4 Mont. 65, 460 P.2d 90." A p p e l l a n t s ' contend t h e r e w a s i n s u f f i c i e n t e v i d e n c e i n t h e r e c o r d on t h e need f o r a 161 KV l i n e i n t h e Upper Madison/ Lower Ruby v a l l e y s and a t Big Sky; t h a t t h e r e was no e v i d e n c e to sup- p o r t t h e f i n d i n g and c o n c l u s i o n t h a t t h e proposed l i n e and r o u t i n g cons t i t u t e d t h e minimum environmental impact; t h a t t h e Board f a i l e d to comply w i t h MAPA i n i s s u i n g its f i n d i n g s of f a c t , and c o n c l u s i o n s o f law; and t h a t t h e Board's C e r t i f i c a t e of Environmental Compatabili t y and P u b l i c Need v i o l a t e s sect i o n 75-20-303(3), MCA, o f t h e S i t i n g A c t . A p p e l l a n t s f i r s t contend t h a t t h e r e w a s i n s u f f i c i e n t e v i - dence of need f o r t h e 1 6 1 KV l i n e i n t h e Upper ~ a d i s o n / ~ o w e r Ruby v a l l e y s . The Board's f i n d i n g of need r e g a r d i n g t h i s states a s f o l l o w s : "Although t h e need f o r the Bozeman to E n n i s and D i l l o n segment of t h e t r a n s m i s s i o n f a c i l i t i e s is n o t a s immediate as t h e Gardiner-Clyde . - - - , P a r k seaments of t h e l i n k . e x i s t i n a t r a n s - - - - 2 - - - m i s s i o n f a c i l i t i e s i n t h e ~ u b ~ and Madison ---- V a l l e y s a r e r e a c h i n s t h e i r c a ~ a c i t v l i m i t s and - - - - w i t h p o p u l a t i o n growth - and i n c r e a s e d electrical demands d u e to i n t e n s i v e s p r i n k l e r i r r i g a t i o n a -- d e f i n i t e need e x i s t s f o r a n a d d i t i o n a l r e l i a b l e --- e l e c t r i c a l transmission f a c i l i t y . The comple- t i o n of t h i s l e g of t h e p r o j e c t also p r o v i d e s f o r a f u l l y i n t e g r a t e d e l e c t r i c a l t r a n s m i s s i o n system t o s e r v e t h e e n t i r e a r e a . Conversion of e x i s t i n g f a c i l i t i e s i n the Madison and Ruby V a l l e y a r e a s would provide o n l y short-term s o l u - t i o n s t h a t would r e s u l t i n economic waste. The b e s t long-term s o l u t i o n to t h e e l e c t r i c a l needs of t h e a r e a and p r o j e c t e d growth p a t t e r n s is achieved through a 161 KV s y s t e m proposed by t h e a p p l i c a n t w i t h t h e 69 KV s y s t e m from migrant to G a r d i n e r ." ( ~ m p h a s i s added. ) A p p e l l a n t s concede t h a t t h e r e is e v i d e n c e t o s u p p o r t t h e u n d e r l i n e d p o r t i o n of t h e above f i n d i n g b u t argue t h a t t h e r e is no s u p p o r t for t h e c o n t e n t i o n t h a t a 161 KV f a c i l i t y is r e q u i r e d to meet t h e s e needs. Although t h e r e w a s a s u b s t a n t i a l con£ l i c t i n the record concerning t h e amount of p o w e r a c t u a l l y needed i n t h e Upper Madison/Lower Ruby v a l l e y s , t h e r e w a s s u b s t a n t i a l e v i - dence to s u p p o r t t h e Board's d e c i s i o n . It was t h e f u n c t i o n of t h e Board to r e s o l v e t h e s e c o n f l i c t s and w e may n o t s u b s t i t u t e o u r judgment f o r t h a t of t h e Board on t h e weight of t h e evidence .- - on q u e s t i o n s of f a c t , s e c t i o n 2-4-704 ( 2 ) , MCA. S u b s t a n t i a l e v i - dence supported t h e Board's d e t e r m i n a t i o n t h a t a 161 KV f a c i l i t y was needed i n the Upper Madison/Lower Ruby v a l l e y s . The record is r e p l e t e with f a c t s i n d i c a t i n g t h a t t h e e x i s t i n g t r a n s m i s s i o n l i n e s were overloaded; t h a t o n l y a 161 KV l i n e would provide long-term, c o s t - e f f e c t i v e s e r v i c e and t h a t t h e needs of V i g i l a n t e Electric C o o p e r a t i v e which used M P C e l e c t r i c a l t r a n s m i s s i o n l i n e s r e q u i r e d a 161 KV l i n e . A p p e l l a n t s n e x t contend t h a t t h e r e w a s i n s u f f i c i e n t e v i - dence of need f o r a 161 KV l i n e to Big Sky and t h a t t h e e v i d e n c e d o e s n o t s u p p o r t t h e following f i n d i n g s made by t h e Board; t h a t a v a i l a b l e load growth information f o r MPC's systems s u p p o r t s t h e i r f o r e c a s t covering f u t u r e load growth f o r both peak and a v e r a g e energy; t h a t c o n s e r v a t i o n a c t i v i t i e s w i l l n o t m a t e r i a l l y reduce t h e demand f o r power i n the s e r v i c e a r e a ; t h a t t h e bene- f i t s d e r i v e d from t h e u t i l i z a t i o n of waste h e a t do n o t outweigh t h e advantages of t h e electric t r a n s m i s s i o n l i n e ; t h a t new tech- nolog ies ( undergrounding, o n - s i t e g e n e r a t i o n , solar energy, wind power and t o t a l energy systems) have n o t reached a p o i n t where t h e y p r e s e n t a f e a s i b l e economic and environmental a l t e r n a t i v e to . t h e proposed f a c i l i t y ; and t h a t t h e r e are no v i a b l e s o u r c e s of a l t e r n a t i v e energy. W e d i s a g r e e . W e hold t h e r e was s u b s t a n t i a l e v i d e n c e t o s u p p o r t t h e Board ' s f i n d i n g s . The Board's f i n d i n g N o . 17 c o n t a i n s underlying f a c t s (which were b e f o r e t h e Board) from which t h e Board could conclude t h a t t h e r e w i l l be s i g n i f i c a n t f u t u r e development and consequent e l e c t r i c a l need a t Big Sky a s w e l l a s t h e G a l l a t i n Canyon a r e a as a whole (which w i l l a l s o be served by t h e proposed l i n e ) : "That t h e Big Sky Resort and G a l l a t i n Canyon a r e a can be considered a s a s e p a r a t e a r e a f o r growth c o n s i d e r a t i o n and p r o j e c t i o n s . Big S k y ' s m a s t e r plan shows a p r o j e c t e d 2,700 condominiums and 1 , 2 6 3 l o t s . A t p r e s e n t , o n l y 21% o f t h e condominiums a r e c o n s t r u c t e d and 52% o f t h e l o t s are developed while n o t a l l of t h e .condominiums have been s o l d or a r e i n use. In a d d i t i o n , Big Sky is based on an ' . a l l electric'' concept and e l e c t r i c i t y is needed f o r t h e h o s t e l s , medical c e n t e r , f i r e department, r e s t a u r a n t s and o t h e r commercial f a c i l i t i e s as w e l l a s t h e s k i l i f t , swimming p o o l s and g o l f c o u r s e . While growth o f t h e Big Sky f a c i l i t y h a s d e c l i n e d considerably- -- - due to t h e economic market, f u t u r e growth c a n be --- -- a n t i c i p a t e d o f a s u b s t a n t i a l n a t u r e . I n addi- T - -- t i o n to t h e Blg Sky resort, s a t e l l i t e develop- ----- merits such a s I C B I which h a s purchased 45 acres --- -- and h a s an o p t i o n on 1 1 1 a c r e s n e a r Big Sky --- 7- --- p l a n s - 200 r e s i d e n t l a l condominiums, t o g e t h e r w i t h shopping - and commercial f a c i l i t i e s . I n view of t h i s a c t i v i t y , a d d i t i o n a l d e v e l o p m G t i n -- - t h e G a l l a t i n Canyon a r e a c a n a l s o be --- a n t i c i p a t e d . " ( C i t a t i o n s omitted--emphasis added. ) I n f i n d i n g N o . 18, t h e Board noted t h a t t h e p r o j e c t i o n s had twice been r e v i s e d due t o adverse economic c o n d i t i o n s b u t s t r e s s e d t h e i n c r e a s e d needs of t h e G a l l a t i n Canyon a r e a and o t h e r a r e a s adja- c e n t to Big Sky. Next, t h e r e was s u b s t a n t i a l e v i d e n c e adduced a t t h e h e a r i n g from which t h e Board could conclude t h a t c o n s e r v a t i o n a c t i v i t i e s would n o t m a t e r i a l l y reduce t h e demand f o r power. A p p e l l a n t s urge t h a t twice a s much i n s u l a t i o n could c u t t h e h e a t i n g load a t Big Sky i n h a l f . However, one w i t n e s s s t a t e d t h a t the Big Sky condominiums were b e t t e r i n s u l a t e d t h a n most Montana b u i l d i n g s . From the d e s i g n p l a n s of Big Sky, which were c o n t a i n e d i n t h e d r a f t E I S , t h e Board could have r e a s o n a b l y concluded t h a t c o n s e r v a t i o n p r a c t i c e s a t Big Sky had progressed to such a p o i n t t h a t more of such p r a c t i c e s would not m a t e r i a l l y reduce t h e need f o r more power. The Board made t h e following f i n d i n g s w i t h regard to the use of waste h e a t and o n - s i t e e l e c t r i c a l g e n e r a t i o n : "20. On-site g e n e r a t i o n by a gas t u r b i n e Z g e n e r a t o r or d i e s e l power g e n e r a t i o n w i t h u t i l i - z a t i o n of waste h e a t h a s been proposed by t h e Montana Wilderness ~ s s o c i a t i o n a s an a l t e r n a t i v e f o r a power l i n e to Big Sky. F u e l costs -- f o r on- s i t e g e n e r a t i o n s would be f o u r t e e n t i m e s a s much - -- a s f u e l c o s t s a s s o c i a t e d w i t h p r o d u c t i o n - of aectrl'cit a t a c e n t r a l s t a t i o n s u c h a s Co s t r r p F u r t h e r , o n - s i t e g e n e r a t i o n w o u l d n o t +-- re1 i e v e - t h e r e l i a b i l i t y problems which would be r e l i e v e d by a loop system coming i n from t h e Ennis a r e a and connecting w i t h t h e e x i s t i n g l i n e up t h e G a l l a t i n Canyon. Nor would :it have t h e b e n e f i t of s e r v i n g t h e r e l a t e d developments i n t h e a r e a such a s ICBI and o t h e r developments i n t h e G a l l a t i n Canyon a r e a . Although u t i l i z a t i o n of w a s t e h e a t a p o e a r s to b e a t T r e t h a t - - - L a . - - - should be c o n s i d e r e d i n f u t u r e developments, - t h e b e n e f i t s t o be d e r i v e d t h e r e f r o m i n c o n n e c t i o n -- w i t h t h e Blq Sky p r o j e c t a r e n o t so s i g n i f i c a n t ---- --- a s t o outweigh t h e a d v a n t a g e s o f t h e electric -- - -- t r a n s m i s s i o n l i n e . "21. I n view o f t h e energy crisis i n t h e p e t r o - ---- -- l e u m i n d u s t r v it is n o t f e l t t h a t o n - s i t e - - - - 4 --- g e n e r a t i o n would be a f e a s i b l e long-term a l t e r n a t i v e . ~ a i = emphasis is beinq placed - - upon u t i l i z a t i o n - o f e l e c t r i c a l power w i t h o u t t h e undue consumption of o u r n a t u r a l pe t r o l e u n r e s o u r c e s and o n - s i t e d i e s e l or g a s t u r b i n e g e n e r a t i n g facilities would be . d e t r i m e n t a l to t h i s p o l i c y . Coal would not s e r v e as a f e a s i b l e a l t e r n a t i v e f o r o n - s i t e g e n e r a t i o n due to t h e t r a n s p o r t a t i o n r e q u i r e m e n t s and environmental problems encountered i n an area of t h i s type by t h e u t i l i z a t i o n of c o a l f o r t h e p r o d u c t i o n of e l e c t r i c a l energy. No a v a i l a b l e h y d r o e l e c t r i c s i t e e x i s t s i n t h e g e n e r a l area." (Emphasis added. ) I n f i n d i n g N o . 28, t h e Board found t h a t , a l t h o u g h new tech- n o l o g i e s such a s undergrounding, solar and wind power might be used t o minimize a d v e r s e environmental e f f e c t s , t h e development o f t h e same had n o t reached a p o i n t where t h e y p r e s e n t e d a v i a b l e economic a l t e r n a t i v e to MPC1s proposed f a c i l i t y . These f i n d i n g s were supported by e v i d e n c e of f u e l costs from which t h e Eoard could have concluded t h a t o n - s i t e g e n e r a t i o n . was n o t a f i n a n c i a l l y f e a s i b l e a l t e r n a t i v e . S i m i l a r l y , e v i d e n c e t h a t waste h e a t i n a t o t a l energy system is used i n downtown Manhattan and i n s e v e r a l b u i l d i n g s i n Missoula d o e s n o t r e q u i r e t h e Board to a c c e p t t h a t method as d e s i r a b l e a t Big Sky and t h e r e f o r e reject t h e proposed t r a n s m i s s i o n l i n e . The same r e a s o n i n g o b t a i n s f o r t h e a l t e r n a t i v e s o f solar and wind power as w e l l . A p p e l l a n t s r e l a t e d a t t a c k on the ~ o a r d ' s f i n d i n g s t h a t * I I - . \ t h e r e are no v i a b l e s o u r c e s of energy to r e p l a c e t h a t which would b e provided by t h e e l e c t r i c a l t r a n s m i s s i o n l i n e is disposed of by t h e s e c o n s i d e r a t i o n s a l s o , i.e. t h e Board is n o t bound to recom- mend t h a t Big Sky use a l t e r n a t e s o u r c e s of e n e r g y because o t h e r s have used them s u c c e s s £ u l l y . A p p e l l a n t s f u r t h e r c h a l l e n g e t h e f i n d i n g s r e l a t i n g to t h e .- r o u t e f o r t h e t r a n s m i s s i o n l i n e w i t h t h e least amount of a d v e r s e environmental impact. The Board found t h a t on t h e Bozeman to Ennis to D i l l o n segment of t h e l i n e , t h e p r e f e r r e d c o r r i d e r r o u t e was t h a t of the a p p l i c a n t ' s , while on t h e Big Sky segment of t h e l i n e , t h e Ennis-Jack Creek-Big Sky c o r r i d o r was t h e most pre- f e r r e d r o u t e , the Ennis-Cedar Creek-Big Sky corridor t h e n e x t n o s t p r e f e r r e d c o r r i d o r and t h e G a l l a t i n Canyon r o u t e , from aozeman t o Big Sky, t h e t h i r d most p r e f e r r e d r o u t e . A p p e l l a n t s c l a i m t h a t such f i n d i n g s a r e e i t h e r unsupported by t h e e v i d e n c e or e n t i r e l y c o n t r a r y to it. W e d i s a g r e e . F o r example, t h e Board had b e f o r e it evi- dence showing the G a l l a t i n Canyon a r e a w a s more h i g h l y populated t h a n t h e J a c k Creek or Cedar Creek a r e a . Thus a b i g g e r t r a n s m i s s i o n l i n e through G a l l a t i n Canyon a r e a would be viewed by more ,people and be a e s t h e t i c a l l y less p l e a s i n g . The Board a l s o had b e f o r e it c h a r t s and s t a t e m e n t s showing t h e number and dura- t i o n of o u t a g e s t h a t had occurred a t Big Sky i n r e c e n t y e a r s and t h e f a c t t h a t any t r a n s m i s s i o n l i n e through G a l l a t i n Canyon would probably use the Bozeman-Hot S p r i n g s s u b s t a t i o n . Thus an o u t a g e a t t h a t s u b s t a t i o n would have a c o n s i d e r a b l y g r e a t e r impact on Big Sky t h a n i f t h e resort were served by a n o t h e r e n e r g y r e s o u r c e a s w e l l , i.e. e l e c t r i c i t y coming from t h e Dillon/Ennis a r e a through J a c k Creek or Cedar Creek. The d r a f t . ETS c o n t a i n s a d d i t i o n a l s u p p o r t f o r the Board1 s c o n c l u s i o n f a v o r i n g MPC1s proposed r o u t e from Bozeman to D i l l o n . A p p e l l a n t s n e x t argue t h a t t h e B o a r d l s f i n d i n g s and c o n c l u s i o n s f a i l to comply w i t h s e c t i o n s 2-4-623(1),(3),(4), MCA, of YAPA which provide : "Final orders -- notification --availability. (1) , . . Findings of fact, if set forth in statutory language, shall be accompanied by a concise and explicit statement of the underlying facts supporting the findings. "(3) Each conclusion of law shall be supported by authority or by a reasoned opinion. "(4) If, in accordance with agency rules, a party submitted proposed findings of fact, the decision shall include a ruling upon each pro- posed finding. " Appellants contend that the findings are in violation of section 2-4-623(4), MCA, because all parties here submitted proposed findings of fact and conclusions of law and the Board did not explicitly rule on each finding and each conclusion. This argu- ment exalts form over substance. We do not construe the statutes so narrowly or technically. To do so would place an onerous burden on the Board, especially when it is remembered that usually these types of hearings involve multiple parties representing various interests and each party normally submits its own findings and conclusions. The findings and conclusions here implicitly rule on the findings and conclusions submitted by the parties and we find them to be sufficient in this case. Moreover we have previously held that section 2-4-623(4), MCA, does not require a separate, express ruling on each required finding as long as the agency's decision and order in such pro- posed findings are clear, Montana Consumer Counsel v. Public Service Commission and Montana Power Co. (1975), 168 Mont. 180, Appellants also claim that a number of the Board's find- ings merely "parrot" several sections of the Siting Act without setting forth the underlying facts, in violation of section 2-4-623(1), MCA, supra. We agree that some of the findings do track several statutes in the Siting Act. This alone does not - 0 - - ' . r e n d e r them i n s u f f i c i e n t provided t h e u n d e r l y i n g f a c t u a l b a s i s is a p p a r e n t . While each f i n d i n g is n o t immediately followed by t h e s u p p o r t i n g underlying f a c t s , when t h e f i n d i n g s and d e c i s i o n a r e viewed a s a whole, it w i l l be seen t h a t t h e f i n d i n g s a r e ade- q u a t e l y f a c t u a l l y supported. It would be an unnecessary and i d l e a c t t o remand f o r c o r r e c t i o n of any t e c h n i c a l d e f i c i e n c y where p . t h e record d i s c l o s e s an underlying f a c t u a l b a s i s f o r each f i n d i n g . The law d o e s not r e q u i r e i d l e a c t s . S e c t i o n 1-3-223, A p p e l l a n t s contend t h a t each of t h e Board I s c o n c l u s i o n s of law a r e not supported by a u t h o r i t y or by reasoned o p i n i o n and t h e r e f o r e v i o l a t e s e c t i o n 2-4-623(3), MCA, s u p r a . W e d i s a g r e e . Again, w h i l e it is t r u e t h a t each c o n c l u s i o n of law is n o t imme- d i a t e l y followed by an a u t h o r i t y or o p i n i o n , such is n o t r e q u i r e d . The c o n c l u s i o n s h e r e are s u f f i c i e n t l y supported by reasoned opi- nion to r e n d e r t h e i r b a s i s r e a s o n a b l y a s c e r t a i n a b l e . These c o n c l u s i o n s a r e supported by t h e f i n d i n g s of f a c t which we have p r e v i o u s l y approved. A p p e l l a n t s 1 a l s o argue t h a t t h e Board I s C e r t i f i c a t e of Environmental Compa t a b i l i t y and P u b l i c Need v i o l a t e s s e c t i o n 75-20-303(3) , MCA, which p r o v i d e s : " ( 3 ) Any c e r t i f i c a t e i s s u e d by t h e board s h a l l i n c l u d e t h e following : " ( a ) an environmental e v a l u a t i o n s t a t e m e n t r e l a t e d to t h e f a c i l i t y being c e r t i f i e d . The s t a t e m e n t s h a l l i n c l u d e b u t n o t be l i m i t e d to a n a l y s i s of t h e following i n f o r m a t i o n : a ( i) t h e environmental impact o f t h e proposed f a c i l i t y ; " ( ii) any a d v e r s e environmental e f f e c t s which c a n n o t be avoided by i s s u a n c e o f t h e c e r t i f i c a t e ; " ( i i i ) p r o b l e m s and o b j e c t i o n s r a i s e d by o t h e r f e d e r a l and state a g e n c i e s and i n t e r e s t e d groups; " ( i v ) a l t e r n a t i v e s to t h e proposed f a c i l i t y ; " ( v ) a p l a n f o r monitoring environmental e f f e c t s o f t h e proposed f a c i l i t y and " (vi) a t i m e l i m i t as p r o v i d e d i n s u b s e c t i o n ( 4 1 , iu'ring which c o n s t r u c t i o n of t h e f a c i l i t y must be completed; " ( b.) a s t a t e m e n t signed by t h e a p p l i c a n t showing agreement to comply w i t h t h e r e q u i r e - ments of t h i s c h a p t e r and t h e c o n d i t i o n s of t h e c e r t i f i c a t e ." While the pages of t h e C e r t i f i c a t e i t s e l f d o not comply w i t h t h e above s t a t u t e , w e n o t e t h a t , i n t h e second paragraph, t h e C e r t i f i c a t e f u l l y i n c o r p o r a t e s by r e f e r e n c e t h e Board 's f i n d i n g s , c o n c l u s i o n s and o r d e r . Taken t o g e t h e r t h e s e t w o docu- ments f u l f i l l the r e q u i r e m e n t s of s e c t i o n '75-20-303 ( 3 ) , MCA, s u p r a . D i r e c t i n g our a t t e n t i o n t o t h e t h i r d i s s u e , a p p e l l a n t s a r g u e t h a t they were denied t h e due p r o c e s s g u a r a n t e e of a f a i r and i m p a r t i a l t r i b u n a l because of S a b o l ' s p a r t i c i p a t i o n i n t h e p r o c e e d i n g s both a s a board member and a - hearing o f f i c e r . A p p e l l a n t s a l l e g e t h a t Sabol had a p e c u n i a r y i n t e r e s t i n t h e out- come of t h e case because he w a s r e t a i n e d a s l e g a l counsel by Ski Yellowstone, Inc., d u r i n g h i s term of chairrnan of t h e Board of N a t u r a l Resources and Conservation. A p p e l l a n t s claim t h i s c r e a t e d a c o n f l i c t of i n t e r e s t i n t h a t whatever t h e Board decided i n connection with providing a d d i t i o n a l e l e c t r i c a l t r a n s m i s s i o n f a c i l i t i e s and s e r v i c e s to Big Sky would e s t a b l i s h a p r e c e d e n t i n any f u t u r e f a c i l i t y s i t i n g r e q u e s t concerning S k i Yellowstone, I n c . A p p e l l a n t s ' second ground f o r S a b o l l s a l l e g e d b i a s involved a newspaper a r t i c l e on February 15, 1976. In t h e article Sabol was quoted as saying t h a t s o m e environmental g r o u p s were l o s i n g c r e d i b i l i t y by opposing a l l development p r o j e c t s and MWA was s p e c i f i c a l l y mentioned. The article a p p e a r s below: " SOME ENVIRONMENTAL GROUPS LOSING CREDIBILITY, SABOL SAYS By L a r r y W i l l s C h r o n i c l e S t a f f Writer "The Chairman of t h e ' Board of N a t u r a l Resources h a s charged t h a t s o m e environmental groups a r e l o s i n g c r e d i b i l i t y i n opposing a l l development p r o j e c t s . Joe Sabol, a Bozeman a t t o r n e y , and head of t h e v o l u n t e e r s t a t e board t h a t reviews a l l major u t i l i t y c o n s t r u c t i o n charged t h a t some g r o u p s are a u t o m a t i c a l l y opposed to a l l developments no n a t t e r how good or bad they may be. '1 t h i n k it is t i m e t h a t t h e s e g r o u p s r e - a s s e s s t h e i r p o s i t i o n s on some p r o p o s a l s , h e s a i d . 'Some p r o p o s a l s a r e good, and some a r e n o t , b u t t h e y a r e opposed t o a l l p r o j e c t s , and a r e c r e a t i n g a p o l a r i z a t i o n of a t t i t u d e s , Sabol charged. The a t t o r n e y s a i d t h e o p p o s i t i o n to a l l pro- jects is a loss of p e r s p e c t i v e and c o n c e n t r a t e s o n t h e t r i v i a ' t h a t surrounds a p r o j e c t , Sabol made h i s c h a r g e s during an informal p r e s s c o n f e r e n c e concerning demands t h a t he r e s i g n h i s r e s o u r c e board p o s i t i o n due to c o n f l i c t of i n t e r e s t . The c h a r g e s from t h e Montana W i l d l i f e F e d e r a t i o n and the Nontana Wilderness A s s o c i a t i o n stemmed from Sabol 's working f o r the S k i Yellowstone development, and also s i t t i n g a s chairman of t h e r e s o u r c e board. Sabol s a i d f l a t l y he saw no c o n f l i c t , and would n o t q u i t u n t i l he believed t h e r e was a c o n f l i c t o f i n t e r e s t . H e s a i d he d i d n o t t a k e t h e job as S k i Yellowstone a t t o r n e y u n t i l he was a s s u r e d t h a t t h e p o s i t i o n was n o t i n c o n f l i c t , and t h a t t h e p r o j e c t i t s e l f was s a t i s f a c t o r y i n h i s own mind. H e a l s o s a i d he received a s s u r a n c e s from t h e g o v e r n o r t h a t the t w o p o s i t i o n s would n o t be i n c o n f l i c t . Sabol a l s o s a i d t h e S k i Yellowstone i s s u e h a s n e v e r come up a t board meetings, and t h a t no S k i Yellowstone o f f i c i a l h a s e v e r approached him a s a member of t h a t board. The a t t o r n e y was asked to q u i t h i s p o s t i n let- - - ------ ters t h a t t h e MWA and W i l d l i f e g r o u p s e n t t o ----- -- Gov. Judge. - Sabol defended t h e r e s o r t as one t h a t is b e t t e r than most i n a l l e v i a t i n g bad environmen- t a l e f f e c t s , and s a i d the proposal should be recognized f o r its accomplishments. R e f e r r i n g t o t w o environmental groups' opposi- t i o n of t h e resort, Sabol s a i d , 'They c a n ' t f i n d a n y t h i n g wrong w i t h t h e merits of S k i Yellowstone, so t h e y a t t a c k t h e people ,' The letters were s e n t to Judge a f t e r Sabol wrote the governor and Wes Woodgerd, head of t h e F i s h and Game Commission o b j e c t i n g to 'propaganda' a g a i n s t t h e resort planned on t h e n o r t h s h o r e of Hebgen Lake. Sabol o b j e c t e d to a g r i z z l y b e a r p r e s e n t a t i o n which the a t t o r n e y s a i d implied t h e resort would i n t e r f e r e w i t h t h e b e a r s ' h a b i t a t . Sabol charged t h e r e is no proof t h a t t h e Hebgen area is h a b i t a t f o r t h e b e a r . A l s o questioned was a F i s h and G a m e employee's ' f r e e l a n c i n g ' a r t i c l e s while on t h e state p a y r o l l . The a t t o r n e y r e f e r r e d to articles p r i n t e d i n a Denver paper a g a i n s t t h e resort. The n e t r e s u l t of t h e three-year d e l a y f o r t h e resort, Sabol s a i d , is t h a t it is d r i v i n g o t h e r d e v e l o p e r s o u t of t h e s t a t e . The proposal is still under s t u d y by t h e G a l l a t i n N a t i o n a l Fotes t. 'The l e g i s l a t u r e and the e n v i r o n m e n t a l i s t s have done what they set o u t to do, minimize development, ' he s a i d ." (Emphasis added. ) A p p e l l a n t s also c l a i m t h a t d u r i n g a recess i n t h e Board h e a r i n g on September 2 4 , 1976, Sabol i n s t r u c t e d t h e a t t o r n e y f o r t h e Department of N a t u r a l Resources and C o n s e r v a t i o n not tso cross-examine t h e w i t n e s s e s f o r M W A because its c o u n s e l was t r y i n g to make a record f o r appeal. A p p e l l a n t s argue t h i s ? . d e m o n s t r a t e s a c t u a l b i a s on t h e p a r t of S a b o l , W e n o t e t h a t Sabol p a r t i c i p a t e d a s h e a r i n g s o f f i c e r f o r t h e Board from A p r i l 10, 1976, to September 1, 1976. During t h i s p e r i o d t w o p r e c o n f e r e n c e h e a r i n g s were h e l d on A p r i l 1 0 , 1976, and Nay 1 2 , 1976. A t t h e second p r e h e a r i n g c o n f e r e n c e , Rick Applegate, a M T J A and E I C member, f i l e d an a£ f i d a v i t seeking d i s q u a l i f i c a t i o n o f Sabol a s a h e a r i n g o f f i c e and member of t h e Board c o n s i d e r i n g MPCvs a p p l i c a t i o n . On September 1, 1976, Sabol removed himself a s h e a r i n g s o f f i c e r b u t d e c l i n e d to remove h i a s e l f as a member of t h e Board. The Board voted unanimously to deny t h e attempted d i s q u a l i f i c a t i o n . A p p e l l a n t cites Withrow v, Larkin ( 1 9 7 5 ) , 421 U.S. 35, 95 S.Ct. 1456, 43 L.Ed.21 712, f o r t h e p r o p o s i t i o n t h a t t h e c o n s t i - t u t i o n a l due p r o c e s s g u a r a n t e e s a p p l y to a d m i n i s t r a t i v e a g e n c i e s a s w e l l as t h e c o u r t s . While it is t r u e t h a t language s u p p o r t i n g t h a t premise a p p e a r s i n Withrow, t h e a c t u a l holding of t h a t case i n v o l v e s t h e q u e s t i o n of whether t h e Wisconsin D o c t o r s Examining Board had t h e power to i n v e s t i g a t e u n p r o f e s s i o n a l conduct as w e l l a s a d j u d i c a t e it. Nowhere i n Withrow do we f i n d any f a c t s s i m i - l a r to t h e c a s e a t b a r , i.e., where t h e a l l e g e d b i a s of one of t h e d e c i s i o n makers is a t i s s u e . A p p e l l a n t also cites T a y l o r v, Hayes ( 1 9 7 4 ) , 418 U.S. 488,94 S.Ct. 2697, 4 1 L.Ed.2d 897, f o r a u t h o r i t y t h a t a c t u a l b i a s is unnecessary and t h a t t h e appearance of b i a s is s u f f i c i e n t . he f a c t s i n T a y l o r were t h a t a t t h e c o n c l u s i o n of a Kentucky murder t r i a l , t h e p r e s i d i n g judge sentenced one of t h e lawyers to f o u r and one-half y e a r s i n p r i s o n f o r n i n e c o u n t s of contempt o c c u r r i n g d u r i n g t h e t r i a l and b a r r e d him from p r a c t i c i n g b e f o r e t h a t c o u r t . The Supreme C o u r t found t h a t to so rule w i t h o u t a n o t i c e and h e a r i n g v i o l a t e d t h e l a w y e r ' s p r o c e d u r a l due p r o c e s s r i g h t s . The c o u r t also found t h a t t h e l a w y e r ' s contempt t r i a l s h o u l d be b e f o r e a d i f f e r e n t judge because t h e o r i g i n a l t r i a l judge had become embroiled i n a running c o n t r o v e r s y w i t h t h e C . lawyer. T h i s Court h a s s t a t e d its p o s i t i o n c l e a r l y w i t h r e g a r d to b i a s e d d e c i s i o n makers: " [ I t i s ] t h i s c o u r t ' s d e s i r e to z e a l o u s l y guard t h e r i g h t to Eair and i m p a r t i a l h e a r i n g s . It is n o t n e c e s s a r i l y t h e f a c t of b i a s t h a t concerns u s b u t t h e possibili-hat b i a s might e x i s t . . " [W]e do warn . . . a l l a d m i n i s t r a t i v e b o a r d s and t r i b u n a l s t h a t t h e y should z e a l o u s l y guard a g a i n s t any appearance of u n f a i r n e s s i n t h e con- d u c t of t h e i r hearings." S t a t e ex rel. F i s h v. I n d u s t r i a l Accident Board ( 1 9 6 1 ) , 139 Mont. 246, 248-49, 251, 362 P.2d 852, 853, 855. I n c . Accord, Graham v. Tree F a r m e r s / ( l 9 6 3 ) , 1 4 2 Mont. 483, 385 N o n e t h e l e s s , t h e h o l d i n g s b o t h i n Graham and F i s h , s u p r a , s t a t e t h a t s u b s t a n t i a l r i g h t s of t h e a g g r i e v e d p a r t y must have been p r e j u d i c e d b e f o r e t h e c o u r t w i l l c e n s u r e an a d m i n i s t r a t i v e board f o r the conduct of a h e a r i n g . The Supreme C o u r t i n Graham, s u p r a , s t a t e d : " W e are c o n s t r a i n e d h e r e , w h i l e d i s a p p r o v i n g t h e u s e of M r . wood as a h e a r i n g s o f f i c e r , i n view o f t h e preponderance of proof i n t h i s r e c o r d , to f a i l t o see where any d i f f e r e n t r e s u l t c o u l d b e --- - reached and f o r t h a t r e a s o n w e f e e l t h e error to - --- be s u c h t h a t it d o e s n o t c a l l f o r a r e v e r s a l and - E r E h e a r i E 7 s F f F a Z T E e c l a i m a n t is con- - ---- c e r n e d . ( Emphasis added. ) 1 4 2 Mont. a t T 9 r 385 p.2d a t 90. In t a k i n g a closer l o o k a t t h e p o s s i b l e in£ l u e n c e o f S a b o l ' s a c t i v i t i e s on t h e Board's u l t i m a t e d e c i s i o n , w e f i n d t h e f o l l o w i n g : Sabol p r e s i d e d a t t h e f i r s t p r e h e a r i n g c o n f e r e n c e on A p r i l 1 0 , 1976, a t which t i m e t h e r o u t i n g and need f o r t h e t r a n s m i s s i o n l i n e s as w e l l as w i t n e s s e s and d i s c o v e r y were d i s c u s s e d among t h e v a r i o u s lawyers. S a b o l also p r e s i d e d over t h e second p r e n e a r i n g c o n f e r e n c e on May 12, 1976. A t t h i s con- f e r e n c e t h e lawyers exchanged w i t n e s s lists and d i s c u s s e d d e p o s i t i o n s , t h e o r d e r of appearance of t h e p a r t i e s and d e a d l i n e s f o r exchanging i n t e r r o g a t o r i e s and w r i t t e n s t a t e m e n t s . During t h e summer of 1976, t h e Department moved to b i f u r c a t e t h e h e a r i n g i n t o two h e a r i n g s . Also, b o t h MWA and MPC.moved to have t h e Board view t h e G a l l a t i n Canyon a r e a and MWA added t h e E n n i s t o Big Sky r o u t e as w e l l . A l l t h r e e motions were argued a t t h e September I, 1976, h e a r i n g and the motions to view were g r a n t e d b u t t h e motion to b i f u r c a t e was d e n i e d . I t was a t t h i s September 1 h e a r i n g t h a t Sabol removed him- s e l f a s h e a r i n g s o f f i c e r w i t h Andriolo being s u b s t i t u t e d f o r him. The a c t u a l h e a r i n g s on t h e i s s u a n c e of t h e C e r t i f i c a t e of Environmental C o m p a t a b i l i t y and P u b l i c Need took p l a c e on September 23 and 24, 1976. It was d u r i n g a recess a t t h e September 24 h e a r i n g t h a t Sabol a l l e g e d l y t o l d t h e Department a t t o r n e y n o t to cross-examine t h e M W A w i t n e s s e s . S a b o l t s term as a Board member e x p i r e d on December 31, 1976. On February 9, 1977, Andriolo i s s u e d an o r d e r t h a t a l l p a r t i e s ' proposed f i n d i n g s of f a c t and c o n c l u s i o n s of l a w be sub- m i t t e d by March 1, 1977, w i t h arguments t h e r e o n on A p r i l 21, 1977, b e f o r e t h e Board. On September 16 and October 28, 1977, t h e Board d i s c u s s e d . and approved A n d r i o l o t s f i n d i n g s and c o n c l u s i o n s . The s t a t u t e s r e l a t i n g to t h e B o a r d ' s and hearings examiner's d u t i e s are set o u t below: " ( 9 ) A t t h e c o n c l u s i o n of t h e h e a r i n g , t h e h e a r i n g examiner s h a l l d e c l a r e t h e h e a r i n g c l o s e d and s h a l l , w i t h i n 60 d a y s of t h a t d a t e , p r e p a r e and submit to t h e board and i n t h e case o f a c o n j u n c t i v e h e a r i n g , w i t h i n 90 d a y s to t h e board and t h e board of h e a l t h o r d e p a r t m e n t of h e a l t h proposed f i n d i n g s of f a c t , c o n c l u s i o n s of l a w , and a recommended d e c i s i o n ." S e c t i o n 75-20-220(9). "75-20-301. decisionof board--findings n e c e s s a r y f o r c e r t i f i c a t i o n . (1) Within 60 d a y s a f t e r s u b m r s s l o n of t h e recommended d e c i s i o n by t h e h e a r i n g examiner, t h e board s h a l l make complete f i n d i n g s , i s s u e an o p i n i o n , and r e n d e r a d e c i s i o n upon t h e record, e i t h e r g r a n t i n g or denyinq t h e a p p l i c a t i o n as f i l e d or g r a n t i n g it upon such terms, c o n d i t i o n s , or m o d i f i c a t i o n s of t h e c o n s t r u c t i o n , o p e r a t i o n , or maintenance of t h e f a c i l i t y a s t h e board c o n s i d e r s a p p r o p r i a t e . " While w e do n o t approve of t h e a l l e g e d d i r e c t i o n s n o t t o cross-examine t h e MWA w i t n e s s e s , w e f a i l to see how, on t h e record b e f o r e us, t h e Board would have r e i c h e d a d i f f e r e n t r e s u l t had Sabol removed himself e n t i r e l y from t h e proceedings, Graham, s u p r a . H e d i d n o t p a r t i c i p a t e i n t h e Board's d e l i b e r a t i o n or d i s c u s s i o n of t h e f i n a l d e c i s i o n , a s evidenced by sections75-20-220(9) and 75-20-301(1), set o u t above. Under t h e s e s t a t u t e s t h e Board's d e l i b e r a t i o n s o c c u r a f t e r t h e h e a r i n g s exa- miner submits h i s proposed f i n d i n g s and c o n c l u s i o n s and a recan- mended d e c i s i o n . T h i s was done i n 1977, a f t e r S a b o l l s term on t h e Board e x p i r e d . The Board's d e c i s i o n w a s n o t rendered u n t i l October 26, 1977, and c a r r i e d w i t h f o u r Board members v o t i n g i n f a v o r of MPC1s a p p l i c a t i o n , o n e member a g a i n s t it, and t h e chairman d i d n o t v o t e . W e f a i l to see how S a b o l ' s a l l e g e d b i a s p r e j u d i c e d t h e s u b s t a n t i a l r i g h t s of t h e a p p e l l a n t . S i m i l a r l y , w e f a i l to see how S a b o l l s c o n n e c t i o n w i t h Ski Yellowstone, Inc. r e s u l t e d i n the a p p e l l a n t s 1 r e c e i v i n g any less t h a n a f a i r h e a r i n g and d e c i s i o n . The argument t h a t a "prece- d e n t " w i l l be s e t by g r a n t i n g MPC its t r a n s m i s s i o n l i n e s to Big Sky is tenuous a t b e s t and t h e f a c t t h a t a d e v e l o p e r must b e a r t h e f i r s t cost of c o n s e r v a t i o n a l t e r n a t i v e s i n l i e u of a d d i t i o n a l electrical t r a n s m i s s i o n f a c i l i t i e s x does n o t persuade us t h a t Sabol had a p e c u n i a r y i n t e r e s t i n t h e p r e s e n t proceedings. With regard to t h e newspaper article appearing i n t h e Bozeman D a i l y C h r o n i c l e , w e n o t e t h a t none of t h e cases cited by a p p e l l a n t s (which d e a l w i t h a member of a h e a r i n g panel criti- . c i z i n g a p a r t y a l r e a d y b e f o r e it) are on p o i n t i n t h e i n s t a n t c a s e . Here S a b o l ' s comment appeared F e b r u a r y 15, 1976, and t h e C - s f i r s t p r e h e a r i n g c o n f e r e n c e was not u n t i l A p r i l 10, almost~two months l a t e r . They d o n o t r e f l e c t any prejudgment of t h e i s s u e s , placed b e f o r e t h e Board i n t h i s c a s e . A p p e l l a n t s a r g u e t h a t Sabol improperly i n t e r f e r e d w i t h t h e conduct of t h e September 24, 1976, h e a r i n g by t h e a l l e g e d e x - p a r t e c o n t a c t i n t h e lobby d u r i n g one of t h e recesses w i t h Department of N a t u r a l Resources and C o n s e r y a t i o n a t t o r n e y MacIntyre. However, t h e d e p o s i t i o n s of Doug MacIntyre and Applegate i n d i c a t e t h a t a p p e l l a n t s wanted t h e DNRC t o conduct " f r i e n d l y cross-examination", i . e . t h e M W A and D N R C occupied s i m i l a r p o s i t i o n s i n t h e p r o c e e d i n g s and were a l i g n e d on t h e c o r r i d o r issue--50th advocated the e x i s t i n g G a l l a t i n Canyon c o r r i d o r r a t h e r t h a n t h e J a c k Creek/Cedar Creek r o u t e . W e have p r e v i o u s l y h e l d t h a t no s u b s t a n t i a l r i g h t s are p r e j u d i c e d by a h e a r i n g o f f i c e r ' s d e c i s i o n to l i m i t c r o s s - e x a n i n a t i o n to t h o s e i s s u e s on which r o u t e s are a d v e r s e , because t h e "cross-exam- i n a t i o n " of nonadverse p a r t i e s i n r e a l i t y becomes j u s t more d i r e c t examination. Northern P l a i n s , s u p r a . Although n e i t h e r p a r t y has r a i s e d the i s s u e , s e c t i o n 75-20-220(1), MCA, merits some d i s c u s s i o n . T h a t s t a t u t e p r o v i d e s i n p a r t : "75-20-220. Hearing examiner--restrictions-- d u t i e s . (1) I f t h e board a p p o i n t s a h e a r i n g e x a n i n e r to conduct any c e r t i f i c a t i o n proceedings under t h i s c h a p t e r , t h e h e a r i n g examiner may n o t b e a member of t h e board, a n employee o f t h e d e p a r t m e n t , o r a member or employee o f t h e d e p a r t m e n t o f h e a l t h or board of h e a l t h . " Under t h i s s t a t u t e , a h e a r i n g examiner may n o t be a member of t h e Board and Sabol was chairman of t h e Board a t t h e t i m e he w a s appointed h e a r i n g examiner. However, close e x a m i n a t i o n of t h e enactment o f t h e above s t a t u t e and t h e f a c t s of t h i s case r e v e a l t h a t t h e s t a t u t e d i d n o t a p p l y t o t h i s proceeding. MPC f i l e d its a p p l i c a t i o n on J u n e 6, 1974, f o r a 1 6 1 KV l i n e from Clyde P a r k to D i l l o n . On J u n e 30, 1975, M P C f i l e d an amended a p p L i c a t i o n i n c r e a s i n g .the total mileage of t r a n s m i s s i o n e - - under t h e amended a p p l i c a t i o n , l i n e s requested and/the l i n e was to c o n s i s t of t h e f i v e segments set o u t a t t h e beginning of t h i s o p i n i o n . The Department, b y letter dated May 30, 1975, agreed to t r e a t t h e amended a p p l i c a - t i o n a s r e l a t i n g back to the o r i g i n a l (June 6 , 1974) a p p l i c a t i o n . That letter contained t h e following s t a t e m e n t s : "The p r o j e c t a p p l i c a t i o n s h a l l . . . b e deemed to have been f i l e d on June 6, 1974. . . [TI he Department . . . w i l l not t r e a t thez+amended a p p l i c a t i o n s a s c o n s t i t u t i n g a s u b s t a n t i a l change and, t h e r e f o r e , w i l l not t r e a t t h e amended a p p l i c a t i o n s a s a new a p p l i c a t i o n . . ." S e c t i o n 75-20-220(1) was included a s p a r t of t h e amend- ments to the U t i l i t y S i t i n g A c t and it was e x p r e s s l y provided t h a t those amendments would o n l y a p p l y to a p p l i c a t i o n s r e c e i v e d by the Department a f t e r J a n u a r y 1, 1975. 1975 L a w s , Ch. 494, 25. MPC's a p p l i c a t i o n was f i l e d on June 6 , 1974, and, due to t h e r e l a t i o n back d i s c u s s e d above, the amended a p p l i c a t i o n w a s deemed to have been f i l e d on t h a t d a t e also. Thus t h e s t a t u t e is n o t a p p l i c a b l e t o t h e p r o c e e d i n g s h e r e , Furthermore, t h e p a r t i e s and t h e h e a r i n g examiner agreed t h a t t h e y were o p e r a t i n g under the U t i l i t y S i t i n g A c t and n o t t h e amendments t h e r e t o , I n t h e t r a n s c r i p t of t h e t h i r d preconf erecce h e a r i n g conducted September 14, 1976, we f i n d t h e following i n t e r c h a n g e : "HEARINGS EXAMINER: . . . " N o w t h e f i r s t t h i n g , it is my understanding t h a t everybody is agreed t h a t t h e h e a r i n g w i l l be conducted under t h e p r o v i s i o n s of t h e U t i l i t y S i t i n g A c t of 1973 r a t h e r t h a n t h e Major F a c i l i t y S i t i n g A c t which was enacted i n 1975, I b e l i e v e . Is t h a t c o r r e c t ? "MR. W A L S H [ r e p r e s e n t i n g MPC] : That is correct. "HEARINGS EXAMINER: And how about you, B i l l ? Is t h a t a g r e e a b l e to you? "MR. MADDEN [ r e p r e s e n t i n g M W A $ : T h a t is correct.. "HEARINGS EXAMINER: And how about you, J i m ? Is t h a t a g r e e a b l e to you? "MR. MOORE [ r e p r e s e n t i n g American Fork Ranch] : Yes. In the t r a n s c r i p t of t h e September 23 h e a r i n g we a l s o f i n d t h i s : RHEARINGS EXAMINER: Thank you, M r . Sabol. T h i s is a hearing under t h e U t i l i t y S i t i n g A c t of 1973, and the proceedings under t h i s , a t t h i s h e a r i n g will a l l be i n conformity w i t h t h a t par- t i c u l a r A c t ." For t h e above r e a s o n s , it is o u r o p i n i o n t h a t s e c t i o n MCA , 75-20-220(l) ,/did not a p p l y to t h e s e p r o c e e d i n g s . t . Affirmed. ~ ~ . Chlef Justice We concur H Justices Mr. Justice John C. Sheehy, deeming himself disqualified, did not participate. Mr. Justice Frank B. Morrison, Jr., dissenting: I respectfully dissent. The draft environmental impact statements are grossly inadequate for failure to analyze need and explore alternative sources for satisfaction of need. Montana's Environmental Policy Act (MEPA), section 75- 1-201, MCA, 1981, requires preparation of an environmental impact statement concerning the following matters: (1) the environmental impact of the proposed actions; (2) any adverse environmental effects which cannot be avoided should the proposal be implemented; (3) alternatives to the proposed action; ( 4 ) the relationship between local short-term uses of man's environment and the maintenance and enhancement of long-term productivity; (5) any irreversible and irretrievable commitments of resources which would be involved in the proposed action should it be implemented. The Montana Major Facility Siting Act recognizes that certain utility "facilities," as defined by the Act, have an effect upon the environment to the extent that construction is prohibited "without a certificate of environmental compati- bility and public need" acquired pursuant to the provisions of the Act. Section 75-20-102, MCA, 1981. Section 75-20- 301(2), MCA, of the Act provides that a certificate of environmental compatibility and public need may not be approved by the Board of Natural Resources, except upon a finding and determination by the Board of, among other things: (1) the basis of need for the facility; (2) the nature of the probable environmental impact; ( 3 ) that the facility represents the minimum adverse environmental impact, considering the state of available technology and the nature and economics of the various alternatives; (4) each of the criteria listed in 75-20-503. Section 75-20-503, MCA, enumerates more than 60 environ- mental factors to be studied in determining whether a proposed facility should be approved. That section requires, in part, that the following be considered: energy needs including growth in demand and projections of need; availability and desirability of alternative sources of energy in lieu of the proposed facility; conservation activities which could reduce the need for more energy. The Facility Siting Act imposed upon the Department of Natural Resources the responsibility for undertaking technical studies and evaluations of the statutorily mandated environmental factors. Section 75-20-503 and 75-20-216(4), MCA, 1981. The Department of Natural Resources has the responsibility to formalize its technical studies in an environmental impact statement which it must file with the Board, to be used by the Board in making findings and determinations required under section 75-20-301, MCA. The "report" required of the Department of Natural Resources under the Facility Siting Act, section 75-20- 216(4), MCA, serves as the basic technical and evidentiary document upon which the Board must rely in making its findings and determinations under section 75-20-301, MCA, as to whether a certificate should be granted or denied. Any substantial deficiencies in the required documents should invalidate the Board's findings and decision. Both the Siting Act and MEPA require the Department's draft and final environmental impact statements to consider the need for alternatives to the proposed facility. In this case, the environmental impact statements make no attempt to consider either the need for or alternatives to a 161 KV facility to service Montana Power Company's projected electrical demands in the Upper Madison/Lower Ruby Valleys. The DEIS did not adequately study the need for, and alternatives to, a 161 KV facility at Big Sky, Montana. The existing 69 KV line servicing Big Sky has a capacity of 9 megawatts which could, with modification, be increased to a maximum capacity of 12-15 megawatts. In its application for a certificate to construct the 161 KV transmission line to Big Sky, Montana Power Company submitted that such a facility was needed to serve projected electrical loads at Big Sky of 30 megawatts. A 161 KV line has a carrying capacity of 200 megawatts. The Department's draft environmental impact statements accept Montana Power Company's load growth projec- tions without question. Neither document makes any attempt to evaluate the basis of the projected load. There is no analysis of the types of energy demands at Big Sky which are expected to increase and, therefore, which could justify additional electrical transmission service. Such an analysis is critical. Energy demands for heat are not constant. They occur only during the winter and are heaviest only at certain times of the day. Furthermore, energy demands for heat do not require electrical service in that they can be met through other lower grade energy sources, including better conservation practices. These matters were not studied. The evidence produced at the hearing before the ~oard of Natural Resources disclosed that all but 5 megawatts of required electrical power could be met through conservation alternatives not requiring additional electrical service. 5 megawatts is well within the capacity of on-site diesel generation or a smaller transmission line. A 161 KV line, with a carrying capacity of 200 megawatts, 195 megawatts in excess of that actually needed at Big Sky, seems clearly to not be needed. The failure of the draft environmental - impact statements to address the actual need and existing alternatives renders them totally deficient. The District Court recognized the gross inadequacies in the draft environmental statements but held such deficiencies to not constitute a basis for reversal of the Board's decision. The District Court said "that the entire siting act process and the Board's decision based upon the entire record is the functional equivalent of an environmental impact statement." No authority is cited for this proposition. The Facility Siting Act requires that "the Department shall make a report to the Board which shall contain the Department's studies, evaluations, recommendation and other pertinent documents resulting from its study and evaluation . . ." Section 75-20-216(4), MCA, 1981. The function of the statement is to perform technical analysis and provide expert documentation to the Board because the Board lacks technical expertise to perform this function itself. The Federal Courts have refused to adopt the rationale here adopted by the trial court. In Environmental Defense Fund, Inc. v. Froehlke (8th Cir. 1972), 473 F.2d, 346, the Corps. of Engineers argued that although discussion of alternatives in its EIS was deficient, the EIS should be considered sufficient when viewed against the entire record. In rejecting this argument, the 8th Circuit Court of Appeals said: "The Corps. argues that despite these omis- sions, its impact statement should be consi- dered sufficient because 'at every step of the way, from preauthorization studies through detailed project planning, which in- cludes recent environmental and mitigation studies, the voices of fish and wildlife in- terests have been heard, considered and report- ed to Congress.' We disagree. Nothing less than a complete impact statement can serve the important purposes of section 102 (c) (iii) of MEPA. As the District of Columbia Circuit Court stated in Natural Resources Defense Counsel, Inc. v. Morton, 458 F.2d 827, 834 (D.C. Cir. 1972), 'it is the essence and thrust of EPA that the pertinent Statement serve together in one place a discussion of the relative environmental impact of alterna- tives. ' "A statement which includes a detailed discus- sion of all reasonable alternatives to a pro- posed project and their effects [case citation omitted] insures that agency officials will be acquainted with the tradeoffs which will have to be made if any particular line of action is chosen." The rationale adopted by the District Court to render the DEIS deficiencies harmless error, has the effect of nullifying the statutory requirement for environmental impact study. Unlike the District Court, the majority here attempts to defend the DEIS as adequate. Not even the Department which prepared the statements can defend them. The majority admits: "The Department, in its briefs to the District Court and to this Court, acknowledges that the EIS's contain no adequate consideration of al- ternatives to a 161 KV line serving the Upper Madison/Lower Ruby Valleys. The Department justifies this omission by stating that MPC failed to comply with the Siting Act and the rules adopted pursuant thereto in identifying in MPC's application the need for a facility to serve the demand in the Upper Madison/Lower Ruby Valleys." The majority then proceeds to gloss over the deficiencies in a style that approaches advocacy. Apparently, the law now will forgive and approve the Department's deficiencies that result from omissions in the Utility's application. The decision here has established a precedent which substantially weakens the Facility Siting Act and tends to judicially erode the environmental protection assurances afforded by the Montana Legislature. I view the course of action now being taken by this Court to be premised upon expediency. It is true that the process is cumbersome but had the Montana Power Company made a complete application, and had the Department of Natural Resources thereafter rendered draft environmental impact statements in conformity with law, these problems would not have arisen. By this decision we reward the wrongdoers. k I reqister a strenuous dissent. Mr. Justice Daniel J. Shea, dissenting: I join in the dissent of Justice Morrison. Because of time exigencies, I am unable to write a more detailed dissent at this time, other than what I state below. Time permitting, I will add a more detailed statement of why I dissent. The situation is that MPC has been permitted, without a showing of need or of alternatives, to expand the power available to Big Sky from a 69 KV line to a 161 KV line, in a situation where even in the untested application, the MPC has projected that Big Sky will need only 30 KV. The current 69 KV line to Big Sky has a capacity of 9 megawatts. With modification, this line could be increased to a maximum capacity of 12-15 megawatts. The application of the MPC, accepted without question by the agency responsible for the environmental impact study (the DNRC), projects a need at Big Sky of 3 0 megawatts. This 3 0 megawatt projection was not substantiated by the MPC application, nor did the environmental impact study make any attempt to justify the load growth projection to 30 megawatts. Yet the MPC application is for a 161 KV line--which has a carrying capacity of 200 megawatts, or almost five times the projected load growth stated in the application. As stated by Justice Morrison, all but 5 megawatts could, as disclosed in the hearing, be met through application of conservation alternatives which do not require additional electrical services. How, then, can the environmental impact statement be sufficient when it fails to address the need and the existing alternatives to the projected energy demand of Big Sky? It was error, as Justice Morrison points out, for the District Court to hold that the environmental impact statement could be given life by instead looking to the "Board's decision on the entire record," including the deficient environmental impact statement. Justice Morrison correctly concludes, on the other hand, that the environmental impact statement must stand on its own, and here it cannot stand. Nor can I understand the total failure of the DNRC to demand from MPC, that it comply with the information required to be in an application for a permit. Here the DNRC admitted that the MPC application was deficient, and that it did nothing to make the application sufficient. Rather, the DWRC proceeded with the environmental impact study without ever obtaining and evaluating either the need for the 161 KV line or the alternatives to supplying power for the projected needs of Big Sky. The fault in not making an adequate application can be laid directly at the doorsteps of the MPC. But the DNRC should not have started its environmental impact study until it had a complete or substantially complete application. Furthermore, if the study was started without noticing this rather glaring omission, once noticed, it was the duty of the DNRC to notify the MPC to complete its application and to further notify the MPC that the study could not be finished until the application was complete and the DNRC had evaluated the additional information provided in the application. Here that was not done. Rather, the DNRC proceeded with the study without ever compelling the MPC to comply with the clear directives of the Montana Environmental protection Act as to alternatives (section 75-1-201 (3) , MCA) and need (section 75-20-102(1), MCA). The DNRC can hardly be said to have been protecting the constitutional rights of Montana citizens to a clean and healthy environment when it made its impact study without directing the MPC to comply, and without itself complying with these statutes. Nor did the District Court or this Court fulfill its duty by approving an environ- mental impact statement so glaringly deficient.