Opinion ID: 421168
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 7

Heading: Consideration of Alternate Routes

Text: 49 Save Our Wetlands argues next that the Corps failed to give full and fair consideration to three alternate routes for the power lines. Alternate route No. 1 would follow an existing non-wetland LP & L right-of-way between Taft and Westwego. Alternate route No. 2 would follow an existing highway right-of-way between Taft and U.S. Highway 90 along Louisiana Highway 3127. At Highway 90, alternate route No. 2 would pick up the proposed right-of-way. Alternate route No. 3 follows the proposed right-of-way up to mile point 11.2, at which point it picks up an existing canal right-of-way, follows it for seven miles, and then rejoins the proposed corridor at mile point 19.0. 50 The organization concentrates its attack on the Corps' failure to select alternate route one. We are not here to decide if the alternative or the actual route is better suited. We need only decide if the Corps has complied with its duty under the law. The applicable regulation requires that: 51 The applicant must provide sufficient information on the need to locate the proposed activity in the wetland and must provide data on the basis of which the availability of feasible alternative sites can be evaluated. 52 33 C.F.R. § 320.4(b)(4) (1979). 53 The findings of fact issued by Colonel Sands state that [o]ther routes are possible, but the applicant has demonstrated that the one proposed has the greatest overall feasibility. 54 It seems evident that the determination of whether a need exists to locate the power lines in the wetlands is intertwined with the feasibility of other routes. LP & L contends that more electric power is needed for the New Orleans metropolitan area. Additional power is available at Taft through the Waterford-Gypsy generating complex and the existing southern terminus of LP & L's 500 kilovolt transmission system. To get the power to New Orleans requires the construction of a transmission line through a portion of Louisiana which has a large area of wetlands. If the alternate routes are not feasible, then LP & L properly chose to locate some of the transmission line corridor in wetlands. 55 Save Our Wetlands contends that before the permit can be issued, the District Engineer must decide: 56 1. Whether the benefits of the proposed wetland alteration outweigh the damage done to the wetland resource; 57 2. Whether the proposed alteration is necessary to realize those benefits; 58 3. Whether, on the basis of information supplied by the applicant, it can be shown that the proposed activity is primarily dependent upon being in, or in close proximity to, the aquatic environment; and 59 4. Whether, on the basis of data supplied by the applicant, it can be shown that no feasible alternative sites for the project are available. 60 33 C.F.R. § 320.4(b)(4) (1979). 61 While the first two questions are not specifically answered by the District Engineer, the answer is implicit in his decision to grant the permit. To grant the permit is to decide that the benefits of the proposed project outweigh the damage. 10 Additionally, the third requirement is subsumed in the fourth if no alternative routes are feasible and the area to be traversed is dominated by wetlands. 62 Therefore, our review is limited to whether (1) LP & L provided data on the basis of which the availability of feasible alternative sites could be evaluated, and, (2) whether the District Engineer considered feasible alternative sites. The district court found that the administrative record contained the information and analysis necessary. The record discloses that LP & L provided the Corps with sufficient information. The District Court found as fact that the Kilgen Report contained feasibility data and comparisons of alternate routes. This comports with our review of the materials and thus answers the first question in the affirmative. 63 Our review also shows us that the Corps considered the feasibility of the three alternate routes. The District Engineer rejected alternate route one because it went through a high-use residential and commercial area. The Corps found that the acquisition of additional rights-of-way would dislocate a substantial number of residents and commercial establishments. The Corps also determined that the stringing of additional power lines along the established route would be an unsound engineering practice because of the increased danger of power outage due to hurricanes and tornadoes moving through the area. Alternate two was dismissed as unaesthetic and environmentally unacceptable, because the lines would be run along a new highway. The third possible route was rejected because it would run closer to the feeding area of thousands of lesser scaups or ducks and would ruin the aesthetic value of the levees lining the canal. 64 The record shows, in addition, that the Corps conferred with Louisiana state agencies about the different possible routes. The proposed route proved to be most acceptable to the Louisiana Wildlife and Fisheries Commission. The Corps conferred with that agency and with the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service about the effect of the route on a nearby bald eagle's nest. The agency conferred with the officials of the Salvador Game Management Area, the National Marine Fisheries Service and the Louisiana Stream Control Commission. There is no blind acceptance here of a route simply because it was the primary one proposed by LP & L. There is no doubt that LP & L has acquired the right-of-way along the proposed route, but we find no evidence that it was presented to the Corps as a fait accompli. It is a factor that may be and was considered by the Corps in evaluating the alternate routes. 65 Finally, Save Our Wetlands argues that the Corps could not properly assess the alternative without viewing the costs of the alternate routes. The Corps' representatives testified at trial that requests for cost data are made on a case-by-case basis. Additionally, they determined that cost estimates were not necessary here because they felt they had sufficient non-cost data to evaluate the merits of the alternate routes. It apparently seemed clear to Corps' officials that alternate route one, in particular, would be more costly because of the need to acquire a right-of-way through a developed area. 66 We are confident that the Corps fully considered the suggested alternate routes before approving the proposed transmission line corridor.