Opinion ID: 803993
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: Alternative 32B Cost Analysis

Text: Appellants next argue that the government significantly underestimated construction costs for alternative 32B. This argument, based on a single footnote in the EIS, warrants only a brief discussion. The footnote in question relates to Table 2-18 of the EIS, which shows estimated construction, operation, and maintenance costs for the 32B, 42A, and no-action alternatives. One of the cost items listed is “mitigation.” For alternative 32B, mitigation costs are listed at $18.6 million, with a footnote call appended. The footnote reads: “Mitigation cost for [alternative 32B] includes relocation of 31st Street, Haskell Avenue and Louisiana Street, as well as noise walls and additional landscaping.” App. at 551 n.11. Appellants interpret this footnote to mean that the $18.6 million figure only includes the costs listed in the footnote, erroneously excluding an additional $10 million in wetlands mitigation costs. -18- Although Appellants’ interpretation is perhaps plausible when the footnote is read in isolation, it is obviously incorrect when read in conjunction with other sections of the EIS. Specifically, the portion of the EIS entitled Environmental Consequences has a subsection specifically addressing wetland mitigation for the 32nd Street corridor. There, a table totaling the costs for 32B includes wetland mitigation measures as well as other measures and lists the total cost as $18.6 million. See App. at 665. Thus, we are unconvinced that the government erroneously omitted wetlands mitigation costs from its consideration of alternative 32B. 2