by Howard Fisher
capitol media services

PHOENIX — A challenge to the planned construction of the 280-mile Interstate 11 project from Nogales to Wickenburg has overcome a significant legal challenge.
In the new ruling, U.S. District Court Judge John Hinderaker dismissed the Federal Highway Administration and the Arizona Department of Transportation’s argument that legal challenges were premature. Federal agencies have claimed that no final decision has been made on where the new road will be located.
But the judge ruled that neither the Ironwood Forest nor the Sonoran Desert National Monument deserve special consideration under federal law that requires the Federal Highway Administration, which makes the initial determination, to consider whether a highway should be built. He said it was clear he had already concluded that he would not. Elsewhere. He said no analyzes of ecological impacts have been conducted based on the agency’s conclusion that Saguaro National Park and Tucson Mountain Park are not wildlife or waterfowl sanctuaries.
And even after initial research, Hindelaker said that land designated as ineligible for protection in highway placement decisions was in fact “sent from the Bureau of Land Management, the National Park Service, and the Arizona Game Center.” Documents show that they maintained their unprotected designation even after feedback.” and fish, above all. ”
What all this means is that some decisions appear to have already been made, the judge said.
“By failing to designate certain assets as protected or unprotected under[federal law]defendants establish certain legal obligations or lack thereof,” Hinderaker wrote.
Indeed, the judge said, the evidence appeared to show that the Federal Highway Administration had withheld off-corridor alternatives unless new conditions arose. And the official “record of decision” by the agency “allows the project and selected alternative corridors to move forward despite objections from the agency after the draft and final environmental impact report. It seems,” he said.
And all these things, he said, have the right to challenge those decisions now, before a final decision is made.
At the heart of the dispute is a federal agency’s decision to authorize an alternate route around Tucson’s west side.
Various environmental groups say the decision didn’t take into account the destruction of the Sonoran desert, the harm to wildlife and the impact on air pollution. In contrast, if the highway were co-located with existing Interstates 19 and 10, the impact would be less, they claimed.
Attorney Wendy Park, who represents the Tucson-based Center for Biodiversity, said federal agencies “distorted the comparison of alternatives” to choosing “no-build alternatives.” A friend of Ironwood Forest and the Tucson Audubon Society.
The plan is backed by the State Department of Transportation.
In a court filing last year, former ADOT director John Heikowski said that without an alternative to I-10, traffic would be so congested by 2035 that it would interfere with the functioning of the region. said he would.
“Furthermore, the success of the state’s economic development gains depends on continued transportation investments, such as I-11, to remain competitive. The decline will have a negative impact,” he said in a statement. Affects economic competitiveness. ”
And the project, which could cost anywhere from $3.1 billion to $7.3 billion, depending on its final path, also had the backing of Gov. Doug Ducey. He told the Capitol Media Service several years ago that the highway “will really benefit our state and enable us.” We will be the main players in economic growth, development and trade. ”
A spokeswoman for current Governor Katie Hobbs did not respond to a request for support for the project.
An ADOT spokesperson sidestepped questions about whether ADOT agencies will continue to support the highway. Instead, Jonathan Brodsky says ADOT’s focus on I-11 and other projects is to “balance all needs, including land use, environmental and population, commercial, employment, transportation, and We remain committed to ongoing engagement with our stakeholders.”
In any case, he said there is currently no funding for further research on road routes.
Attorneys for the Federal Highway Administration, seeking to drop the challenge, made similar allegations to quash the lawsuit, arguing against Mr. Hindelaker that the entire case was premature. At this time, no decision has been made as to which route to take through Pima County, or even whether the project will go forward, and I-11 is a “mostly unfunded highway construction project,” they said. .
But Park said it misrepresented the situation.
“The decision record committed the FHWA to developing the I-11 corridor beyond the ‘no construction’ option, choosing most of its route, and choosing a possible route through Pima County to ‘west’ or We narrowed it down to the ‘eastern alternatives,'” and all of this happened without federal agencies properly completing the legally required assessments of the impact of either option on public lands, Park said. .
Hindelakar said in the new ruling that there appeared to be enough challenges to continue the case.
“Plaintiffs in their complaint allege that defendants failed to identify all of the protected lands under[federal law]to determine how seriously each property would be damaged, and to compare and exclude prior to exclusion.” arguing that he did not consider all viable and sensible alternatives to “alternatives,” he wrote.
It’s not just the choice of where the road is located in southern Arizona that’s at issue.
Park said the section between Casa Grande and Buckeye will also affect recreational areas as well as habitat for various endangered species. And she said the final stretch from Buckeye to Wickenburg will also have an environmental impact.
The project, which eventually extends through Kingman to Nevada, certainly has its supporters.
This includes support from local officials in Casa Grande and Maricopa, which they believe will help economic development.
-30-
Twitter: @azcapmedia