Judge rejects effort to block I-630 work
Project’s harm not proved, he decides
U.S. District Judge James Moody Jr. on Tuesday denied an attempt by a group of Little Rock residents to halt a project to widen a section of Interstate 630 in west Little Rock.
Among other things, the judge said the litigants failed to establish that the project would “have a significant environmental impact” and haven’t shown a “substantial probability of success” in establishing that the decision by state and federal transportation officials to forgo more in-depth environmental reviews of the project was “arbitrary, capricious, an abuse of discretion, or otherwise in violation of the law.”
“The Court further finds that there will be little, if any, irreparable harm to the Plaintiffs or the public by allowing the I-630 project to continue while the litigation of the case proceeds,” the judge said. “Plaintiffs’ evidence regarding irreparable harm focused on air quality caused by the increased
traffic on I-630 following the completion of the project. Therefore the request for injunctive relief is denied.”
Meanwhile, the widening work continued. It included removal of the Hughes Street overpass on Monday night, delayed by a series of strong weekend storms.
“We’re pleased with the judge’s ruling, and we are moving forward,” said Danny Straessle, the spokesman for the Arkansas Department of Transportation. “This is affirmation that we have dotted all the i’s and crossed all the t’s and are pursuing this project in the public interest.”
Richard Mays, a Little Rock attorney who represents the plaintiffs, said it was premature to decide whether to appeal the judge’s ruling or even proceed with a trial.
“It’s really a little early to decide where we go from here,” Mays said. “It is disappointing that the judge denied our injunction, but he has not entered an order yet. He won’t enter it, from what I understand, for a few days. If we decide to appeal, we can’t appeal it until the order is entered.
“We could do that, but that’s a decision that hasn’t been made. We need to study the order when it’s entered and go from there. Of course, there’s cost considerations. You have to balance how you feel about the possibilities of winning as opposed to how much it is going to cost.”
Those same considerations would have to be weighed for a trial, he said.
“Obviously, if we could go into trial, there could be more evidence submitted, more wit- nesses,” Mays said. “But we have to decide whether there is anything else to be gained by proceeding further.”
Moody’s statements in an email sent to the parties in the case came after a daylong hearing Monday on a motion the Little Rock residents filed seeking a temporary restraining order and preliminary injunction to stop the $87.3 million project on a 2.5-mile section of the interstate between Baptist Health Medical Center and South University Avenue.
A more formal order outlining Tuesday’s decision will be issued “as soon as possible,” Moody said in the email.
The work to widen the section to eight lanes from six has been identified as an extension of improvements to the Interstate 430/I-630 interchange in west Little Rock. Work on the interchange came in three separate projects totaling $124 million and completed in 2015.
But the residents sued July 18 in U.S. District Court, saying the state Transportation Department and the Federal Highway Administration, a U.S. Department of Transportation agency, wrongly classified the project as a “Categorical Exclusion,” which doesn’t require the work to undergo more rigorous environmental analysis, including its impact on air quality.
State highway officials say the project will help accommodate future traffic demand, which they estimate at 138,000 vehicles daily by 2037. More than 100,000 vehicles per day travel the section now.
The increased traffic will increase pollutants from emissions, endangering the health of residents living along the section, particularly children, according to the lawsuit. May submitted three studies showing a relationship between living close to heavily traveled roads and poor health.
According to testimony by a federal highway official at Monday’s hearing, reducing congestion in the corridor also would reduce pollutants from emissions because vehicles would spend less time idling.
He also cited a U.S. Environmental Protection Agency analysis that showed pollutants from vehicle emissions decreasing in future years despite an increase in vehicle miles traveled because more new vehicle engines emit fewer pollutants.
Air quality in the Little Rock area already exceeds EPA standards, according to the testimony.
“Plaintiffs failed to establish that the project would
have a significant environmental impact in light of the air quality standards in the area generally,” Moody wrote Tuesday.
Most highway projects, including the I-430/I-630 interchange, receive categorical exclusion designations, which are based, in part, on what projects are allowed such designations under a memorandum of agreement between the state Transportation Department and the Federal Highway Administration, according to testimony at Monday’s hearing.
Among the types of projects that typically receive “Categorical Exclusion” designations under the agreement are road widenings if the widening falls within the existing right of way, which the I-630 project does. In other words, the project won’t need property beyond what the department already owns and maintains.
But Mays and his colleague, Heather Zachary, who portrayed use of the “Categorical Exclusion” as a way to avoid the time and expense of indepth environmental reviews, argued that under National Environmental Policy Act regulations, the “operational right of way” is limited to the lanes and shoulders. Therefore, they said, the project didn’t qualify as a “Categorical Exclusion.”
Keli Wylie, a state Transportation Department engineer who is the administrator for the program under which the I-630 project is being built, testified the operational right of way includes property that could be used as recovery zones for vehicles that left the roadway, as well as drainage and other structures beyond the shoulders.
Moody, who said he drives I-630 often, noted that given how narrow the corridor is, he couldn’t see how the department had any extra room within its right of way to build additional recovery zones beyond what already existed. He found Wylie’s testimony persuasive.
“After review of the evidence, particularly the testimony of Keli Wylie, Program Administrator of the Arkansas Department of Transportation’s Connecting Arkansas Program, the court finds that plaintiffs have failed to establish that any part of the I-630 project construction would go outside of the existing operational right-of-way,” Moody said in his email.
Mays said Moody’s ruling was significant in saying his side couldn’t show that the project didn’t qualify for the “categorical exclusion,” which would have been a violation of the National Environmental Policy Act, or NEPA. Had he been able to do that, it would have shown environmental harm under case law, he said.
“In environmental cases where there is a violation of NEPA, the courts presume that there is environmental harm,” Mays said. “That is the quintessential definition of environmental harm because they violated the statute that requires a study to be done to determine whether there are environmental impacts.
“He did not find a violation of NEPA. He found they were entitled to rely on the categorical exclusion they were claiming. Of course, we were claiming that categorical exemption does not apply. That’s where the issue landed in terms of what was a decisive question.”