Arizona Department of Transportation Director John Halikowski and attorneys for the Federal Highway Administration are taking a multi-pronged approach in their arguments to quash a lawsuit filed by opponents to the Interstate 11 freeway project.
Plaintiffs including the Coalition for Sonoran Desert Protection, the Center for Biological Diversity, the Friends of Ironwood Forest and the Audubon Society filed litigation earlier this year opposing the planned highway. They claim the preferred route would have major environmental impacts, including harm to sensitive areas and protected or endangered species. Specifically, they allege the necessary evaluations of impacts on public lands were not completed as required by the National Environmental Policy Act.
Halikowski told U.S. District Court Judge John Hinderaker I-11 is essential for the region to continue to function and that if an alternative to I-10 is not developed there will be major repercussions by 2035. He also stressed the importance of transportation investment for economic development and competitiveness.
He said the Maricopa County area included in the study expects to see a population increase of 284% between 2015 and 2025. Employment in the area is expected to grow 320%. He stressed similar growth rates are expected in Pinal County.
In addition to the commuter need for the freeway, Halikowski added the freeway system is vital for access to attractions and tourist sites, which is another economic driver that needs to be considered.
He informed the Court ADOT has spent approximately $17M so far on environmental studies to determine the corridor’s location but that there is much still to do – including environmental studies for possible alignments within the corridor.
In Pima County, there are two options under consideration. One would build a new freeway around the San Xavier reservation through Avra Valley and into Pinal County. ADOT is planning a Tier 2 Environmental Impact Statement to review specific alignments. The Arizona State Legislature recently allocated $25M for a Tier 2 funding study in Maricopa County. That does not include any funding for final design, acquisition of rights of way, or construction.
For their part, FHWA’s attorneys have said the case is premature. They explained no decisions have been made on a final route through Pima County and that it has not been decided if I-11 will even be built.
The FHWA lawyers said identifying a precise alignment, design and additional review would happen in a second phase if funding is made available.
The plaintiffs’ attorney called that a misrepresentation. She said a Record of Decision committed FHWA to developing the I-11 corridor, established most of its route and set two possible routes through Pima County. She alleged the necessary public lands impact evaluations were not completed.
The NEPA requires officials to create an impact statement on all major projects and to consider alternatives.
They claim if the route were co-located with I-10 and I-19 it would cause less harm than the other option, but that upgraded wildlife crossings would still be needed.
The plaintiffs stress the route near Tucson would harm several sensitive areas and tribal lands. The also claim a portion of the highway between Casa Grande and Buckeye would harm recreation areas and endangered species habitats.
Officials around the state are split on the I-11 project. State Representative Mark Finchem has questioned its value and need as a freight corridor between California and Mexico. The Sahuarita Town Council in 2021 opposed the “West option” that would place the new freeway around Tucson.
Officials in Casa Grande and Maricopa support the freeway in their region, saying it will help economic development. Governor Doug Ducey has also expressed support, touting the freeways benefits to economic development and growth. (Source)