ROANOKE TIMES
Copyright (c) 1996, Roanoke Times
DATE: Saturday, August 17, 1996 TAG: 9608190028
SECTION: CURRENT PAGE: NRV-1 EDITION: NEW RIVER VALLEY
DATELINE: ROANOKE
SOURCE: ELISSA MILENKY STAFF WRITER
"Smart" road opponents had their day in court Friday, less than 24 hours after the project's design and exact location received approval from the state.
U.S. District Judge Jackson Kiser heard oral arguments on a lawsuit filed by three environmental groups against the Federal Highway Administration and U.S. Department of Transportation aimed at blocking further planning of the road until further environmental study can be conducted. The state was dismissed from the lawsuit several months ago.
Both sides have asked Kiser to make a summary judgment before the case goes to trial in October. A decision is pending.
Three main issues are involved in this lawsuit, which was filed by the national Sierra Club, New River Valley Greens and the New River Environmental Coalition:
Whether highway planners should have conducted a "supplemental" environmental impact statement in 1995, which is subject to public review and comment, after the road's alignment was changed to avoid the smooth coneflower and a Confederate cemetery. Planners instead attached an addendum to the original 1993 impact statement.
Smart road opponents maintain the changes to the road were significant enough to warrant a supplemental study in areas such as noise, the number of families that would be relocated, affected wildlife and the environment. They are asking the court to order further review, or to at least force highway planners to honor promises made in the original statement.
John Watts, a defense lawyer from the U.S. Department of Justice, argued there were no significant changes to the project after the alignment was shifted so a supplemental review was not warranted.
Whether highway planners should have examined other alternatives such as not building the road, expanding Alternative 3A or eliminating traffic congestion with mass transit.
Tom Linzey, head of the Pennsylvania-based Environmental Legal Defense Fund and the plaintiffs' attorney, said the smart road will not reduce traffic congestion or provide a direct link to Roanoke - two of the project's main goals - because it will not be open to the public for 15 years. During construction, the first 1.7 miles of the road will be restricted for use as a test bed for transportation research.
Watts said there is not a definite time frame for the project, although documents provided to Montgomery County government said the road would be open for public use between 2010 and 2015.
The government also maintained that the alternatives cited by the environmental groups, such as mass transit, would not serve the traffic, convenience and research goals of the project.
Whether highway planners adequately studied the road's impact on birds, plant and wildlife. Opponents charge the studies were inadequate - and in the case of a wildlife study, not done at all.
"They have no idea whether endangered species are along that route," Linzey said.
The government maintains proper studies were conducted and that the current site for the road was chosen because it had the least impact on birds, plants and wildlife. Extra measures such as building bridges to protect wildlife also were instituted, Watts said.
The smart road has attracted one other lawsuit. Shireen Parsons, head of the local Sierra Club chapter, filed a lawsuit in U.S. District Court charging that public funds are being used to construct a highway to benefit only private interests.
The federal and state transportation agencies named in the case have asked for dismissal on grounds that Parsons does not have a case upon which relief could be granted. Parsons, who filed the lawsuit without a lawyer, responded to the motion on Friday.
LENGTH: Medium: 75 linesby CNB