Federal judge rejects lawsuit challenging bypass

NICAN plans to appeal ruling

SANDPOINT - A federal judge is upending a lawsuit filed by opponents of the proposed U.S. Highway 95 bypass.

U.S. District Judge Edward Lodge issued a ruling Thursday rejecting the North Idaho Community Action Network's claims that the Federal Highway Administration acted arbitrarily and capriciously when it approved the Sand Creek Byway proposal. The suit also accused FHWA of violating the National Environmental Policy Act, the federal charter for environmental protection.

The Idaho Transportation Department called Lodge's ruling an important decision in the legal saga of the bypass.

“This is the big lawsuit. This is the, ‘You did not follow the environmental process' lawsuit,” said Barbara Babic, ITD's District 1 spokeswoman.

Officials from NICAN, meanwhile, downplayed the impact of the decision and said an appeal is being planned.

“We respectfully disagree with the judge's ruling and we anticipate taking it to the 9th Circuit on appeal,” said Liz Sedler, executive director of NICAN.

Federal highway officials approved the bypass proposal in 2000 and NICAN filed suit five years later to have the approval overturned. NICAN is also party to a pending lawsuit challenging the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers' approval of the re-routing proposal.

In the FHWA action, NICAN contends regulators violated federal review standards by failing to require a more comprehensive environmental impact statement which covered the full scope of the U.S. 95 rerouting project and nearly a dozen revisions to the byway segment.

The other segments involve planned highway improvements at the north and south ends of the bypass.

NICAN also faulted FHWA for failing to properly consider alternative highway alignments, cumulative impacts of the project, and impacts to wetlands, the historic Sandpoint train depot and protected wildlife species such as bald eagles.

But in his 27-page ruling, Lodge found an expanded EIS was unnecessary because the non-bypass segments were addressed in the bypass EIS and an environmental assessment that considered the revisions, which consist of a shoreline extension on Sand Creek, a southbound off-ramp and other features.

“In this case, the EIS contained a cumulative impact analysis that addressed the impacts of the Project on other actions, including other highway actions,” Lodge wrote.

Although the segments are connected, Lodge cited a 9th Circuit Court of Appeals decision which held that the extensive evaluation of subsequent segments is not required when those segments haven't been completed or authorized.

Lodge also found that the impacts of the new off-ramp, placement of 77,000 cubic yards of fill, dredging of 17,000 cubic yards of the creek and other shoreline modifications had been properly evaluated.

NICAN took particular issue with that finding. It contends the open-water and other fills will reduce the creek's navigable surface by 18 percent and reduce the width of the creek by up to 50 percent.

“Contrary to conclusions in the opinion, we believe that the agencies' proposed actions will have significant impacts on Sandpoint's waterway. The law is very clear, given the magnitude of the impacts, the agencies should have issued a supplemental EIS,” Sedler said.

As for the impacts to wetlands, the depot and listed species, Lodge concluded they were properly considered, addressed and mitigated through the environmental review processes.

“We've worked very hard to make sure that we've followed the process and that we involved the community in that decision-making process,” Babic said. “NICAN disagreed and filed suit, but we're very pleased that the court validated our efforts.”