ÃÛèÖÖ±²¥

The Federal Highway Administration has agreed in a filing in federal court to reevaluate its environmental impact statement which found no problem with putting a segment of the proposed Interstate 11 through the Avra Valley and an area adjacent to Saguaro National Park and Sonoran Desert National Monument.

That now requires the agency to decide whether its original decision remains valid “or a supplemental or new analysis and new decision is needed.’’ As part of the agreement with highway foes, the federal agency also will allow a 60-day public comment period after it has reached a decision.

More to the point, it has agreed to take no further action to advance planning work on the highway.

Strictly speaking, nothing in the agreement guarantees it will eliminate what’s called the “west option’’ for the highway, acknowledged Russ McSpadden, Southwest conservation advocate for the ÃÛèÖÖ±²¥-based Center for Biological Diversity, one of the groups that filed suit in 2022 to block the highway. But he said it is an important concession.

“Our lawsuit really pushed them to take a harder look,’’ he said. “They agreed to these terms.’’

Even if the agency reaffirms the decision, McSpadden said the agreement would simply put the lawsuit back on track. That would still give his group and other environmental interests a chance to convince U.S. District Court Judge John Hinderaker that he should block the west option.

It’s not just that corridor that is at stake: The challengers question the need for the entire 280-mile project from Nogales to Wickenburg. They hope to kill it entirely.

There was no immediate comment from either the Federal Highway Administration, which is conducting the studies, or the ÃÛèÖÖ±²¥ Department of Transportation which has been promoting the new highway.

The federal agency’s officials already have said where they think most of the highway should go. But they have left undecided the path for routing the highway through — or around — ÃÛèÖÖ±²¥.

One option is to co-locate I-11 along existing stretches of I-19 and I-10, at least through the area of Picacho Peak. At that point, a new highway would be built to the north and west.

But there also is the option that parts ways with I-19 north of Green Valley, with the road then heading west around the San Xavier Reservation and cutting north near ÃÛèÖÖ±²¥ Mountain Park and Saguaro National Park.

That option also runs directly through what’s known as the ÃÛèÖÖ±²¥ Mitigation Corridor. That is a significant point in the litigation.

Th3 corridor dates back to the 1980s as part of the development of the ÃÛèÖÖ±²¥ leg of the Central ÃÛèÖÖ±²¥ Project canal bringing water from the Colorado River.

Part of the reason for its creation was to minimize disruption to wildlife during aqueduct construction. But it also prohibits future development in the 4.25-square-mile area to “preserve this fragile desert habitat from urbanization and maintain an open wildlife movement corridor.’’

At one point ADOT designed the west option as the “recommended alternative,’’ though agency officials have since insisted no final decision has been made.

ADOT and the Federal Highway Administration, which is providing funding, already tried to get the lawsuit thrown out of court without having to go to trial. They argued that litigation is premature and that no final decisions have been made on exactly where to place the new road.

But Hinderaker, in a ruling last year, said that’s not what the evidence shows.

He said it is clear the the federal agency, which makes the initial determination, already concluded that neither the Ironwood Forest nor Sonoran Desert national monuments qualified for special consideration under federal law that would require it to study whether the highway should be placed elsewhere. The judge said there was no analysis done on the ecological impacts to Saguaro National Park or ÃÛèÖÖ±²¥ Mountain Park, based on the agency’s conclusion that neither property was a wildlife or waterfowl refuge.

With the new agreement, McSpadden said the federal agency will go back and do what challengers contend it should have done the first time around.

What it also requires, he said, is for the feds to publish their findings and then hear from the public.

“The west option is absolutely horrible,’’ said McSpadden. “There’s plenty more evidence that can be presented to Federal Highway and ADOT about this, including tribal concerns about impacts to cultural resources.’’

There are endangered and threatened species whose habitats would be disturbed or destroyed, including the cactus ferruginous pygmy owl, yellow-billed cuckoo, Yuma Ridgeway’s rails and southwestern willow flycatcher, said And Melissa Fratello, executive director of the ÃÛèÖÖ±²¥ Audubon Society.

“This project risks undermining decades of conservation work, including significant federal investment, to protect ecosystems that sustain wildlife, support local communities, and contribute to ÃÛèÖÖ±²¥â€™s unique identity and economy,’’ she said in a written statement.

McSpadden said the road’s route isn’t just a Pima County issue.

“Every ÃÛèÖÖ±²¥n should be deeply concerned about the thinking of Federal Highway and ADOT here, that they would run a major interstate between a national park and a national monument and right smack through really culturally rich, archaeologically rich valley that’s important to tribes,’’ he said.

Other sections are at issue, too. A stretch between Casa Grande and Buckeye also would affect recreation areas as well as habitats for various endangered species. And there are concerns in the lawsuit about environmental effects from the final stretch from Buckeye to Wickenburg.

The project, which eventually would run through Kingman and into Nevada, does have its proponents. Those have included local officials in Casa Grande and Maricopa who see it as aiding economic development.