Source: http://co.findacase.com/research/wfrmDocViewer.aspx/xq/fac.20180403_0000447.DCO.htm/qx
Timestamp: 2019-04-22 04:56:12+00:00

Document:
William J. Martinez United States District Judge.
A portion of Interstate 70 (“I-70”) running through northeast Denver was constructed in the 1960s as a 1.2-mile viaduct running through and above Denver's Elyria-Swansea and Globeville neighborhoods (“Viaduct”). This structure has apparently caused concern for some time in light of its age and the increase in traffic that naturally attends population growth. Defendant Federal Highway Administration (“Highway Administration”) and Intervenor-Defendant Colorado Department of Transportation (“CDOT”) (together, “Defendants”) have decided that the best way to deal with the Viaduct is to tear it down and rebuild the roadway below grade at a depth of up to 40 feet. For reasons explained below, this plan has become known as the “PCL Alternative.” Given that the Highway Administration needed to approve the PCL Alternative, and will provide some funds to CDOT for the project, the Highway Administration was required by the National Environmental Policy Act (“NEPA”), 42 U.S.C. §§ 4231 et seq., to prepare an environmental impact statement (“EIS”) thoroughly considering the various effects of the PCL Alternative and other alternatives (such as doing nothing, or modifying the viaduct).
Plaintiffs Sierra Club, Elyria and Swansea Neighborhood Association, Chaffee Park Neighborhood Association, and the Colorado Latino Forum (“Plaintiffs”) claim that Defendants did not fulfill their NEPA and other statutory duties when choosing to approve the PCL Alternative. Plaintiffs have sued under the Administrative Procedure Act (“APA”), 5 U.S.C. §§ 500 et seq., which gives this Court the power to vacate Defendants' decision and require them to redo the NEPA process before considering again whether to pursue the plan to lower I-70 below grade.
Because it usually takes months and often years to fully resolve APA claims, Plaintiffs have filed the motion currently before the Court, a Motion for Stay of Agency Action Pending Review on the Merits (“Motion to Stay”). (ECF No. 88.). Plaintiffs invoke APA § 705, empowering this Court to grant what is, in all material respects, a preliminary injunction against any further action on the PCL Alternative while this Court adjudicates Plaintiffs' challenge.
For the reasons explained below, the Court denies Plaintiffs' Motion to Stay.
As will become clear below, many of the parties' arguments require an understanding of the Clean Air Act (“CAA”), 42 U.S.C. §§ 7401 et seq., particularly as it relates to federally funded transportation projects. The Court therefore begins with a summary of the relevant statutory and regulatory requirements.
As part of the CAA, Congress charged the Environmental Protection Agency (“EPA”) with setting National Ambient Air Quality Standards (“NAAQS”) for certain pollutants. 42 U.S.C. § 7409. The NAAQS are specifically described as “ambient air quality standards the attainment and maintenance of which in the judgment of the [EPA], based on such criteria and allowing an adequate margin of safety, are requisite to protect the public health.” Id. § 7409(b)(1).
Once a NAAQS is promulgated or revised, each state must adopt and submit to the EPA for approval a State Implementation Plan (“SIP”) that “provides for implementation, maintenance, and enforcement of [the NAAQS] in each air quality control region (or portion thereof) within such State.” Id. § 7410(a)(1). Each SIP must “include enforceable emission limitations and other control measures, means, or techniques . . ., as well as schedules and timetables for compliance, as may be necessary or appropriate to meet the [CAA's] applicable requirements.” Id. § 7410(a)(2)(A).
The federal government may not “engage in, support in any way or provide financial assistance for, license or permit, or approve, any activity which” would jeopardize or interfere with a SIP's ability to achieve or maintain NAAQS compliance. Id. § 7506(c)(1). Thus, as relevant to the Highway Administration, it may not fund or approve a highway project if the resulting emissions would push the relevant geographic region out of NAAQS compliance. Id. § 7506(c)(1)-(2).
In August 2003, the Highway Administration published a notice in the Federal Register that it intended to prepare an EIS encompassing, among other things, potential “variations of the horizontal and vertical alignment of I-70 as well as capacity and safety improvements” from the I-25/I-70 interchange to Peña Boulevard-a stretch of freeway the Highway Administration dubbed the “I-70 East Corridor.” 68 Fed. Reg. 49839, 49839 (Aug. 19, 2003). CDOT and other governmental entities would participate with the Highway Administration in this process. Id.
Three years later, the Highway Administration announced that, for purposes of the EIS, the “I-70 East Corridor” would be narrowed in scope to considerations of freeway alterations, and that mass transit-related considerations would be handled in a separate EIS. 71 Fed. Reg. 37637, 37637-38 (June 30, 2006).
There is now compelling and unambiguous scientific evidence that demonstrate that diverse air pollutants from trucks and motor vehicles (including diesel particulate matter, fine and ultrafine particulate matter) cause an increased risk of asthma, heart disease and cancer in those living immediately adjacent to interstate highways. Moreover, contrary to [Defendants' position], using available data and reliable models, [Defendants] could readily quantify these health risks, and compare the alternatives with respect to them. . . . Accordingly, we request that before the I-70 East EIS is finalized, the agency quantify the increased incidence of asthma, heart disease and cancer in those who will live, work and recreate immediately adjacent (< 400m) to the various proposed alternatives, as a result of being exposed to elevated levels of air pollutants from vehicles on I-70 East.

References: § 705
 § 7409
 § 7409
 § 7410
 § 7410
 § 7506
 § 7506