John Coffelt, Editor

Chancery Court Judge William Lockhart is expected to hand down a ruling on Case 25CV-432, Old Stone Fort Bridge Preservation Group vs Tennessee Department of Environment and Conservation following a hearing held at the Coffee County Justice Center on Jan. 20

Lockhart is “taking on advisement” part of the ruling meaning he has as much as 60 days to make a decision.

Lockhart ruled against a portion of the petition filed by The Old Stone Fort Bridge Preservation Group on Oct. 27 for a review of a final hearing that upheld a water alteration permit related to the bridge project at Old Stone Fort State Archeological State Park.

Lockhart rejected the group’s allegation that the project would have more than a minimal (de minimis) impact on the Duck River. His consideration is if TDEC failed to consider practicable alternatives in the issuance of the permit.

The suit alleges that the Administrative Judge and the Board of Water Quality, Oil and Gas acted illegally, arbitrarily or capriciously and followed an illegal procedure, characterized by abuse of discretion by not considering rehabbing the bridge. 

Representing the Bridge Group, Jason Holleman, of Holleman Law Group, argued that TDEC failed to include as a practicable alternative the rehabilitation of the bridge.

“The state has protected itself from analysis … (by saying) the scope of our permit is to build a bridge that complies current regulations,” Holleman said.

He argued that TDEC could write a purpose of the project narrow enough as to exclude repairing the bridge from consideration.   He said that repairing the bridge would be cheaper and better for the environment.

Lockhart noted that if he failed to uphold the ruling of the administrative court, the matter would be returned to TDEC to add repairing the bridge as an option, then potentially start the same process again.

Representing TDEC, Ben Heidelberger said the court should uphold the administrative judge’s decision to uphold the permit. 

“We affirm the board’s conclusion that refurbishment was not a practicable alternative,” he said. “Projects could be tied up in litigation, theoretically for an infinite amount of alternatives.”     

“TDEC’s role in issuing a permit is not to second guess the purpose of a project,” Heidelberger said.

This instance, however, is complicated in that TDEC has defined the scope and purpose of the project in commissioning TDOT to replace the bridge, while also its water resources department signed off on the permit. 

Heidelberger noted that the administrative judge considered if refurbishment was a practicable alternative. 

The order entered by Administrative Judge Elisabeth Cambron on Aug. 21, then upheld by unanimous vote by the Board of Water Quality on Oct. 22, said that the Bridge Group failed to prove more the de minimis impact on the river and that the alternatives proposed by the groups’ paid engineers were not practicable alternatives.

Cambron writes, “it does not meet the project’s purpose because it is not possible to meet current TDOT design standards by refurbishing the bridge. Second, it is not practical to expect a bridge that is over 100 years old to have a service life much further into the future, particularly given the weight of modern vehicular traffic compared to the weight of vehicles at the time the bridge was built.”

She also said that the group’s environmental expert’s testimony offers “little more than conclusory generalizations and provides no support for OSFB Preservation Group’s assertion as to the temporary impacts. These temporary impacts are of a short duration and do not constitute degradation.”

Lockhart asked Holleman to argue for refurbishment as a practicable alternative. He asked the group’s attorney where the funding would come from.

“Your Honor, this is a non-profit … it is a little outside. There are lots of pots of money available for bridge restoration. And frankly that is beyond the capability of this nonprofit,” Holleman said.

He called it the more environmentally sound decision.

Lockhart said a consideration of practicable comes down to its definition.

“I know there’s money out there, but how long is the wait. There’s the determination of cost, environmental impact and all the other things,” he said.

“The first issues, the de minimis, I have found … in favor of upholding the ALJ on that issue,” Lockhart said. “The other, the draw downs and run off, shouldn’t happen, so I can’t rely on that.”

“I’m going to take the other issue under advisement. It’s pretty narrow in scope. I have to look closely and make up my mind on if I have to look at the ALJ findings on the facts or if I need to make my own small record on the issue,” he said.

Lockhart said results could come relatively quickly.        

John has been with the Manchester Times since May 2011. John has won Tennessee Press Association awards for Best News Photo and placed in numerous other categories. John is a 1994 graduate of Tullahoma High School, a graduate of Motlow State Community College and earned a Bachelor of Arts in English from Middle Tennessee State University. He lives in Tullahoma, enjoys painting, dancing and exploring the outdoors.