This notice requirement ensures that interested parties are aware of and able to participate meaningfully in the entire [impact statement] process, from start to finish." Coalition for a Sustainable 520 v. U.S. Dep't of Transp., 881 F. Supp. 2d 1243, 1248-49 (W.D. Wash. 2012); see 40 C.F.R. ยง 1501.7. Plaintiffs' substanceless assertion that "[i]t is . . . reasonable to assume that a tunnel may be economical" (Dkt. No. 24 at 10; Dkt. No. 30 at 9) does not call into question the impact statement's operating assumption that tunnels involve substantially greater expense than above-ground builds.
WSDOT's consideration of the environmental impacts of both condemning the Properties and of the entire project support the trial court's findings that WSDOT considered the adverse impacts to the Montlake neighborhood of the Market's closure and did not select the Properties in an arbitrary and capricious manner amounting to constructive fraud. Coal, for a Sustainable 520 v. U.S. Dep't of Transp., 881 F.Supp.2d 1243, 1258-59 (W.D. Wash. 2012) (court order) (upholding the validity of the FEIS and the ROD and rejecting challengers' claims that the FEIS did not adequately analyze the adverse environmental impacts or consider alternatives).
The City of Bothell's decision to further pursue or approve a new comprehensive plan that will cause more traffic congestion in the vicinity of the Canyon Park Business Center is beyond the scope of this lawsuit and the Court's jurisdiction. See RCW 43.21C.075; see also Coal. for Sustainable 520 v. U.S. Dep't of Transp., 881 F.Supp.2d 1243, 1260-61 (W.D. Wash. 2012) (with regard to state claims, including pursuant to SEPA, that are asserted in federal court, WSDOT and its Secretary have Eleventh Amendment immunity).
This lawsuit arises out of the "SR 520, I-5 to Medina: Bridge Replacement and HOV Project" (the "Project"), a multi-decade highway improvement project intended to expand capacity on the State Route 520 bridge in King County, Washington, and make other related infrastructure improvements to the bridge and adjoining highway. (See Dkt. Nos. 43 at 15, 34-1 at 106-08); see also Coalition for a Sustainable 520 v. The United States Department of Transportation, et al., 881 F. Supp. 2d 1243, 1247-54 (W.D. Wash. 2012) (describing the Project's preferred design alternative). Plaintiffs allege that Defendants failed to adequately consider the environmental impacts that would arise from the planned closure and demolition of a grocery store, the Montlake Market (the "Market"), as necessitated by various Project refinements and construction activities.