Coalition for Sustainable 520 v. US Department of Transportation, Federal Highway Administration
2:11-cv-01461
| W.D. Wash. | Jul 25, 2012Background
- Coalition seeks review under the Administrative Procedures Act of the FEIS and ROD for SR 520 bridge replacement across Lake Washington.
- FHWA and WSDOT served as lead agencies; FEIS and ROD prepared in coordination with state and federal environmental policies.
- DEIS analyzed No Build, 4-Lane, and 6-Lane options; 4-Lane was eliminated after detailed analysis for not meeting mobility goals.
- Public process included scoping, mediation, SEIS, and final FEIS approved May 26, 2011; ROD issued August 11, 2011.
- Plaintiff argues FEIS failed to rigorously explore all reasonable alternatives and mischaracterized the project’s purpose.
- Court grants summary judgment to defendants; denies plaintiff’s motion; action dismissed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Adequacy of alternatives analysis under NEPA | Coalition argues 4-Lane omitted from FEIS as a reasonable alternative. | Agency used rule of reason; eliminated 4-Lane after analysis; discussed transit-optimized variant. | FEIS satisfies NEPA; reasonable alternatives discussed; elimination justified. |
| Cumulative effects analysis sufficiency | Cumulative effects on wetlands, wildlife, and recreation were inadequately analyzed. | FEIS provides adequate cumulative effects analysis for relevant resources. | Cumulative effects analysis adequate under NEPA. |
| Section 4(f) and historic properties evaluation | 4(f) and historic properties impacts inadequately addressed. | 4(f) analysis and historic resources treatment sufficient and properly integrated. | 4(f) analysis adequate; Historic properties adequately analyzed. |
| EPA hot spots/CO analysis under Clean Air Act | Hot spots analysis for CO inadequate or improperly located. | Locations chosen reflect worst-case intersections; analysis shows no NAAQS violations. | No NEPA violation; method and locations acceptable. |
| Eleventh Amendment immunity on SEPA/state-law claims | Washington consent through federal funding and joint EIS work undermines immunity. | State cannot be sued in federal court; Ex Parte Young inquiry not satisfied; amendment denied. | Eleventh Amendment bars suit against WSDOT; no amendment viable; claims dismissed. |
Key Cases Cited
- California v. Block, 690 F.2d 753 (9th Cir. 1982) (rule of reason in NEPA contexts; substantive standards not imposed)
- Northern Alaska Environmental Center v. Kempthorne, 457 F.3d 969 (9th Cir. 2008) (range of alternatives must be reasonable and feasible)
- Citizens Against Burlington v. Busey, 938 F.2d 190 (D.C. Cir. 1991) (scope of alternatives and purpose affects analysis)
- Oregon Natural Resources Council v. Lowe, 109 F.3d 521 (9th Cir. 1997) (hard look at environmental consequences; NEPA review ends when adequate)
- River Runners for Wilderness v. Martin, 593 F.3d 1064 (9th Cir. 2010) (NEPA review standard and deference to agency judgment)