NEPA Segmentation/Connected Action. The plaintiff’s principal argument was that FWS violated NEPA by failing to consider the impacts of the Coastal Connector, another proposed highway. The court held that the Coastal Connector was not related to the Suncoast Parkway because they would not directly connect; rather, the proposed alignments for the Coastal Connector would terminate roughly three miles from the terminus of the Suncoast Parkway extension. The court also held that the Coastal Connector was not a reasonably foreseeable future action because it was still in the early planning phase with no alignment selected, and FDOT stated that it had no current plans to pursue the Coastal Connector. In addition, the court concluded that the EA did not improperly exclude the Coastal Connector from its analysis because the Suncoast Parkway was a stand-alone project that connected logical termini, had independent utility, and did not restrict consideration of alternatives for other reasonably foreseeable transportation projects: “Here, Suncoast II will connect an existing toll road, the original Suncoast Parkway, with State Road 44, that connects to I-75; it will provide a connection between Citrus County and the Tampa Bay area; it will reduce traffic congestion; and it will result in 597 fewer vehicle hours traveled per day. Moreover, FDOT offered unrefuted evidence that Suncoast II is itself ‘economically feasible’ as a stand-alone project.” Project Scope. The plaintiff also argued that FWS should have considered impacts from an eight-lane highway, rather than the proposed four-lane project, because the regional state water management district had issued a drainage permit to FDOT that authorized up to eight lanes. The court explained that although the permit authorized eight lanes of drainage, FDOT had applied for a drainage permit for a four-lane highway, and FDOT would need to apply for a permit modification if the project would be expanded to eight lanes. The court held that there was no evidence to suggest that it was reasonably foreseeable that the Suncoast Parkway would be expanded to eight lanes. Thus, the court concluded, it was not arbitrary or capricious for FWS to have evaluated the impacts of a four-lane highway. Litigation Procedure Preliminary Injunction. The court concluded that the plaintiff was unlikely to succeed on the merits of its two arguments that FWS violated NEPA and, therefore, denied the plaintiff’s motion for a preliminary injunction.