1165 Duncanville, 469 U.S. at 33-35; Lutheran Synod, 441 U.S. at 511, 514-16; see id. at 517-19 (White, J., concurring) (“The substitute-facilities doctrine is unrelated to fair market value and . . . unabashedly demands additional compensation over and above market value in order to allow the replacement of the condemned facility . . . . It seems to me that the argument for enhanced compensation . . . is nothing more than a particularized submission that the award should exceed fair market value because of the unique uses to which the property has been put by the condemnee or because of the unique value the property has for it.”).1166 Peace Arch II, 2010 WL 415244, at *2; accord Vill. of Stoutsville, 531 F.2d at 885 (discussing substitute-facilities compensation “in place of the conventional fair market value concept of determining compensation”); see also United States v. 10.56 Acres in Whatcom Cty. (Peace Arch I), No. C07-1261RAJ, 2008 WL 3977614, at *2 (W.D. Wash. Aug. 22, 2008) (discussing substitute-facility compensation).