Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_15-cv-02090/USCOURTS-cand-3_15-cv-02090-2/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 893
Nature of Suit: Environmental Matters
Cause of Action: 33:1365 Environmental Matters

---

Stipulation to Dismiss Federal Highway Administration 

and U.S. Army Corps of Engineers 

1 Case No. 3:15-cv- 02090VC 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

26 

27 

Christopher A. Sproul (Bar No. 126398) 

Jodene Isaacs (Bar No. 226895) 

ENVIRONMENTAL ADVOCATES 

5135 Anza Street 

San Francisco, California 94121 

Tel: (415) 533-3376, (510) 847-3467 

Fax: (415) 358-5695 

csproul@enviroadvocates.com 

jisaacs@enviroadvocates.com 

Brian Gaffney (Bar No. 168778) 

LAW OFFICES OF BRIAN GAFFNEY APC 

446 Old County Road, Suite 100-310 

Pacifica, CA 94044 

Tel: (650) 219-3187 

Fax: (650) 733-7793 

brian@gaffneylegal.com 

Patricia Weisselberg (Bar No. 253015) 

LAW OFFICE OF PATRICIA WEISSELBERG 

115 Oakdale Avenue 

Mill Valley, CA 94941 

Tel: (415) 388-2303 

pweisselberg@wans.net 

Attorneys for Plaintiffs 

PACIFICANS FOR A SCENIC COAST, 

PACIFICANS FOR HIGHWAY 1 

ALTERNATIVES, and CENTER FOR 

BIOLOGICAL DIVERSITY 

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 

PACIFICANS FOR A SCENIC COAST, et al., 

 

 Plaintiffs, 

 v. 

FEDERAL HIGHWAY 

ADMINISTRATION, et al., 

 

 Defendants 

Case No. 3:15-cv-02090-VC 

STIPULATION AND [PROPOSED] ORDER 

TO DISMISS DEFENDANTS FEDERAL 

HIGHWAY ADMINISTRATION AND U.S. 

ARMY CORPS OF ENGINEERS 

PURSUANT TO FED. R. CIV. P. 41(a)(2)

Case 3:15-cv-02090-VC Document 47 Filed 09/04/15 Page 1 of 37
Stipulation to Dismiss Federal Highway Administration 

and U.S. Army Corps of Engineers 

2 Case No. 3:15-cv- 02090VC 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

26 

27 

WHEREAS Claim 1 of the Amended Complaint (ECF No. 21) alleges, inter alia, that the United 

States Army Corps of Engineers (“the Corps”) violated its procedural obligation under Section 7 of the 

Endangered Species Act, 16 U.S.C. § 1536(a)(2), by failing to formally consult with the U.S. Fish and 

Wildlife Service (“FWS”) concerning the impacts of an application submitted by the City of Pacifica to 

the Corps for a permit under section 404 of the Clean Water Act; 

WHEREAS Claim 2 of the Amended Complaint alleges, inter alia, that the Corps violated its 

substantive obligation under Section 7 of the Endangered Species Act, 16 U.S.C. § 1536(a)(2), to ensure 

that the Project will not jeopardize the survival and recovery of listed species, by forgoing action on the 

City's application for a 404 permit and forgoing formal consultation with FWS concerning the impacts 

of the City of Pacifica’s permit application under section 404 of the Clean Water Act; 

WHEREAS Claim 8 of the Amended Complaint alleges, inter alia, that the Corps’ failure to act 

on the City of Pacifica’s February 2003 application to the Corps “for a [Clean Water Act (“CWA”)] 

permit for the Project” is arbitrary and capricious in violation of Administrative Procedure Act (“APA”), 

5 U.S.C. § 706(2)(A), and that the Corps’ inaction violates the APA, 5 U.S.C. § 706(2), because 

“action” has been “unlawfully withheld or unreasonably delayed”; 

WHEREAS on July 27, 2015, the City of Pacifica withdrew the 2003 Joint Aquatic Resources 

Permit Application upon which Plaintiffs base the portions of Claims 1, 2, and 8 against the Corps 

described above; 

WHEREAS, claims based upon the City of Pacifica’s withdrawn Application are now moot; 

WHEREAS Plaintiffs therefore withdraw Claims 1, 2, and 8 to the extent they are based on the 

Corps’ inaction on the City of Pacifica’s Application; 

WHEREAS Plaintiffs further voluntarily withdraw the remainder of Claim 8 against the Corps; 

and 

WHEREAS there are no other pending allegations against the Corps, 

NOW THEREFORE the Parties hereby stipulate as follows: 

1. The Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) contends it is not a proper party to this 

action under 23 U.S.C. § 327. For purposes of this Stipulation, Plaintiffs do not dispute that contention. 

Case 3:15-cv-02090-VC Document 47 Filed 09/04/15 Page 2 of 37
Stipulation to Dismiss Federal Highway Administration 

and U.S. Army Corps of Engineers 

3 Case No. 3:15-cv- 02090VC 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

26 

27 

2. The United States Army Corps of Engineers (“Corps”) contends it is not a proper party to 

this action for the reasons provided above. For purposes of this Stipulation, Plaintiffs do not dispute that 

contention. 

3. In view of the foregoing, Plaintiffs voluntarily dismiss, without prejudice, all of their 

claims against the FHWA and the Corps, subject to the following terms: 

a. The State Route 1/Calera Parkway/Highway 1 Widening Project is encompassed 

within the assignment and assumption of duties memorialized in the Memorandum of Understanding 

(“MOU”) between the FHWA and the California Department of Transportation (“Caltrans”), dated June 

2007 and renewed September 2012, which MOU is attached hereto as Exhibit A; 

b. Pursuant to the MOU and 23 U.S.C. § 327(a)(2), Caltrans has assumed, subject to 

the terms and conditions set forth in 23 U.S.C. § 327 and the MOU, all of the U.S. Department of 

Transportation Secretary’s responsibilities for review, consultation, or other such action pertaining to the 

review or approval of the State Route 1/Calera Parkway/Highway 1 Widening Project under the 

National Environmental Policy Act and as required under the federal laws enumerated at Part 3.2 of the 

MOU; 

c. No Party will argue in this proceeding that either the FHWA or the Corps is an 

indispensable party, or that either the FHWA or the Corps is necessary for the resolution of this matter; 

and 

d. This Stipulation is not intended to limit the Court’s ability to retain jurisdiction 

over the action or to accord complete relief in this action among the remaining parties. 

4. To the extent that Claims 1, 2, and 8 are based upon or otherwise rely upon the City of 

Pacifica’s 2003 CWA section 404 permit application, Plaintiffs hereby withdraw any such claims for 

relief against the Corps and also withdraw any remaining claims against the Corps in Claim 8. 

Case 3:15-cv-02090-VC Document 47 Filed 09/04/15 Page 3 of 37
Stipulation to Dismiss Federal Highway Administration 

and U.S. Army Corps of Engineers 

4 Case No. 3:15-cv- 02090VC 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

26 

27 

Dated September 3, 2015 

/s/Patricia Weisselberg

Christopher A. Sproul (Bar No. 126398) 

Jodene Isaacs (Bar No. 226895) 

ENVIRONMENTAL ADVOCATES 

5135 Anza Street 

San Francisco, California 94121 

Tel: (415) 533-3376, (510) 847-3467 

Fax: (415) 358-5695 

csproul@enviroadvocates.com 

jisaacs@enviroadvocates.com 

Brian Gaffney (Bar No. 168778) 

LAW OFFICES OF BRIAN GAFFNEY APC 

446 Old Country Road, Suite 100-310 

Pacifica, CA 94044 

Tel: (650) 219-3187 

Fax: (650) 733-7793 

brian@gaffneylegal.com 

Patricia Weisselberg (Bar No. 253015) 

LAW OFFICE OF PATRICIA WEISSELBERG 

115 Oakdale Avenue 

Mill Valley, CA 94941 

Tel: (415) 388-2303 

pweisselberg@wans.net 

Attorneys for Plaintiffs 

PACIFICANS FOR A SCENIC COAST, 

PACIFICANS FOR HIGHWAY 1 

ALTERNATIVES, and CENTER FOR 

BIOLOGICAL DIVERSITY 

JOHN C. CRUDEN 

Assistant Attorney General 

U.S. Department of Justice 

Environment & Natural Resources Division 

/s/ Sean C. Duffy 

SEAN C. DUFFY 

Natural Resources Section 

Tel: (202) 305-0445; Fax: (202) 305-0506 

Email: sean.c.duffy@usdoj.gov 

SETH M. BARSKY, Chief 

S. JAY GOVINDAN, Assistant Chief 

ALISON C. FINNEGAN, Trial Attorney 

Wildlife & Marine Resources Section 

Tel: (202) 305-0500; Fax: (202) 305-0275 

Email: alison.c.finnegan@usdoj.gov 

LESLIE M. HILL 

Environmental Defense Section 

Tel: (202) 514-0375; Fax: (202) 514-8865 

Email: leslie.hill@usdoj.gov 

Ben Franklin Station, P.O. Box 7611 

Washington, DC 20044-7611 

Attorneys for the Federal Defendants 

/s/ Derek S. Van Hoften 

JEANNE SCHERER 

DAVID GOSSAGE 

LUCILLE Y. BACA 

DEREK S. VAN HOFTEN 

STACY LAU 

Attorneys for Defendants 

CALIFORNIA DEPARTMENT OF 

TRANSPORTATION and Malcolm Dougherty 

Case 3:15-cv-02090-VC Document 47 Filed 09/04/15 Page 4 of 37
Stipulation to Dismiss Federal Highway Administration 

and U.S. Army Corps of Engineers 

5 Case No. 3:15-cv- 02090VC 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

26 

27 

[PROPOSED] ORDER

 Pursuant to stipulation, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that: 

 1. The Federal Highway Administration and the United States Army Corps of Engineers are 

not indispensable parties and are not necessary for the resolution of this matter. 

 2. The Federal Highway Administration and the United States Army Corps of Engineers are 

dismissed as defendants in this matter. 

Dated: ______________________________ 

 Hon. Vince Chhabria 

 United States District Judge 

September 4, 2015

Case 3:15-cv-02090-VC Document 47 Filed 09/04/15 Page 5 of 37
EXHIBIT A 

Case 3:15-cv-02090-VC Document 47 Filed 09/04/15 Page 6 of 37
MEMORANDUM OF UNDERSTANDING BETWEEN THE FEDERAL HIGHWAY

ADMINISTRATION AND THE CALIFORNIA DEPARTMENT OF

TRANSPORTATION CONCERNING THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA'S

PARTICIPATION IN THE

PROJECT DELIVERY PROGRAM PURSUANT TO 23 U.S.C. 327

THIS MEMORANDUM OF UNDERSTANDING (hereinafter "Project Delivery Program

MOU"), made and entered into by and between the FEDERAL HIGHWAY

ADMINISTRATION (hereinafter "FHWA"), an administration in the UNITED STATES

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION (hereinafter "USDOT"), and the CALIFORNIA

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION (hereinafter "Caltrans"), a department ofthe State

ofCalifornia, hereby provides as follows:

WITNESSETH:

Whereas, Section 6005(a) of the Safe, Accountable, Flexible, Efficient Transportation

Equity Act: A Legacy for Users (Pub. L. 109-59 [Aug. 10,2005]) (hereinafter "SAFETEALU"), codified as Section 327 of amended Chapter 3 of Title 23, United States Code (23

U.S.C. 327), established a Surface Transportation Project Delivery Pilot Program

(hereinafter "Pilot Program") that allowed the Secretary of the United States Department of

Transportation (hereinafter "USDOTSecretary"), to assign, and a limited number of States,

including California, to assume the USDOT Secretary's responsibilities under the

National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (42 U.S.C. 4321, et seq.) (hereinafter "NEPA"),

and all or part ofthe USDOT Secretary's responsibilities for environmental review,

consultation, or other actions required under any Federal environmental law with respect to

one or more highway projects within the State; and

Whereas, 23 U.S.C. 327(b) required a State to submit an application to the USDOT Secretary

in order to participate in the Pilot Program; and

Whereas, on February 12, 2007, the FHWA published a final rule in the Federal Register,

72 Fed. Reg. 6464 (codified at 23 C.F.R. Part 773), establishing the requirements relating to

the information a State isrequired to provide to the USDOT Secretary in its application to

participate in the Pilot Program; and

Whereas, on May 21, 2007, Caltrans submitted itsapplication to the FHWA for participation

in the Pilot Program; and

Whereas, the FHWA solicited the views of other appropriate Federal agencies concerning

Caltrans' application as required by 23 U.S.C. 327(b)(5); and

Whereas, the USDOT Secretary, acting by and through the FHWA, approved Caltrans'

application, finding that Caltrans met all of the requirements of 23 U.S.C. 327 and 23 C.F.R.

Part 773; and

Whereas, following FHWA's approval of Caltrans' application, on July 1,2007, FHWA and

Case 3:15-cv-02090-VC Document 47 Filed 09/04/15 Page 7 of 37
Case 3:15-cv-02090-VC Document 47 Filed 09/04/15 Page 8 of 37
Case 3:15-cv-02090-VC Document 47 Filed 09/04/15 Page 9 of 37
Case 3:15-cv-02090-VC Document 47 Filed 09/04/15 Page 10 of 37
Case 3:15-cv-02090-VC Document 47 Filed 09/04/15 Page 11 of 37
Case 3:15-cv-02090-VC Document 47 Filed 09/04/15 Page 12 of 37
Case 3:15-cv-02090-VC Document 47 Filed 09/04/15 Page 13 of 37
Case 3:15-cv-02090-VC Document 47 Filed 09/04/15 Page 14 of 37
Case 3:15-cv-02090-VC Document 47 Filed 09/04/15 Page 15 of 37
Case 3:15-cv-02090-VC Document 47 Filed 09/04/15 Page 16 of 37
Case 3:15-cv-02090-VC Document 47 Filed 09/04/15 Page 17 of 37
Case 3:15-cv-02090-VC Document 47 Filed 09/04/15 Page 18 of 37
Case 3:15-cv-02090-VC Document 47 Filed 09/04/15 Page 19 of 37
Case 3:15-cv-02090-VC Document 47 Filed 09/04/15 Page 20 of 37
Case 3:15-cv-02090-VC Document 47 Filed 09/04/15 Page 21 of 37
Case 3:15-cv-02090-VC Document 47 Filed 09/04/15 Page 22 of 37
Case 3:15-cv-02090-VC Document 47 Filed 09/04/15 Page 23 of 37
Case 3:15-cv-02090-VC Document 47 Filed 09/04/15 Page 24 of 37
Case 3:15-cv-02090-VC Document 47 Filed 09/04/15 Page 25 of 37
Case 3:15-cv-02090-VC Document 47 Filed 09/04/15 Page 26 of 37
Case 3:15-cv-02090-VC Document 47 Filed 09/04/15 Page 27 of 37
Case 3:15-cv-02090-VC Document 47 Filed 09/04/15 Page 28 of 37
Case 3:15-cv-02090-VC Document 47 Filed 09/04/15 Page 29 of 37
Case 3:15-cv-02090-VC Document 47 Filed 09/04/15 Page 30 of 37
Case 3:15-cv-02090-VC Document 47 Filed 09/04/15 Page 31 of 37
Case 3:15-cv-02090-VC Document 47 Filed 09/04/15 Page 32 of 37
Case 3:15-cv-02090-VC Document 47 Filed 09/04/15 Page 33 of 37
Case 3:15-cv-02090-VC Document 47 Filed 09/04/15 Page 34 of 37
Case 3:15-cv-02090-VC Document 47 Filed 09/04/15 Page 35 of 37
Case 3:15-cv-02090-VC Document 47 Filed 09/04/15 Page 36 of 37
Case 3:15-cv-02090-VC Document 47 Filed 09/04/15 Page 37 of 37