Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_07-cv-02320/USCOURTS-caed-2_07-cv-02320-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 893
Nature of Suit: Environmental Matters
Cause of Action: 42:4321 Review of Agency Action-Environment

---

J. Stip. & Prop. Ord. Regarding Pls.’ NEPA Claims, Civ. No. 07-2320-GEB-GGH

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

28

RONALD J. TENPAS 

Assistant Attorney General 

Environment & Natural Resources Division 

BRIAN C. TOTH 

Trial Attorney 

United States Department of Justice 

Environment & Natural Resources Division 

Natural Resources Section 

P.O. Box 663 

Washington, DC 20044-0663 

Telephone: (202) 305-0639 

Facsimile: (202) 305-0506 

McGREGOR W. SCOTT 

United States Attorney 

TODD A. PICKLES 

Assistant United States Attorney 

501 I Street, Suite 10-100 

Sacramento, CA 95814 

Telephone: (916) 554-2766 

Facsimile: (916) 554-2900 

Attorneys for Defendants 

MICHAEL E. WALL (Cal. Bar No. 170238) 

NATURAL RESOURCES DEFENSE COUNCIL 

111 Sutter Street, 20th Floor 

San Francisco, California 94104 

Telephone: (415) 875-6100 

Facsimile: (415) 875-6161 

E-mail: mwall@nrdc.org 

Attorneys for Plaintiffs 

[Additional Counsel on Signature Page] 

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 

ARC ECOLOGY, et al. 

 Plaintiffs, 

 v. 

UNITED STATES MARITIME 

ADMINISTRATION, et al. 

Defendants.

Case No. 2:07-cv-2320-GEB-GGH 

JOINT STIPULATION AND [PROPOSED] 

ORDER REGARDING PLAINTIFFS’ NEPA 

CLAIMS

Date: April 21, 2008 

Time: 9:00 a.m. 

Courtroom: 10 

Judge: Hon. Garland E. Burrell, Jr. 

______________________________________

Case 2:07-cv-02320-GEB-KJN Document 27 Filed 03/31/08 Page 1 of 7
J. Stip. & Prop. Ord. Regarding Pls.’ NEPA Claims, Civ. No. 07-2320-GEB-GGH 1 

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

28

JOINT STIPULATION

 The parties to the above-captioned case agree to and propose the following joint 

stipulation and proposed order:1

 WHEREAS, the First and Second Claims for Relief of Plaintiffs’ First Amended 

Complaint challenge, inter alia, Defendants’ alleged failure to prepare an environmental impact 

statement (“EIS”) and environmental assessment (“EA”), respectively, for the Comprehensive

Management Plan for the Disposal of Maritime Administration (MARAD) Non-Retention Vessels 

FY 2006, and

 WHEREAS, the Third and Fourth Claims for Relief of Plaintiffs’ First Amended 

Complaint challenge, inter alia, Defendants’ alleged failure to prepare an EIS and EA, 

respectively, on Defendants’ actions to prepare, transport, deliver, and dispose of non-retention 

vessels of the Suisun Bay Reserve Fleet (“SBRF”); and 

 WHEREAS, on February 11, 2008, Defendants filed a Motion to Stay the Litigation of 

Plaintiffs’ First, Second, Third and Fourth Claims for Relief (“Defendants’ Motion to Stay”); and

 WHEREAS, one of the bases for Defendants’ Motion to Stay is that MarAd is preparing 

an EA on the disposal of National Defense Reserve Fleet vessels, including SBRF vessels; and 

WHEREAS, Defendants represent that, depending on public comment and other factors, 

MARAD could issue a decision (if it reaches a Finding of No Significant Impact) as early as late 

summer or fall 2008. 

//

//

//

//

//

//

 

1

 This Court has already established a schedule for litigation of Plaintiffs’ Clean Water 

Act (“CWA”) and Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (“RCRA”) claims. That schedule 

would not be affected by this stipulation and proposed order. 

Case 2:07-cv-02320-GEB-KJN Document 27 Filed 03/31/08 Page 2 of 7
J. Stip. & Prop. Ord. Regarding Pls.’ NEPA Claims, Civ. No. 07-2320-GEB-GGH 2 

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

28

THEREFORE, the parties hereby STIPULATE as follows: 

 1. MarAd will not perform in-water hull cleaning or scamping of vessels to be 

disposed from the SBRF or dispose of such SBRF vessels in any way that requires in-water hull 

cleaning or scamping, until MarAd prepares either of the following regarding the SBRF, BRF, 

and JRRF:

 a. a combination of a final environmental assessment (“EA”) and finding of 

no significant impact (“FONSI”); or 

 b. a combination of a record of decision (“ROD”) following the preparation 

of a final environmental impact statement (“EIS”). 

 2. MarAd will take no action to effect movement of non-retention vessels in the 

SBRF until: 

 a. either of the two combinations of conditions in Paragraph 1 have occurred, 

or

 b. with respect to a specific ship, either an EA and a FONSI or an EIS and a 

ROD have been prepared with respect to such movement of that specific ship. 

 3. Notwithstanding Paragraph 2, above, MarAd may: 

 a. return SBRF custodial vessels to source federal agencies; 

 b. move non-retention vessels in the SBRF for study or experimental 

purposes with respect to in-water hull cleaning or scamping, provided that such 

movement and in water hull cleaning or scamping is first approved by the Administrator 

of MarAd and has received the concurrence of the United States Coast Guard, and any 

other Federal or State regulatory agency, including the San Francisco Bay Regional 

Water Quality Board, from whom such approval would be legally required; 

 c. award contracts and move non-retention vessels to a drydock in the San 

 Francisco Bay area for hull cleaning, remediation, and/or vessel recycling, provided that 

 such work is done within the drydock; 

 d. move non-retention SBRF vessels within the SBRF in connection with the 

 normal operations of the SBRF; 

Case 2:07-cv-02320-GEB-KJN Document 27 Filed 03/31/08 Page 3 of 7
J. Stip. & Prop. Ord. Regarding Pls.’ NEPA Claims, Civ. No. 07-2320-GEB-GGH 3 

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

28

 e. move non-retention SBRF vessels in the event of emergency circumstances, to 

the extent permitted by and in accordance with 40 C.F.R. § 1506.11. 

MarAd will provide Plaintiffs with thirty days advanced written notice of its intention to take any 

action under clauses (b) and (c) of this Paragraph. MarAd will provide the Plaintiffs with notice 

of actions taken under clause (a) within five business days of the date that MarAd receives such 

notice from the applicable federal agency. In the event of an emergency requiring the movement 

of non-retention SBRF vessels, MarAd will notify the Plaintiffs at the earliest practicable 

opportunity and to the extent consistent with national security. 

 4. Plaintiffs agree to stay litigation of the First, Second, Third, and Fourth Claims for 

Relief of their First Amended Complaint. 

 5. MarAd agrees to notify the Court when either of the two combinations of 

conditions in Paragraph 1 have occurred. Within 30 days of such notification, Plaintiffs shall 

either move for leave to file a supplemental or amended complaint or shall move voluntarily to 

dismiss their first, second, third, and fourth claims for relief. MarAd agrees not to oppose a 

motion for leave to file a supplemental or amended complaint to the extent the changes to the 

proposed supplemental or amended complaint are limited to NEPA claims against the newlyprepared EA and FONSI (if the conditions in Paragraph 1(a) occur), or EIS and ROD (if the 

conditions in Paragraph 1(b) occur). 

6. MarAd will promptly make available to Plaintiffs a copy of any draft EA released 

to the public and prepared in connection with the process described under Paragraph 1, above.

MarAd agrees that it will make any such draft EA available for public review and comment for a 

period of at least 45 days and that MarAd will provide notice regarding any such draft EA to the 

public in a manner consistent with 40 C.F.R. § 1506.6(b)(3). MarAd agrees that a copy of such 

draft EA will be made available through the internet. 

 7. This stipulation and proposed order do not represent an admission by any party to 

any claim or defense on the merits of any issue in this lawsuit.

 8. Nothing in this stipulation or proposed order shall be construed to deprive a 

Federal official of authority to revise, amend or promulgate regulations. 

Case 2:07-cv-02320-GEB-KJN Document 27 Filed 03/31/08 Page 4 of 7
J. Stip. & Prop. Ord. Regarding Pls.’ NEPA Claims, Civ. No. 07-2320-GEB-GGH 4 

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

28

 9. Nothing in this stipulation or proposed order shall be construed as or used for 

evidence, one way or the other, with respect to a determination that the Plaintiffs are “prevailing 

parties” within the meaning of 28 U.S.C. § 2412. 

 10. Nothing in this stipulation authorizes any act or omission in violation of law. 

 Respectfully submitted, 

For Plaintiffs: 

Dated: March 28, 2008 /s/ Michael E. Wall . MICHAEL E. WALL (Cal. Bar No. 170238) 

NATURAL RESOURCES DEFENSE COUNCIL 

111 Sutter Street, 20th Floor 

San Francisco, California 94104 

Telephone: (415) 875-6100 

Facsimile: (415) 875-6161 

E-mail: mwall@nrdc.org 

THOMAS CMAR (admitted pro hac vice)

NATURAL RESOURCES DEFENSE COUNCIL 

1200 New York Ave., NW, Suite 400 

Washington, DC 20005 

Telephone: (202) 289-2405 

Facsimile: (202) 289-1060 

E-mail: tcmar@nrdc.org 

SCOTT ALLEN (Cal. Bar No. 178925) 

ANASTASSIOU & ASSOCIATES 

242 Capitol Street 

P.O. Box 2210 

Salinas, CA 93902 

Office: (831) 754-2501 

Telephone: (831) 754-0621 

Facsimile: (831) 277-1566 

E-mail: scott.j.allen@juno.com 

DAVID A. NICHOLAS (admitted pro hac vice)

20 Whitney Road 

Newton, MA 02460 

Telephone: (617) 964-1548 

Facsimile: (617) 663-6233 

E-mail: dnicholas@verizon.net 

Attorneys for Plaintiffs Arc Ecology, San Francisco

Baykeeper, and Natural Resources Defense Council, Inc. 

//

//

//

Case 2:07-cv-02320-GEB-KJN Document 27 Filed 03/31/08 Page 5 of 7
J. Stip. & Prop. Ord. Regarding Pls.’ NEPA Claims, Civ. No. 07-2320-GEB-GGH 5 

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

28

For Defendants: McGREGOR W. SCOTT 

United States Attorney 

TODD A. PICKLES 

Assistant United States Attorney 

501 I Street, Suite 10-100 

Sacramento, CA 95814 

Telephone: (916) 554-2702 

Facsimile: (916) 554-2900 

RONALD J. TENPAS 

Assistant Attorney General 

Environment & Natural Resources Division 

PAMELA TONGLAO 

LESLIE HILL 

Trial Attorneys 

United States Department of Justice 

Environment & Natural Resources Division 

Environmental Defense Section 

P.O. Box 23986 

Washington, DC 20026-3986 

Telephone: (202) 305-0897 / 514-0375 

Facsimile: (202) 514-8865 

Dated: March 28, 2008 ______/s/ Brian C. Toth (as authorized on March 28, 2008). BRIAN C. TOTH 

Trial Attorney 

United States Department of Justice 

Environment & Natural Resources Division 

Natural Resources Section 

P.O. Box 663 

Washington, DC 20044-0663 

Telephone: (202) 305-0639 

Facsimile: (202) 305-0506 

Of Counsel:

Jay Gordon 

Lane Nemirow 

Attorneys

United States Maritime Administration 

Office of the Chief Counsel 

Washington, D.C.

Case 2:07-cv-02320-GEB-KJN Document 27 Filed 03/31/08 Page 6 of 7
J. Stip. & Prop. Ord. Regarding Pls.’ NEPA Claims, Civ. No. 07-2320-GEB-GGH 6 

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

28

[PROPOSED] ORDER

The foregoing stipulation by the parties is hereby approved and entered as an ORDER of 

the Court. Defendants’ motion for a stay (Doc. #21) is denied as moot. It is so ORDERED. 

Date: March 28, 2008_________________ __________________________________ 

Case 2:07-cv-02320-GEB-KJN Document 27 Filed 03/31/08 Page 7 of 7