This is the property of the Daily Journal Corporation and fully protected by copyright. It is made available only to Daily Journal subscribers for personal or collaborative purposes and may not be distributed, reproduced, modified, stored or transferred without written permission. Please click "Reprint" to order presentation-ready copies to distribute to clients or use in commercial marketing materials or for permission to post on a website. and copyright (showing year of publication) at the bottom.


Environmental Law
National Environmental Policy Act
Bus Stops, Trail Improvements

Mount Tam Task Force v. United States Dept. of the Interior, Sally Jewell, Frank Dean, Brian Aviles, Darren Brown, Nancy Hornor, National Park Service

Published: Nov. 15, 2014 | Result Date: Oct. 23, 2014 | Filing Date: Jan. 1, 1900 |

Case number: 3:14cv3476 Settlement –  Equitable Agreement

Court

USDC Northern


Attorneys

Plaintiff

Corinne Quigley

Christopher J. Carr
(Baker Botts LLP)

Navtej S. Dhillon
(Paul Hastings LLP)


Defendant

Michael T. Pyle
(Office of the U.S. Attorney)


Facts

On Oct. 14. 2011, the National Park Service approved a categorical exclusion under the National Environmental Policy Act for a project entitled "Muir Beach Bus Stop and Trial Improvements," which involved construction of bus stops and trail improvements near Muir Beach. On July 31, Mount Tam Task Force, a nonprofit organization, filed suit against the U.S. Dept. of the Interior, the National Park Service and several officials, seeking injunctive and declaratory relief and claimed the defendants violated NEPA in approving the categorical exclusion for the project.

Contentions

PLAINTIFF'S CONTENTIONS:
In its complaint, plaintiff alleged that defendants' alleged reliance on the categorical exclusion under NEPA amount to a failure to comply with NEPA's requirements for environmental review of federal agency actions. Plaintiff claimed that the Park Service did not create a record that supported its findings that the project should be categorically excluded. In addition, the project was in a highly sensitive area containing endangered species and protected aquatic ecosystems.

DEFENDANT'S CONTENTIONS:
Defendant declined to admit wrongdoing.

Result

According to a stipulation to dismiss the action, on Aug. 27, 2014, defendant withdrew approval of the exclusion for the project and then canceled the project without intent to reinitiate it. In addition, if defendant does reinitiate the project or a substantially similar project, they agreed to review it under National Environmental Policy Act and to prepare an environmental assessment prior to reinitiating, as well as inform plaintiff.


#86213

For reprint rights or to order a copy of your photo:

Email jeremy@reprintpros.com for prices.
Direct dial: 949-702-5390