ORDER FOR DISMISSAL

WILLIAM ALSUP, District Judge.

This Stipulation is entered into by and among Plaintiffs Bess Bair, Trisha Lee Lotus, Bruce Edwards, Jeffrey Hedin, David Spreen, Californians for Alternatives to Toxics, Center for Biological Diversity, and Environmental Protection Information Center (collectively "Plaintiffs"), on the one hand, and Defendants California Department of Transportation and Malcolm Dougherty ("Caltrans"), on the other hand (collectively, the "Parties"), by and through their respective attorneys of record.

IT IS STIPULATED BY ALL PARTIES HERETO, THROUGH

THEIR RESPECTIVE COUNSEL, AS FOLLOWS:

1. On May 18, 2010, Caltrans issued a Final Environmental Assessment ("Final EA") and adopted a Finding of No Significant Impact ("FONSI") for and approved the Richardson Grove Operational Improvement Project (the "Project"). Effective July 1, 2007, the Federal Highway Administration ("FHWA") assigned, and Caltrans assumed, environmental responsibility for the Project pursuant to 23 U.S.C. 327.

2. On September 27, 2010, some of the Plaintiffs filed an action against Caltrans in Bair v. California State Department of Transportation, Case No. 3:10-CV-04360-WHA ("Bair I"), challenging Caltrans' May 18, 2010 Final EA, FONSI, and Project approvals.

3. On December 19, 2011, the FHWA, on behalf of Caltrans, published a "Notice of Final Federal Agency Actions on Proposed Highway in California," Federal Register/Vol. 76, No. 243, stating that there was a time period of 180 days in which claims relating to the Final EA, the FONSI, and other approvals could be brought.

4. On April 4, 2012, the Court in Bair I granted Plaintiffs' Motion for Summary Judgment in part and remanded the action to Caltrans to "prepare a revised EA and record in accordance with the instructions [in the Court's Order]." Bair v. California State Dept. of Transp., 867 F.Supp.2d 1058 (N.D.Cal. 2012).

5. On September 18, 2013, Caltrans issued a Supplement to the Final EA ("Supplement"). Caltrans took public comment on the Supplement from September 21, 2013 to October 21, 2013. On January 23, 2014, Caltrans published responses to public comments concerning the Supplement.

6. On January 24, 2014, Caltrans issued a NEPA/CEQA Re-validation/Re-Evaluation (the "Re-Validation"), finding that, upon consideration of the Supplement, the original May 18, 2010 FONSI remained valid.

7. On January 30, 2014, the California Court of Appeal reversed the Superior Court's decision in the related State Court case, Lotus v. State of California Department of Transportation, granting Plaintiffs' petition for writ of mandate.

8. On February 26, 2014, following Caltrans' decision that the FONSI remained valid, the FHWA, on behalf of Caltrans, published a "Notice of Statute of Limitations on Claims; Notice of Final Federal Agency Actions on Proposed Highway in California," Federal Register/Vol. 79, No. 38, providing a time period of 150 days in which claims relating to actions described in the Final EA, FONSI, Re-Validation, and other FHWA project records could be brought.

9. On June 26, 2014, Caltrans rescinded its approval of the Project and posted public notice of the rescission with the California State Clearinghouse. Caltrans rescinded its FONSI and submitted formal notice of rescission for publication in the Federal Register later in November 2014.

10. On July 28, 2014, Plaintiffs filed the subject action against Caltrans in Bair v. California Department of Transportation, Case No. 3:14-cv-03422-WHA ("Bair II") (Dkt. #1).

11. On October 8, 2014, Plaintiffs filed their First Amended Complaint (Dkt. #21).

12. On October 21, 2014, in the state Lotus v. California State Dept. of Transportation action, Humboldt County Superior Court Case No. CV 110002, the California Superior Court entered a Judgment and a Writ ordering Caltrans to set aside Project approval and certification of the state Environmental Impact Report, and enjoining all Project-related activities that could result in change or alteration of the physical environment until Caltrans performs additional environmental analysis.

13. On November 17, 2014, Caltrans formally withdrew the existing FONSI and published notice of the withdrawal with the State Clearinghouse.

14. On November 19, 2014, Caltrans also submitted its formal rescission of the FONSI to FHWA for posting in the Federal Register.

15. On November 26, 2014, the FHWA, on behalf of Caltrans, published a "Notice of Rescission of Finding of No Significant Impact," Federal Register/Vol. 79, No. 228, stating: "it has rescinded the Finding of No Significant Impact (FONSI), which was issued on May 18, 2010, and published on December 19, 2011 in the Federal Register (Federal Register/Vol. 76, No. 243/Monday, December 19, 2011/Notices, [48940]) for a proposed highway project on U.S. Route 101 in Humboldt County. The FONSI was also revalidated on January 24, 2014 in the Federal Register (Federal Register/Vol.79, No. 38/Wednesday, February 26, 2014/Notices [108701]." It further stated that "additional environmental analysis on the project" was required and "[a] new NEPA finding and any other necessary Federal environmental determinations will be issued consistent with this additional analysis."

16. As the Project now stands, there is no Project approval, no certified CEQA document, and no federal NEPA finding, determination, or action. Additional environmental analysis, which may affect the federal document or other environmental determinations or actions, is being undertaken. Caltrans has furthermore represented that it has not taken any "action" that "may affect" an Endangered Species Act listed species or habitat. A California Superior Court injunction prohibits all Project activity that could change or alter the physical environment until the legally-required environmental review is completed. See Lotus v. Dept. of Transportation, 223 Cal.App.4th 645 (2014).

17. Without further environmental review, including, without limitation, a final NEPA determination, and Project approval, the Project cannot proceed.

18. On November 19, 2014, Caltrans filed a Motion to Dismiss Plaintiffs' First Amended Complaint.

19. Given these facts and actions by Caltrans and FHWA, there is no final agency action subject to judicial review, and no claims have yet accrued for statute of limitations purposes, and thus are not ripe for adjudication, concerning the review by Caltrans of the environmental effects and/or impacts of the Project. Plaintiffs shall be able to file another legal challenge after the final federal environmental determinations are made, and the Project is approved, as a final agency action or determination would then have taken place and would properly be at issue. Claims may include, but not be limited to:

20. As a result, the Parties hereby stipulate that this Bair II action may be dismissed without prejudice to the filing of a new action if and when new federal environmental determinations are made and the Project is approved.

21. By this Stipulation, no party hereto waives any claim or defense, and can assert any and all claims or defenses in any subsequent legal challenge.

22. Counsel for Caltrans is authorized to electronically sign and file this stipulation on behalf of the Parties.

ORDER

Based on the foregoing Stipulation and good cause appearing therefor, this case is hereby dismissed without prejudice.

IT IS SO ORDERED.