Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

Baykeeper v. California Redwood Co.

United States District Court, N.D. California

September 6, 2017

HUMBOLDT BAYKEEPER, a California nonprofit association, Plaintiff,
v.
CALIFORNIA REDWOOD COMPANY, a California corporation, Defendant.

          Anthony Barnes Jason Flanders AQUA TERRA AERIS LAW GROUP LLP Attorneys for Plaintiff HUMBOLDT BAYKEEPER

          [PROPOSED] CONSENT DECREE (FEDERAL WATER POLLUTION CONTROL ACT, 33 U.S.C. §1251ETSEQ.)

          HONORABLE HAYWOOD, S. GILLIAM, JR., JUDGE

         CONSENT DECREE

         The following Consent Decree is entered into by and between Plaintiff Humboldt Baykeeper and Defendant California Redwood Company. The entities entering into this Consent Decree are collectively referred to as “the Parties.”

         WHEREAS, Humboldt Baykeeper (“Baykeeper” or “Plaintiff”) is a non-profit association organized under the laws of the State of California, dedicated to the protection, enhancement, and restoration of Humboldt Bay, the Humboldt Bay Watershed and the water bodies within the Humboldt Bay Watershed.

         WHEREAS, Defendant, California Redwood Company, is a corporation duly organized and existing under the laws of the State of California (“CRC” or “Defendant”).

         WHEREAS, Defendant is the owner and operator of two (2) facilities located in Humboldt County near Eureka, California, (collectively “the Facilities”):

         (1) The CRC Chip Facility is a 16-acre site used to receive, store, and load wood chips for shipping (“Chip Facility”) located at 405 Bay Street, Fairhaven, CA 95564, with the Waste Discharge Identification (“WDID”) number of 112I023751. Industrial activities at the Chip Facility fall under Standard Industrial Classification (“SIC”) Code 2421 - Sawmills and Planing Mills, General; and

         (2) The CRC Samoa Facility is a 60-acre site primarily used to store logs, with wood chippers occasionally used onsite (“Samoa Facility”) located at #1 Jimmy Smith Drive south of the community of Samoa in Humboldt County, CA 95564, with the Waste Discharge Identification (“WDID”) number of 112I020584. Industrial activities at the Samoa Facility fall under SIC Code 2421- Sawmills and Planing Mills, General.

         WHEREAS, storm water discharges associated with industrial activity at the Facilities are regulated pursuant to the National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (“NPDES”) General Permit No. CAS000001 [State Water Resources Control Board], Water Quality Order No. 2014-57-DWQ (“Storm Water Permit”), and the Federal Water Pollution Control Act, 33 U.S.C. §§ 1251 et seq. (“Clean Water Act” or “CWA”), Sections 301(a) and 402, 33 U.S.C. §§ 1311(a), 1342.

         WHEREAS, Baykeeper contends that Defendant's operations at the Facilities result in discharges into Humboldt Bay (the “Receiving Waters”) and contends that those discharges are regulated by the Clean Water Act, Sections 301(a) and 402, 33 U.S.C. §§ 1311(a), 1342;

         WHEREAS, on September 27, 2016, Baykeeper served Defendant, the Administrator of the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (“EPA”), the Executive Director of the State Water Resources Control Board (“State Water Board”), the Executive Officer of the North Coast Regional Water Quality Control Board, (“Regional Board”), and the Regional Administrator of EPA Region IX, with a notice of intent to file suit (“60-Day Notice”) under Section 505(b)(1)(a) of the of the Clean Water Act, 33 U.S.C. § 1365(b)(1)(A), alleging violations of the Clean Water Act and the Storm Water Permit and its previous version, Water Quality Order No. 92-12-DWQ (as amended by Water Quality Order 97-03-DWQ), at the Facilities (a true and correct copy of Baykeeper's 60-Day Notice is attached as Exhibit A and incorporated herein by reference);

         WHEREAS, on December 5, 2016, Baykeeper filed a complaint against Defendant alleging Defendant is in violation of the substantive and procedural requirements of the Storm Water Permit and the Clean Water Act;

         WHEREAS, Defendant denies all allegations and claims contained in the 60-Day Notice and the Complaint and reserves all rights and defenses with respect to such allegations and claims;

         WHEREAS, the Parties have agreed that it is in their mutual interest and choose to resolve in full Baykeeper's allegations in the 60-Day Notice and Complaint through settlement and avoid the cost and uncertainties of further litigation;

         NOW THEREFORE IT IS HEREBY STIPULATED BETWEEN THE SETTLING PARTIES, AND ORDERED AND DECREED BY THE COURT, AS FOLLOWS:

         1. For the purposes of this Consent Decree, the Parties agree: 1) the Court has jurisdiction over the subject matter of this action pursuant to Section 505(a)(1)(A) of the Clean Water Act, 33 U.S.C. § 1365(a)(1)(A); 2) venue is appropriate in the Northern District Court pursuant to Section 505(c)(1) of the Clean Water Act, 33 U.S.C. § 1365(c)(1), because the Facilities at which the alleged violations took place are located within this District; 3) the Complaint states claims upon which relief may be granted against Defendant pursuant to Section 505 of the Clean Water Act, 33 U.S.C. § 1365; 4) Plaintiff has standing to bring this action; and 5) the Court shall retain jurisdiction over this matter for purposes of interpreting, modifying, or enforcing the terms of this Consent Decree for the life of the Consent Decree, or as long thereafter as is necessary for the Court to resolve any motion to enforce this Consent Decree.

         OBJECTIVES

         2. Compliance with General Permit and Clean Water Act. It is the express purpose of the Parties entering into this Consent Decree that throughout the Term of this Consent Decree, which is defined below in Paragraph 4, Defendant shall commence all measures needed to operate the Facilities in full compliance with applicable requirements of the Storm Water Permit, and the Clean Water Act, subject to any defenses available under the law. All actions taken by Defendant pursuant to this Consent Decree shall be made in compliance with all applicable Federal and State laws and local rules and regulations.

         EFFECTIVE DATE, AND TERM OF CONSENT DECREE

         3. Effective Date. The Effective Date of this Consent Decree shall mean the last day for the Federal Agencies to comment on the Consent Decree, i.e., the forty-fifth (45th) day following the Federal Agencies' receipt of the Consent Decree, or the date on which the Federal Agencies provide notice that they require no further review, whichever occurs earlier.

         4. Term. The Term of this Consent Decree shall cover four (4) complete Wet Seasons[1] following the implementation of the Best Management Practices (“BMPs”) set forth in Paragraphs 6.1 through 6.11 below, with the exception of the Treatment BMPs (see Paragraphs 6.1 and 6.2) at the Chip Facility that may require permitting, plumbing, and installation, and thus additional time to implement. Should an Action Plan be required per Paragraphs 5 and 14, below, based on sampling results from the 2019-2020, or 2020-2021 reporting years[2], the Consent Decree will terminate upon complete implementation of the measures described in the Action Plan. Should no Action Plan be required as described above, or implementation of the BMPs required in the Action Plan are complete, the Term of this Consent Decree shall run from the Effective Date until May 31, 2021.

         COMMITMENTS OF DEFENDANT

         5. BAT/BCT and Benchmark-Based Limits. If Defendant receives storm water sampling data demonstrating two or more exceedances of the same Table 1 Parameter Limit at either of the Facilities during one reporting year within the term of this Consent Decree, or fails to comply with any of the requirements of the Storm Water Permit, Defendant shall provide Baykeeper with an Action Plan for that Facility in compliance with the “Action Plan” requirements set forth below in Paragraphs 12 and 14 of this Consent Decree.

         Table 1: Limits for Storm Water Discharges

Contaminant

(All metals are total recoverable)

Limit

(all but pH in mg/L)

Source of Limit

pH

6.0-9.0 s.u.

2008 EPA Benchmark

Zinc

0.26 mg/L

2008 EPA Benchmark

Chemical Oxygen Demand

0.26 mg/L

2008 EPA Benchmark

Oil & Greaes

15 mg/L

2008 EPA Benchmark

Total Suspended Solids

100 mg/L

2008 EPA Benchmark

         6. Best Management Practices. In addition to maintaining the current BMPs at the Facilities, within ninety (90) days of the Effective Date, unless otherwise noted, Defendant shall submit permit applications necessary (if any) to implement BMP upgrades identified herein as Exhibit C, to comply with the provisions of the Consent Decree, the Storm Water Permit and the Clean Water Act. Specifically, Defendant shall develop and implement BMPs to reduce and/or prevent contamination in storm water discharges from the Facilities consistent with the use of the BAT and the BCT and in compliance with applicable water quality standards (“WQS”).

         CHIP ...


Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.