Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_07-cv-00593/USCOURTS-caed-2_07-cv-00593-3/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 893
Nature of Suit: Environmental Matters
Cause of Action: 33:1319 Pollutants &amp; Permit Violations

---

Stipulation to Dismiss with Prejudice; Order 1 CASE NO. 2:07-cv-00593-FCD-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

Daniel Cooper (State Bar. No. 153576) 

Layne Friedrich (State Bar No. 195431) 

Michael J. Chappell (State Bar No. 238138) 

LAWYERS FOR CLEAN WATER, INC. 

1004 A O’Reilly Avenue 

San Francisco, California 94129 

Telephone: (415) 440-6520 

Facsimile: (415) 440-4155 

Email: cleanwater@sfo.com 

Andrew L. Packard (State Bar No. 168690) 

Michael P. Lynes (State Bar No. 230462) 

LAW OFFICES OF ANDREW L. PACKARD 

319 Pleasant Street 

Petaluma, California 94952 

Telephone: (707) 763-7227 

Facsimile: (707) 763-9227 

Email: Andrew@Packardlawoffices.com 

Counsel for Plaintiff 

KLAMATH RIVERKEEPER 

UNITED STATED DISTRICT COURT 

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 

KLAMATH RIVERKEEPER, a project of the 

Klamath Forest Alliance, a non-profit public 

benefit corporation organized under the laws 

of the State of California, 

 Plaintiff, 

 vs. 

L. RYAN BRODDRICK, in his official 

capacity as DIRECTOR of CALIFORNIA 

DEPARTMENT OF FISH AND GAME, a 

state agency; and PACIFICORP, INC.; 

 Defendants. 

Case No. 2:07-cv-00593-FCD-GGH 

STIPULATION TO DISMISS 

PLAINTIFF’S CLAIMS WITH 

PREJUDICE; ORDER GRANTING 

DISMISSAL WITH PREJUDICE [FRCP 

41(a)(1)(A)(ii)]. 

Case 2:07-cv-00593-FCD-GGH Document 19 Filed 01/25/08 Page 1 of 21
Stipulation to Dismiss with Prejudice; Order 2 CASE NO. 2:07-cv-00593-FCD-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

Plaintiff Klamath Riverkeeper (“Plaintiff”) and Defendants L. Ryan Broddrick,1 in his official 

capacity as Director of the California Department of Fish and Game (“Director”), and PacifiCorp, Inc., 

(collectively “Defendants”) (Plaintiff and Defendants are hereinafter collectively referred to as the 

“Parties”) by and through their attorneys of record, hereby enter into this stipulation to dismiss with 

prejudice all of Plaintiff’s claims and request to have the District Court retain jurisdiction for the sole 

purpose of enforcing the terms of the Settlement Agreement, incorporated herein and attached as Exhibit 

A to this stipulation and [proposed] Order, as specified below. 

WHEREAS, on January 17, 2007, and March 20, 2007, Plaintiff provided Defendants with 

Notices of Violations and Intent to File Suit (“Notices”) under Clean Water Act Section 505, 33 U.S.C. 

§1365 for alleged violation of Order No. R1-2000-17, NPDES No. CA0006688, I.D. No. 1A800520SIS, 

and associated Monitoring and Reporting Program, for the Iron Gate Salmon and Steelhead Hatchery 

located in Siskiyou County; 

WHEREAS, on March 27, 2007, Plaintiff filed its Complaint against Defendants in this District 

Court, Klamath Riverkeeper v. L. Ryan Broddrick, et al., Civil Case No. 2:07-cv-00593-FCD-GGH, and 

filed a Second Amended Complaint on July 20, 2007. The Second Amended Complaint contains all of 

the allegations contained in Plaintiff’s Notices; 

WHEREAS, Plaintiff and Defendants, through their authorized representatives and without 

either adjudication of Plaintiff’s claims or admission by Defendants of any alleged violation or other 

wrongdoing, have chosen to resolve in full by way of settlement Plaintiff’s allegations as set forth in the 

Notices and Second Amended Complaint, thereby avoiding the costs and uncertainties of further 

litigation. A copy of the Settlement Agreement and Mutual Release of Claims (“Settlement 

Agreement”) entered into by and between Plaintiff and Defendants is attached hereto as Exhibit A and 

incorporated by reference; 

WHEREAS, this District Court has jurisdiction over the subject matter of the claims asserted by 

Plaintiff pursuant to the Clean Water Act Section 505(a), 33 U.S.C. § 1365(a), and 28 U.S.C. §§ 1331, 

 

1

 John McCamman is presently acting Director of the California Department of Fish and Game.

Case 2:07-cv-00593-FCD-GGH Document 19 Filed 01/25/08 Page 2 of 21
Stipulation to Dismiss with Prejudice; Order 3 CASE NO. 2:07-cv-00593-FCD-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

2201 and 2202; however, the Parties disagree regarding the scope and application of the protections of 

the Eleventh Amendment to the United States Constitution to this action, and the Parties retain and do 

not waive any arguments they may have in this regard. To further settlement, and in the context of 

settlement only, the Parties agree that the District Court shall have jurisdiction to order prospective 

injunctive relief against the Director to comply with the settlement agreement if the Court finds that the 

Director has breached the settlement agreement, but the District Court shall not have jurisdiction to 

enforce paragraph 11 of the Settlement Agreement against the Director and shall not 

have jurisdiction over any claims against the Director for money damages. Venue is proper in this 

judicial district pursuant to Clean Water Act Sections §§ 309(b), 505(c), 33 U.S.C. §§ 1319(b), 1365(c), 

and 28 U.S.C. §§ 1391(b) and (c); 

WHEREAS, Defendant PacifiCorp waives any and all objections that it may have to the District 

Court retaining jurisdiction for the sole purpose of enforcing the terms of the Settlement Agreement. 

WHEREAS, Defendant Director waives any and all objections that he may have to the District 

Court retaining jurisdiction for the sole purpose of enforcing the terms of the Settlement Agreement, 

except the District Court does not retain jurisdiction to enforce Paragraph 11 of the Settlement 

Agreement against the Director, and the District Court does not have jurisdiction over any claims against 

the Director for money damages or to order any retroactive injunctive relief; and 

WHEREAS, Plaintiff submitted the Settlement Agreement via certified mail, return receipt 

requested, to the U.S. EPA and the U.S. Department of Justice, and the forty-five (45) day review period 

set forth at 40 C.F.R. § 135.5 has expired. 

NOW THEREFORE, IT IS HEREBY STIPULATED and agreed to by and between the Parties 

that Plaintiff’s claims, as set forth in the Notices and Second Amended Complaint, be dismissed with 

prejudice. The Parties respectfully request an order from this District Court dismissing such claims with 

prejudice. The Parties also request that this District Court maintain jurisdiction over the Parties for the 

sole purpose of resolving any disputes between the Parties with respect to enforcement of any provision 

of the Settlement Agreement. The Parties disagree regarding the scope and application of the 

protections of the Eleventh Amendment to the United States Constitution to this action, and 

the Parties retain and do not waive any arguments they may have in this regard. To further settlement, 

Case 2:07-cv-00593-FCD-GGH Document 19 Filed 01/25/08 Page 3 of 21
Stipulation to Dismiss with Prejudice; Order 4 CASE NO. 2:07-cv-00593-FCD-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

and in the context of settlement only, the Parties agree that the District Court shall have jurisdiction to 

order prospective injunctive relief against the Director to comply with the settlement agreement if the 

Court finds that the Director has breached the settlement agreement, but the District Court shall not have 

jurisdiction to enforce paragraph 11 of the Settlement Agreement against the Director and shall not 

have jurisdiction over any claims against the Director for money damages. 

 Dated: 21 January 2008 LAWYERS FOR CLEAN WATER, INC. 

 

 /s/ Daniel Cooper 

_____________________________ 

Daniel Cooper 

Attorneys for Plaintiff 

KLAMATH RIVERKEEPER 

 Dated: CALIFORNIA ATTORNEY GENERAL 

 

 /s/ Daniel M. Fuchs 

__________________________ 

Tracy L. Winsor 

Daniel M. Fuchs 

Deputy Attorney Generals 

Attorneys for Defendant L. RYAN 

BRODDRICK, in his official capacity as 

DIRECTOR for the CALIFORNIA 

DEPARTMENT OF FISH & GAME 

 Dated: January 18, 2008 DOWNEY BRAND LLP 

 /s/ Nicole E. Granquist 

_________________________ 

Nicole E. Granquist 

Attorney for Defendant 

PACIFICORP, INC. 

/// 

/// 

/// 

/// 

Case 2:07-cv-00593-FCD-GGH Document 19 Filed 01/25/08 Page 4 of 21
Stipulation to Dismiss with Prejudice; Order 5 CASE NO. 2:07-cv-00593-FCD-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

ORDER

Good cause appearing, and the parties having stipulated and agreed, 

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Plaintiff Klamath Riverkeeper’s claims against Defendants L. 

Ryan Broddrick, in his official capacity as Director of the California Department of Fish and Game, and 

PacifiCorp, Inc., as set forth in the Notices and Second Amended Complaint filed in Civil Case No. 

2:07-cv-00593-FCD-GGH, are hereby dismissed with prejudice. 

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the District Court shall retain jurisdiction over the Parties for 

the sole purpose of enforcing compliance by the parties of the terms of the Settlement Agreement, 

attached to the parties’ Stipulation to Dismiss With Prejudice as Exhibit A, except the District Court 

does not retain jurisdiction to enforce Paragraph 11 of the Settlement Agreement against the Director, 

does not have jurisdiction over any claims against the Director for money damages, and can order 

prospective injunctive relief against the Director to comply with the settlement agreement if the Court 

finds that the Director has breached the settlement agreement. 

IT IS SO ORDERED 

DATED: January 24, 2008 

Case 2:07-cv-00593-FCD-GGH Document 19 Filed 01/25/08 Page 5 of 21
Stipulation to Dismiss with Prejudice; Order 6 CASE NO. 2:07-cv-00593-FCD-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

EXHIBIT A 

SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT AND MUTUAL RELEASE OF CLAIMS 

I. RECITALS 

WHEREAS, Klamath Riverkeeper is a project of the Klamath Forest Alliance, a non-profit 

public benefit corporation organized under the laws of the State of California, and maintains its main 

office in Orleans, California and a mailing address of P.O. Box 21, Orleans, California 95556. Klamath 

Riverkeeper has approximately forty members who live and/or recreate in and around the Klamath 

River. Klamath Riverkeeper’s mission is to preserve, protect, and defend the environment, wildlife and 

natural resources of the Klamath River. To further these goals, Klamath Riverkeeper actively seeks 

Federal and State agency implementation of the Federal Water Pollution Control Act, 33 U.S.C. 1251 et 

seq. (“Clean Water Act”), and, where necessary, directly initiates enforcement actions on behalf of itself 

and its members; 

WHEREAS, John McCamman is now acting Director of the California Department of Fish and 

Game (“Director”), a state agency organized under the laws of the State of California. The California 

Department of Fish and Game operates the Iron Gate Salmon and Steelhead Hatchery (“the Iron Gate 

Hatchery”) located at 8636 Lakeview Road in Hornbrook, California; 

WHEREAS, PacifiCorp, Inc. is a corporation organized under the laws of the State of Oregon. 

PacifiCorp, Inc. owns the Iron Gate Hatchery and funds approximately 80% of the Iron Gate Hatchery’s 

operation and maintenance; 

WHEREAS, on January 17, 2007, Klamath Riverkeeper provided written notice to L. Ryan 

Broddrick, then Director of the California Department of Fish and Game, and PacifiCorp, Inc. 

(“Defendants”) of alleged violations of the Clean Water Act and of Klamath Riverkeeper’s intention to 

file suit for such alleged violations (“First Notice Letter”). The First Notice Letter alleges, among other 

things, violations of the Effluent Limits, as well as the Monitoring and Reporting Program requirements, 

of Order No. R1-2000-17, NPDES No. CA0006688, I.D. No. 1A800520SIS, “Waste Discharge 

Requirements General Order for State of California Department of Fish & Game and Pacificorp Iron 

Gate Hatchery” (“Order No. R1-2000-17”). Klamath Riverkeeper’s Second Amended Complaint 

Case 2:07-cv-00593-FCD-GGH Document 19 Filed 01/25/08 Page 6 of 21
Stipulation to Dismiss with Prejudice; Order 7 CASE NO. 2:07-cv-00593-FCD-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

alleges that the First Notice Letter was also provided to the Administrator of the United States 

Environmental Protection Agency (“EPA”), the Regional Administrator of EPA Region IX, the 

Executive Director of the California State Water Resources Control Board (“State Board”), the 

Executive Officer of the Regional Water Quality Control Board, North Coast Region (“Regional 

Board”), and the U.S. Department of Justice (“DOJ”) as required by the Clean Water Act, 33 U.S.C. § 

1365(b)(1)(A); 

WHEREAS, on or about March 20, 2007, Klamath Riverkeeper provided a second written notice 

to Defendants of additional alleged violations of the Clean Water Act and Order No. R1-2000-17, and of 

Klamath Riverkeeper’s intention to file suit for such violations (“Second Notice Letter”). The Second 

Notice Letter alleges, among other things, that Defendants discharge effluent containing detectable 

levels of chemicals used for the treatment and control of disease and discharge waste resulting from 

cleaning activities at the Iron Gate Hatchery to the Klamath River in violation of Discharge Prohibitions 

A(2) and A(3) of the Permit. Klamath Riverkeeper’s Second Amended Complaint alleges that the 

Second Notice was also provided to the Administrator of the EPA, the Regional Administrator of EPA 

Region IX, the Executive Director of the State Board, the Executive Officer of the Regional Board, and 

the DOJ as required by the Clean Water Act, 33 U.S.C. § 1365(b)(1)(A); 

WHEREAS, on March 27, 2007, after more than the requisite sixty (60) days had passed since 

the First Notice Letter was issued to Defendants and pursuant to the Act, Klamath Riverkeeper initiated 

this action and filed a complaint to allege the claims and alleged violations set forth in the First Notice 

Letter; 

WHEREAS, on July 20, 2007, Klamath Riverkeeper filed a Second Amended Complaint 

alleging the claims and alleged violations set forth in the First and Second Notice Letters; and 

 WHEREAS, Klamath Riverkeeper and the Defendants (collectively referred to herein as the 

“Parties” and individually as a “party”), through their authorized representatives and without either 

adjudication of the Second Amended Complaint’s claims or admission by Defendants of any alleged 

violation or other wrongdoing, have chosen to resolve this action by entering into this Settlement 

Agreement and Mutual Release of Claims (“Settlement Agreement” or “Agreement”), and avoid the 

costs and uncertainties of further litigation. 

Case 2:07-cv-00593-FCD-GGH Document 19 Filed 01/25/08 Page 7 of 21
Stipulation to Dismiss with Prejudice; Order 8 CASE NO. 2:07-cv-00593-FCD-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

 NOW THEREFORE, THE PARTIES AGREE AS FOLLOWS: 

II. COMMITMENTS 

1. The Parties agree that this Settlement Agreement and all activities undertaken pursuant to 

this Settlement Agreement shall be implemented in compliance with all applicable state laws, 

regulations, orders and permits. 

A. Compliance with Order No. R1-2000-17 or any Renewed NPDES Permit for the Iron Gate 

Hatchery

2. For the term of this Settlement Agreement, Defendants agree to comply with all terms and 

conditions of Order No. R1-2000-17 until or unless a renewed NPDES permit for the Iron Gate 

Hatchery is adopted, at which point Defendants agree to comply with the terms of the renewed NPDES 

Permit for the Iron Gate Hatchery. 

B. Implementation of Monitoring and Reporting Program and Chemical Use Management 

Plan

3. Monitoring and Reporting Program. Within sixty (60) calendar days of the Effective Date of 

this Settlement Agreement, Defendants agree to implement the proposed Monitoring and Reporting 

Program (“MRP”) that was submitted to the Regional Board on September 14, 2007, until a final MRP 

is issued by the Regional Board, at which point the final MRP will be implemented by Defendants. 

4. Quarterly Monitoring Summary Report. For the term of this Settlement Agreement, the 

California Department of Fish and Game will submit a Quarterly Monitoring Summary Report to 

Klamath Riverkeeper summarizing the sampling results for Discharge 006 from the prior quarter for 

chemicals (other than NaCl) used for treatment and control of disease. The Quarterly Monitoring 

Summary Report shall be due by February 28, May 30, August 31, and November 30 of each year this 

Settlement Agreement is in effect, and shall include copies of the lab reports that provide the basis for 

the sampling results. The issuance of a renewed NPDES Permit for the Iron Gate Hatchery by the 

Regional Board during the term of this Settlement Agreement shall not affect the Defendants’ obligation 

to submit Quarterly Monitoring Summary Reports. 

5. Chemical Use Management Plan. Within ninety (90) calendar days of submitting any 

Quarterly Monitoring Summary Report to Klamath Riverkeeper that contains sampling results indicating 

Case 2:07-cv-00593-FCD-GGH Document 19 Filed 01/25/08 Page 8 of 21
Stipulation to Dismiss with Prejudice; Order 9 CASE NO. 2:07-cv-00593-FCD-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

detectable levels of chemicals (other than NaCl) used for the treatment and control of disease from 

Discharge 006, Defendants shall submit to Klamath Riverkeeper a Chemical Use Management Plan that 

shall specify additional measures to be taken at the Iron Gate Hatchery designed to achieve compliance 

with Prohibition A.2. of Order No. R1-2000-17, any subsequent change to Prohibition A.2. of Order No. 

R1-2000-17, or limitation on the discharge of chemicals used for treatment and control of disease in any 

renewed NPDES Permit for the Iron Gate Hatchery issued by the Regional Board. The issuance of a 

renewed NPDES Permit for the Iron Gate Hatchery by the Regional Board during the term of this 

Settlement Agreement shall not affect the Defendants’ obligation to submit Chemical Use Management 

Plans pursuant to this section. 

6. Contents of Management Action Plan. Each Chemical Use Management Plan shall set forth: 

a. A description of the sampling results; 

b. The possible sources of detectable levels of chemicals used for the treatment and 

control of disease; 

c. Evaluation of potential operational modifications at the Iron Gate Hatchery to reduce 

the levels of chemicals used for the treatment and control of disease; 

d. A reasonable schedule to implement recommended operational modifications, if any; 

and 

e. If Defendants recommend a “No Action” alternative, their reasons for so 

recommending. 

In analyzing operational modifications at the Iron Gate Hatchery to reduce levels of chemicals used for 

treatment and control of disease (the “Modifications”), the Chemical Use Management Plan may 

consider the expected chemical reduction benefits of the Modifications, the costs of the recommended 

Modifications, the public agency approvals and permits needed to implement the Modifications, the time 

reasonably needed to implement the Modifications, the anticipated implementation date for the 

Modifications, and the anticipated water quality benefit(s) of the Modifications. 

7. Modifications to be considered as a part of a Chemical Use Management Plan may include, 

but are not limited to, the following: 

Case 2:07-cv-00593-FCD-GGH Document 19 Filed 01/25/08 Page 9 of 21
Stipulation to Dismiss with Prejudice; Order 10 CASE NO. 2:07-cv-00593-FCD-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

a. Egg Treatment Intervals: alternative egg treatment intervals and frequency to 

minimize overall or peak chemical concentration. This may require phased 

implementation and study to ensure that fish production levels are not detrimentally 

affected. 

b. Chemical Use Reduction: reduction of chemical use, if feasible. This may require 

phased implementation and study to ensure that fish production levels are not 

detrimentally affected. 

c. Fish Production: reduction of fish production to reduce overall chemical use. Any 

reduction proposed shall be consistent with the mitigation measures required by the 

Iron Gate Dam’s operating license issued by the Federal Energy Regulatory 

Commission. 

Within thirty (30) calendar days of receiving a Chemical Use Management Plan from Defendants, 

Klamath Riverkeeper may propose revisions to the Chemical Use Management Plan and explain in 

writing the basis for each such revision. Within forty-five (45) calendar days of receiving Klamath 

Riverkeeper’s proposed revisions to a Chemical Use Management Plan, Defendants shall accept each 

such proposed revision, accept a modified version of the proposed revision, or reject the proposed 

revision and explain in writing why they are rejecting or modifying any such proposed revision. 

8. Dispute Resolution Regarding Modifications. After exchange of documents described in 

Paragraph 7 above, any party may seek dispute resolution in accordance with Paragraphs 19-23 below if 

the Parties remain in dispute over any Modification recommended in any Chemical Use Management 

Plan. The Chemical Use Management Plan will be deemed compliant with this Settlement Agreement 

unless Klamath Riverkeeper invokes dispute resolution. 

9. Implementation of Chemical Use Management Plan. After the Parties reach agreement as to 

the Modifications, or after dispute resolution resolves any dispute concerning such Modifications, 

Defendants shall immediately implement the agreed Chemical Use Management Plan. 

10. Amendment of Best Management Practices/Hatchery Management Plan. Within thirty (30) 

calendar days after the Parties reach agreement or dispute resolution proceedings conclude on the 

Modifications, Defendants shall amend the Iron Gate Hatchery’s Best Management Practices to include 

Case 2:07-cv-00593-FCD-GGH Document 19 Filed 01/25/08 Page 10 of 21
Stipulation to Dismiss with Prejudice; Order 11 CASE NO. 2:07-cv-00593-FCD-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

all agreed Modifications and shall request that the Regional Board change the Hatchery Management 

Plan for the Iron Gate Hatchery to include all agreed Modifications not otherwise implemented and 

included in the Best Management Practices and Hatchery Management Plan. Within thirty (30) calendar 

days thereafter, Defendants shall provide Klamath Riverkeeper with a copy of such revised Best 

Management Practices and request to the Regional Board to change the Hatchery Management Plan. 

C. Supplemental Environmental Project

11. Supplemental Environmental Project. As mitigation of the violations alleged in Klamath 

Riverkeeper’s Second Amended Complaint, PacifiCorp shall tender payment to the U.S. Fish & Wildlife 

Service the sum of seventy thousand dollars ($70,000) within ten (10) calendar days of the expiration of 

the DOJ and EPA’s 45-day review period as provided in Paragraph 15 of this Settlement Agreement. 

The funds shall be used by the U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service staff to fund the fish parasite study 

described in Attachment A. 

D. Miscellaneous Commitments

12. Document Provision. During the term of this Settlement Agreement, Defendants shall 

provide Klamath Riverkeeper with a copy of all documents submitted to the Regional Board pertaining 

to compliance with Order R1-2000-17 or the renewed NPDES Permit, and any change in ownership of 

the Iron Gate Hatchery. Such documents shall be transmitted to Klamath Riverkeeper via U.S. or 

electronic mail at the time the documents are submitted to the Regional Board. 

13. Site Inspections. For the term of this Settlement Agreement, Klamath Riverkeeper, its legal 

counsel and/or other Klamath Riverkeeper representatives, may conduct a total of two site inspections at 

the Iron Gate Hatchery (“Site Inspections”). Klamath Riverkeeper shall provide Defendants with seven 

(7) calendar days notice prior to each Site Inspection. During the Site Inspection, Klamath Riverkeeper 

or its representatives may collect samples of discharges from the Iron Gate Hatchery provided the 

following sampling protocols are met: 

a. Sampling locations. Klamath Riverkeeper may collect samples at Discharge 001 

(the main trap just outside the spawning facility), 004, 005, and 006. 

b. Split samples. Klamath Riverkeeper agrees to provide split samples. 

Case 2:07-cv-00593-FCD-GGH Document 19 Filed 01/25/08 Page 11 of 21
Stipulation to Dismiss with Prejudice; Order 12 CASE NO. 2:07-cv-00593-FCD-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

c. Chemical constituents analyzed. Klamath Riverkeeper agrees to orally list the 

chemical constituents or parameters Klamath Riverkeeper intends to analyze its samples for at the 

commencement of the Site Inspection. 

d. Plaintiff’s representatives in attendance. Klamath Riverkeeper agrees to provide 

Defendants with a list of expected attendees at the Site Inspection three business days prior to the date of 

the Site Inspection, and the designation of who will perform any sampling. 

 e. Certified Laboratory. Klamath Riverkeeper shall have the collected samples 

analyzed at a certified California laboratory. 

14. Stipulation to Dismiss with Prejudice. Within two (2) business days of the Effective Date of 

this Settlement Agreement, Klamath Riverkeeper will submit this Settlement Agreement to the District 

Court along with a Stipulation and [Proposed] Order in the form preceding this Settlement Agreement. 

15. Review by Federal Agencies. Within two (2) business days of the Effective Date of this 

Settlement Agreement, Klamath Riverkeeper shall submit this Settlement Agreement to EPA and the 

DOJ for review consistent with 40 C.F.R. § 135.5. The review period expires forty-five (45) days after 

receipt by both agencies, as evidenced by the certified return receipts, copies of which shall be provided 

by Klamath Riverkeeper to Defendants. In the event that EPA or DOJ comments negatively on the 

provisions of this Settlement Agreement, the Parties agree to meet and confer to attempt to resolve the 

issue(s) raised by EPA or DOJ. 

III. FEES, COSTS AND EXPENSES

16. Fees Incurred as of the Effective Date of this Agreement. To help defray Plaintiff’s 

attorneys’, consultant, and expert fees and costs, and any other costs incurred as a result of investigating, 

bringing this matter to Defendants’ attention, and negotiating a settlement, the Director shall pay 

Plaintiff the sum of $70,000.00. Payment shall be made by the earlier date of the following: (1) fortyfive (45) calendar days after the expiration of the EPA and DOJ’s 45-day review period as provided in 

Paragraph 15 of this Settlement Agreement if EPA and DOJ do not comment; or (2) forty-five (45) 

calendar days after receipt of the EPA and DOJ’s comments on the Settlement Agreement, provided 

those comments are not negative and the parties are not meeting and conferring in accordance with 

Paragraph 15. Payment shall be made to Klamath Riverkeeper’s counsel in the form of a single check 

Case 2:07-cv-00593-FCD-GGH Document 19 Filed 01/25/08 Page 12 of 21
Stipulation to Dismiss with Prejudice; Order 13 CASE NO. 2:07-cv-00593-FCD-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

payable to “Lawyers for Clean Water Attorney Client Trust Account” addressed to 1004 O’Reilly 

Avenue, San Francisco, CA 94129 and shall constitute full payment for all costs of litigation incurred by 

Klamath Riverkeeper that have or could have been claimed in connection with or arising out of Klamath 

Riverkeeper’s lawsuit, up to and including the Effective Date. 

17. Fees and Costs Incurred after the Effective Date of this Agreement. To help defray Klamath 

Riverkeeper’s expert and attorneys’ fees and costs spent reviewing Defendants’ compliance with 

ongoing obligations under this Settlement Agreement, Defendants shall pay Plaintiff the sum of 

$5,000.00, with the Director and PacifiCorp each paying $2,500.00 of that sum. Payment shall be made 

by the earlier date of the following: (1) forty-five (45) calendar days after the expiration of the EPA and 

DOJ’s 45-day review period as provided in Paragraph 15 of this Settlement Agreement if EPA and DOJ 

do not comment; or (2) forty-five (45) calendar days after receipt of the EPA and DOJ’s comments on 

the Settlement Agreement, provided those comments are not negative and the parties are not meeting 

and conferring in accordance with Paragraph 15. Payment shall be made to Klamath Riverkeeper’s 

counsel in the form of checks payable to “Lawyers for Clean Water Attorney Client Trust Account” 

addressed to 1004 O’Reilly Avenue, San Francisco, CA 94129 and shall constitute full payment for all 

costs of litigation incurred by Klamath Riverkeeper for reviewing Defendants’ compliance with ongoing 

obligations under this Settlement Agreement. 

IV. TERMINATION OF SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT

18. This Settlement Agreement will automatically terminate two (2) years after the Effective 

Date, except that the two (2) year termination date will be extended to the date after any dispute 

resolution process, commenced prior to the termination date, is completed or the date by which all 

Modifications required under a Chemical Use Management Plan have been implemented. 

V. DISPUTE RESOLUTION PROCEDURES

19. The dispute-resolution procedure set forth in Section V of this Settlement Agreement shall 

be the exclusive mechanism for resolving disputes between the Parties with regard to any aspect of this 

Settlement Agreement. The Parties may not initiate the formal dispute-resolution procedure set forth in 

Paragraph 21 until after District Court has entered an Order dismissing Plaintiffs’ claims with prejudice. 

Case 2:07-cv-00593-FCD-GGH Document 19 Filed 01/25/08 Page 13 of 21
Stipulation to Dismiss with Prejudice; Order 14 CASE NO. 2:07-cv-00593-FCD-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

20. Informal Dispute Resolution/Meet and Confer. For any disputes with regard to any aspect of 

this Settlement Agreement, the Parties agree to first engage in informal dispute resolution pursuant to 

the terms of this paragraph: 

a. Meet and Confer. If a dispute under this Settlement Agreement arises, or any party 

believes that a breach of this Settlement Agreement has occurred, the Parties shall 

meet and confer within five (5) business days of receiving written notification from a 

party of a request for such meeting. During the meet and confer proceeding, the 

Parties shall discuss the dispute and make best efforts to devise a mutually agreed 

upon plan, including implementation dates, to resolve the dispute. 

b. If either party fails to meet and confer or the meet and confer does not resolve the 

dispute, after at least ten (10) business days have passed after the meet and confer 

occurred or should have occurred, either party shall be entitled to initiate the formal 

dispute resolution procedures in Paragraph 21. 

21. Formal Dispute Resolution. If the meet and confer process provided for in Paragraph 20 of 

this Settlement Agreement has terminated and the Parties’ dispute(s) has not been resolved, the Parties 

agree that their exclusive recourse is to file a motion before the District Court, to determine whether 

either party is in breach of this Settlement Agreement and, if so, to require the breaching party to remedy 

any breach identified by the District Court that is within the District Court’s retained jurisdiction within 

a reasonable time frame. The Parties disagree regarding the scope and application of the protections of 

the Eleventh Amendment to the United States Constitution to this action, and the Parties retain and do 

not waive any arguments they may have in this regard. To further settlement, and in the context of 

settlement only, the Parties agree that the District Court shall have jurisdiction to order prospective 

injunctive relief against the Director to comply with the settlement agreement if the Court finds that the 

Director has breached the settlement agreement, but the District Court shall not have jurisdiction to 

enforce paragraph 11 of the Settlement Agreement against the Director and shall not 

have jurisdiction over any claims against the Director for money damages. 

22. If a party seeks to invoke formal dispute resolution, the party shall provide all other Parties 

with written notice of its intent. Within three (3) business days of receiving one party’s notice to invoke 

Case 2:07-cv-00593-FCD-GGH Document 19 Filed 01/25/08 Page 14 of 21
Stipulation to Dismiss with Prejudice; Order 15 CASE NO. 2:07-cv-00593-FCD-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

formal dispute resolution, the Parties agree to call the court clerk to schedule a hearing date that gives 

the responding party(ies) at least fourteen (14) business days to file its/their response(s) to the filed 

motion, and seven (7) business days for the moving party(ies) to file any reply. The District Court may 

consider any and all evidence, including, but not limited to, the position of the Regional Board or other 

state agency. If Judge Damrell is not available to perform the role identified herein, the Parties agree 

that the dispute resolution process shall be re-assigned pursuant to applicable rules of the District Court. 

23. Court Ordered Relief. Nothing in this Settlement Agreement precludes any party from 

seeking relief authorized under the Local Rules or Federal Rules of Civil Procedure from the District 

Court for non-compliance with a District Court order issued following formal dispute resolution. 

Nothing in this Settlement Agreement shall be construed as an agreement by the Parties that any relief 

sought, including sanctions, are appropriate or authorized by law. The Parties reserve their rights to take 

the position that any relief sought, including sanctions, are not appropriate or authorized by law. 

24. Fees for Disputes Presented to the District Court. If Klamath Riverkeeper is the prevailing 

party in a motion before the District Court, Defendants agree to pay Klamath Riverkeeper’s reasonable 

costs and attorneys’ fees incurred during the meet and confer and formal dispute resolution processes 

consistent with section 505 of the Clean Water Act, 33 U.S.C. § 1365. 

VI. MUTUAL RELEASE OF LIABILITY AND COVENANT NOT TO SUE

25. In consideration of the above, upon the Effective Date of this Settlement Agreement, and for 

the term of this Settlement Agreement, the Parties hereby fully release, except for claims for the 

Defendants’ failure to comply with this Settlement Agreement, each other and their respective 

successors, assigns, officers, agents, employees, and all persons, firms and corporations having an 

interest in them, from any and all alleged Clean Water Act violations that were or could have been 

claimed in this action, known or unknown, up to and including the Effective Date of this Settlement 

Agreement. 

26. Upon the Effective Date of this Settlement Agreement, Klamath Riverkeeper, on its own 

behalf and on behalf of its officers, directors, and employees and each of their successors and assigns 

and its agents, attorneys, and other representatives, covenants not to sue Defendants or their officers, 

directors, employees, members, parents, subsidiaries, affiliates, or their successors or assigns, or their 

Case 2:07-cv-00593-FCD-GGH Document 19 Filed 01/25/08 Page 15 of 21
Stipulation to Dismiss with Prejudice; Order 16 CASE NO. 2:07-cv-00593-FCD-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

agents, attorneys and other representatives, or any other local, state, or federal agency or official, with 

respect to Defendants’ compliance with Order R1-2000-17 or any renewed NPDES Permit for the Iron 

Gate Hatchery that arose before, or may arise during, the term of this Settlement Agreement 

27. The Parties acknowledge that they are familiar with section 1542 of the California Civil 

Code, which provides: 

A general release does not extend to claims which the creditor does not know or suspect to exist in 

his or her favor at the time of executing the release, which if known by him or her must have 

materially affected his or her settlement with the debtor. 

 

The Parties hereby waive and relinquish any rights or benefits they may have under California Civil 

Code section 1542 with respect to any other claims against each other arising from the allegations and 

claims as set forth in the Notice Letters and/or the Second Amended Complaint; specifically, for alleged 

violation of Order R1-2000-17. Nothing in this Settlement Agreement limits or otherwise affects 

Klamath Riverkeeper’s right to enforce compliance with the Clean Water Act, Order R1-2000-17, or any 

renewed NPDES Permit for the Iron Gate Hatchery after the termination date of this Settlement 

Agreement. 

28. Nothing in this Settlement Agreement limits or otherwise affects Klamath Riverkeeper’s 

right to address or take any position that it deems necessary or appropriate in any formal or informal 

proceeding before the Regional Board, EPA, or any other judicial or administrative body on any other 

matter relating to Defendants. 

VII. MISCELLANEOUS AND GENERAL PROVISIONS

29. No Admission or Finding. The Parties are entering into this Settlement Agreement for the 

purpose of avoiding prolonged and costly litigation. Neither this Settlement Agreement nor any 

payment pursuant to the Settlement Agreement shall constitute or be construed as a finding, 

adjudication, or acknowledgment of any fact, law, or liability, nor shall it be construed as an admission 

of violation of any law, rule, or regulation. Defendants maintain and reserve all defenses they may have 

to any alleged violations that may be raised in the future. 

30. Jurisdiction of District Court. The District Court shall retain jurisdiction for the sole purpose 

of enforcing the terms and conditions of this Settlement Agreement and to resolve disputes arising 

Case 2:07-cv-00593-FCD-GGH Document 19 Filed 01/25/08 Page 16 of 21
Stipulation to Dismiss with Prejudice; Order 17 CASE NO. 2:07-cv-00593-FCD-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

hereunder as may be necessary or appropriate for the construction or execution of the Settlement 

Agreement, up to and including the date of termination. The Parties disagree regarding the scope and 

application of the protections of the Eleventh Amendment to the United States Constitution to this 

action, and the Parties retain and do not waive any arguments they may have in this regard. To further 

settlement, and in the context of settlement only, the Parties agree that the District Court shall 

have jurisdiction to order prospective injunctive relief against the Director to comply with the settlement 

agreement if the Court finds that the Director has breached the settlement agreement, but the District 

Court shall not have jurisdiction to enforce paragraph 11 of the Settlement Agreement against the 

Director and shall not have jurisdiction over any claims against the Director for money damages. 

31. Construction. The language in all parts of this Settlement Agreement shall be construed in 

accordance with the law and according to its plain and ordinary meaning, except as to those terms 

defined in the applicable NPDES Permits and the Clean Water Act, or specifically herein. 

32. Choice of Law. This Settlement Agreement shall be governed by the laws of the United 

States, and where applicable, the laws of the State of California. 

33. Severability. In the event that any provision, paragraph, section, or sentence of this 

Settlement Agreement is held by a Court to be unenforceable, the validity of the enforceable provisions 

shall not be adversely affected. 

34. Notices/Correspondence. All notices required herein or any other correspondence pertaining 

to this Settlement Agreement shall be sent by regular, certified, or overnight mail, or by electronic mail, 

as follows: 

If to Plaintiff:

Daniel Cooper 

Lawyers for Clean Water, Inc. 

1004 O’Reilly Ave. 

San Francisco, CA 94129 

Email: cleanwater@sfo.com 

Andrew Packard 

Law Offices of Andrew L. Packard 

319 Pleasant Street 

Petaluma, CA 94952 

Email: Andrew@Packardlawoffices.com 

Case 2:07-cv-00593-FCD-GGH Document 19 Filed 01/25/08 Page 17 of 21
Stipulation to Dismiss with Prejudice; Order 18 CASE NO. 2:07-cv-00593-FCD-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

 With copies to: 

Regina Chichizola 

Klamath Riverkeeper 

PO Box 28 

Orleans CA 95568 

Email: regina@klamathriver.org

If to Defendants: 

 For Department of Fish and Game: 

 Sonke Mastrup 

 Deputy Director 

 California Department of Fish and Game 

 1416 9th Street, Room 1208 

 Sacramento, CA 95814 

 Email: smastrup@dfg.ca.gov 

 Nancee Murray, Senior Staff Counsel 

 State of California Department of Fish and Game 

 Office of the General Counsel 

 1416 Ninth Street, Suite 1335 

 Sacramento, CA 95814 

 Email: Nmurray@dfg.ca.gov 

 Tracy Winsor, Deputy Attorney General 

 Dan Fuchs, Deputy Attorney General 

 Department of Justice 

 Office of the Attorney General 

 1300 I St., Ste 125 

 Sacramento, CA 94244-2550 

 Email: Tracy.Winsor@doj.ca.gov 

 Email: Daniel.Fuchs@doj.ca.gov 

 For PacifiCorp: 

 John Sample 

 Senior Counsel 

 PacifiCorp Energy 

 825 NE Multnomah, Suite 1500 

 Portland, OR 97232 

 Email: John.Sample@PacifiCorp.com

 Managing Director 

 Hydro Resources 

 PacifiCorp Energy 

 825 NE Multnomah, Suite 1500 

 Portland, OR 97232 

Case 2:07-cv-00593-FCD-GGH Document 19 Filed 01/25/08 Page 18 of 21
Stipulation to Dismiss with Prejudice; Order 19 CASE NO. 2:07-cv-00593-FCD-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

 Nicole Granquist 

 Downey Brand LLP 

 555 Capitol Mall, 10th Floor 

 Sacramento, CA 95814 

 Email: ngranquist@downeybrand.com 

Notifications of communications shall be deemed submitted three (3) calendar days after the date that 

they are postmarked and sent by first-class mail or deposited with an overnight mail/delivery service. 

Any change of address or addresses shall be communicated in the manner described above for giving 

notices. In addition, the Parties may agree to transmit documents electronically or by facsimile. 

35. Effect of Settlement Agreement. Plaintiff does not, by its consent to this Settlement 

Agreement, warrant or aver in any manner that the Defendants’ compliance with this Settlement 

Agreement will constitute or result in compliance with any federal or state law or regulation. Nothing in 

this Settlement Agreement shall be construed to affect or limit in any way the obligation of the 

Defendants to comply with all federal, state, and local laws and regulations governing any activity 

required by this Settlement Agreement. 

36. Counterparts. This Settlement Agreement may be executed in any number of counterparts, 

all of which together shall constitute one original document. Telecopy, facsimile, and/or .pdf copies of 

original signature shall be deemed to be originally executed counterparts of this Settlement Agreement. 

37. Modification of the Settlement Agreement. This Settlement Agreement, and any provisions 

herein, may not be changed, waived, discharged, or terminated unless by a written instrument, signed by 

the Parties. 

38. Full Settlement. This Settlement Agreement constitutes a full and final settlement of this 

matter. 

39. Integration Clause. This is an integrated Settlement Agreement. This Settlement Agreement 

is intended to be a full and complete statement of the terms of the agreement between the Parties and 

expressly supersedes any and all prior oral or written agreements covenants, representations, and 

warranties (express or implied) concerning the subject matter of this Settlement Agreement. 

Case 2:07-cv-00593-FCD-GGH Document 19 Filed 01/25/08 Page 19 of 21
Stipulation to Dismiss with Prejudice; Order 20 CASE NO. 2:07-cv-00593-FCD-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

40. Authority. The undersigned representatives for Plaintiff and Defendants each certify that 

he/she is fully authorized by the party whom he/she represents to enter into the terms and conditions of 

this Settlement Agreement, and to legally bind the party to its terms. 

41. Successors and Assigns. The provisions of this Settlement Agreement apply to and bind the 

Parties, including any successors or assigns. 

42. Third Party Beneficiary Rights. The Parties do not intend to create in any other individual or 

entity the status of third party beneficiary, and this Settlement Agreement shall not be construed so as to 

create such status. The rights, duties and obligations contained in this Settlement Agreement shall 

operate only between the Parties to this Settlement Agreement. The provisions of this Settlement 

Agreement are intended only to assist the Parties in determining and performing their obligations under 

this Settlement Agreement. The Parties to this Settlement Agreement intend and expressly agree that 

only Parties signatory to this Settlement Agreement shall have any legal or equitable right to seek to 

enforce this Settlement Agreement, to seek any remedy arising out of a party’s performance or failure to 

perform any term or condition of this Settlement Agreement, or to bring an action for the breach of this 

Settlement Agreement. 

43. Validity of Agreement. The Parties agree to be bound by this Settlement Agreement and not 

to contest its validity in any subsequent proceeding to implement or enforce its terms. 

44. Effective Date. The term “Effective Date,” as used in this Settlement Agreement, shall mean 

the last date on which the signature of a party to this Settlement Agreement is executed. 

45. District Court Disapproval of Stipulation to Dismiss and/or Settlement Agreement. If for 

any reason the District Court should decline to approve the Parties’ Stipulation to Dismiss and 

Settlement Agreement in the form presented, the Parties shall use their best efforts to work together to 

modify the Stipulation to Dismiss and Settlement Agreement so that it is acceptable to the District 

Court. If the Parties are unable to modify the Settlement Agreement in a mutually acceptable manner 

that is acceptable to the District Court, this Settlement Agreement shall immediately be null and void. 

Date: 

Regina Chichizola, 

Klamath Riverkeeper 

Case 2:07-cv-00593-FCD-GGH Document 19 Filed 01/25/08 Page 20 of 21
Stipulation to Dismiss with Prejudice; Order 21 CASE NO. 2:07-cv-00593-FCD-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

Date: 

John McCamman in his official capacity as acting 

Director of the California Department of Fish and 

Game 

Date: 

Randy Landolt 

Managing Director 

PacifiCorp Energy 

APPROVED AS TO FORM: For DEFENDANTS: 

 

Tracy L. Winsor 

Daniel M. Fuchs 

 Deputy Attorney General 

 Attorney for Defendant L. Ryan Broddick 

 

Nicole Granquist 

Downey Brand LLP 

Attorney for Defendant Pacificorp, Inc. 

For PLAINTIFF: 

 

Daniel Cooper 

Lawyers For Clean Water, Inc. 

Attorney for Plaintiff Klamath Riverkeeper 

Case 2:07-cv-00593-FCD-GGH Document 19 Filed 01/25/08 Page 21 of 21