Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_07-cv-03908/USCOURTS-cand-3_07-cv-03908-1/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 893
Nature of Suit: Environmental Matters
Cause of Action: 05:702 Administrative Procedure Act

---

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

STIPULATION TO REM AND, VACATE 

BRIEFING SCHED ULE, AND ST AY CASE Case No. C 07-3908 WHA

SCOTT N. SCHOOLS

United States Attorney

CHARLES M. O’CONNOR (CA Bar No. 56320)

Assistant United States Attorney

450 Golden Gate Ave., 10th Floor

San Francisco, California 94102

Tel: (415) 436-7180

RONALD J. TENPAS

Assistant Attorney General

Environment & Natural Resources Division

ROCHELLE L. RUSSELL (CA Bar No. 244992)

Trial Attorney

U.S. Department of Justice

Environment & Natural Resources Division

Environmental Defense Section

P.O. Box 23986

Washington, D.C. 20026-3986

Tel: (202) 514-1950

Fax: (202) 514-8865

Email: rochelle.russell@usdoj.gov

Counsel for Defendants EPA, Johnson, and Nastri

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

SAN FRANCISCO DIVISION

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,

v.

UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL

PROTECTION AGENCY, STEPHEN L.

JOHNSON, as Administrator of the United

States Environmental Protection Agency,

WAYNE NASTRI, as Regional

Administrator of the United States

Environmental Protection Agency, Region 9,

Defendants.

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

Civil Case No. C 07-3908 WHA

STIPULATION AND [PROPOSED]

ORDER TO REMAND THE

CHALLENGED AGENCY DECISION,

VACATE THE BRIEFING SCHEDULE,

AND STAY THE CASE

Case 3:07-cv-03908-WHA Document 34 Filed 01/22/08 Page 1 of 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

STIPULATION TO REM AND, VACATE 

BRIEFING SCHED ULE, AND ST AY CASE - 2 - Case No. C 07-3908 WHA

WHEREAS Plaintiff Klamath Riverkeeper challenges the decision of Defendants United

States Environmental Protection Agency; Stephen L. Johnson, as Administrator of the United

States Environmental Protection Agency; and Wayne Nastri, as Regional Administrator of the

United States Environmental Protection Agency, Region IX (collectively, “EPA” or “Agency”),

not to disapprove the State of California’s decision not to list the Klamath River and its reaches

that include the Iron Gate and Copco Dam reservoirs as impaired due to Microcystis aeruginosa

(“blue green algae”) and microcystin toxin in the 2006 Clean Water Act Section 303(d) List of

Water Quality Limited Segments for California (“2006 303(d) List”);

WHEREAS EPA has since re-examined the record relating to the State of California’s

applicable water quality standards and re-examined the designated uses for the Klamath River and

Iron Gate and Copco Dam reservoirs, including but not limited to Native American cultural uses

and subsistence fishing; 

WHEREAS EPA, in considering this particular combination of designated uses and the

State of California’s narrative water quality criterion for toxicity, and in considering the unique

listing circumstances of this case and the particular water bodies involved, now believes that a

reconsideration of its decision not to disapprove the State of California’s decision not to list

portions of the Klamath River that include the Iron Gate and Copco Dam reservoirs as impaired

due to microcystin toxin is warranted; 

WHEREAS EPA intends to reconsider and issue a new decision on the microcystin toxin

listing issue not later than sixty (60) days after the date of this Court’s order granting the parties’

remand and stay request, in accordance with the time lines set forth in 33 U.S.C. § 1313(d)(2);

WHEREAS the Regional Administrator for EPA Region IX intends to issue a public

notice seeking comment on such listing decision and to consider the public comment and make

any appropriate revisions after the close of the public comment period, in accordance with EPA

regulations at 40 C.F.R. 130.7(d)(2);

WHEREAS EPA and Plaintiff believe that the Agency’s new listing decision concerning

the microcystin toxin may altogether resolve the issues raised by Plaintiff in its complaint and

Case 3:07-cv-03908-WHA Document 34 Filed 01/22/08 Page 2 of 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

STIPULATION TO REM AND, VACATE 

BRIEFING SCHED ULE, AND ST AY CASE - 3 - Case No. C 07-3908 WHA

summary judgment motion, thereby precluding the need for further briefing by the parties and

adjudication of the issues by the Court; 

WHEREAS Plaintiff intends to stipulate to a dismissal of this action with prejudice 

pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(a)(1)(ii) if EPA’s new listing decision includes the listing of

portions of the Klamath River that include the Iron Gate and Copco Dam reservoirs (and that are

currently referred to in California’s 2006 Section 303(d) List as the “Klamath River HU, Middle

HA, Oregon to Iron Gate,” “Klamath River HU, Middle HA, Iron Gate Dam to Scott River,” and

“Klamath River HU, Middle HA, Scott River to Trinity River”) as not meeting various designated

uses or water quality criteria in the North Coast Regional Water Quality Control Board’s Water

Quality Control Plan for the North Coast Region (“the Basin Plan”) due to microcystin toxin and

if the parties agree to or the Court otherwise orders payment of the Plaintiff’s reasonable attorneys

fees and costs incurred in this action;

WHEREAS EPA and Plaintiff agree that remand to EPA of this challenged decision is

warranted and consistent with the principle that “[a]dministrative agencies have an inherent

authority to reconsider their own decisions, since the power to decide in the first instance carries

with it the power to reconsider,” Trujillo v. General Electric Co., 621 F.2d 1084, 1086 (10th Cir.

1980); see also Lute v. Singer Co., 678 F.2d 844, 846 (9th Cir. 1982) (discussing Trujillo), and

that such remand will promote judicial economy without further expenditure of judicial or party 

resources, see Ethyl Corp. v. Browner, 989 F.2d 522, 524 (D.C. Cir. 1993);

WHEREAS EPA and Plaintiff agree that a stay of this case is justified in light of the

principle that federal courts have inherent authority “to stay proceedings in the interest of saving

time and effort for [themselves] and litigants,” ATSA of Cal., Inc. v. Continental Ins. Co., 702

F.2d 172, 176 (9th Cir. 1983); see also Landis v. N. Am. Co., 299 U.S. 248, 254 (1936)

(explaining that the power to stay is “incidental to the power inherent in every court to control the

disposition of the causes on its docket with economy of time and effort for itself, for counsel, and

for litigants.”) (emphasis added);

Case 3:07-cv-03908-WHA Document 34 Filed 01/22/08 Page 3 of 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

STIPULATION TO REM AND, VACATE 

BRIEFING SCHED ULE, AND ST AY CASE - 4 - Case No. C 07-3908 WHA

WHEREAS there have been no previous stays requested in this case and only one previous

extension of time granted to allow Plaintiff two additional weeks to file its summary judgment

motion after this case was transferred to this Court;

THEREFORE the parties hereby stipulate and jointly request that the Court grant the

parties’ proposed stipulated order, a copy of which is attached to this stipulation and an electronic

copy of which will be emailed to the Court’s chambers. 

Respectfully submitted,

Dated: January 18, 2008 RONALD J. TENPAS

Assistant Attorney General

Environment & Natural Resources Division

 /s/ Rochelle L. Russell 

ROCHELLE L. RUSSELL

Trial Attorney

U.S. Department of Justice

Environment & Natural Resources Division

Environmental Defense Section

P.O. Box 23986

Washington, D.C. 20026-3986

Counsel for Defendants EPA, Johnson, 

and Nastri 

OF COUNSEL:

Barbara E. Pace

Office of General Counsel

U.S. EPA

1200 Pennsylvania Ave., NW (2355A)

Washington, D.C. 20460

Gary Hess

EPA, Region IX

75 Hawthorne Street 

San Francisco, CA 94105 

 /s/ Christopher Sproul 

CHRISTOPHER SPROUL

DREVET HUNT

Counsel for Plaintiff Klamath Riverkeeper

Case 3:07-cv-03908-WHA Document 34 Filed 01/22/08 Page 4 of 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

STIPULATION TO REM AND, VACATE 

BRIEFING SCHED ULE, AND ST AY CASE - 5 - Case No. C 07-3908 WHA

[PROPOSED] STIPULATED ORDER

Based on the foregoing stipulation between the parties, the Court hereby orders:

1. The challenged agency action in this case is remanded to EPA for reconsideration;

2. The currently scheduled summary judgment briefing schedule and hearing dates are

vacated and all proceedings in this matter shall be stayed ninety (90) days from the date of this

stipulated order to allow EPA sixty (60) days to reconsider and issue a new decision concerning

the microcystin toxin listing issue and to allow thirty (30) days for public comment on that listing

decision; 

3. Within thirty (30) days after the public comment period on that listing decision 

closes, the parties shall file a supplemental case management statement apprising the Court of the

current status of this matter and the potential dismissal of the case.

PURSUANT TO STIPULATION, IT IS SO ORDERED.

DATED: __________________ _________________________________

HON. WILLIAM H. ALSUP

4. A case management conference will be held on May 8, 2008, at 11:00 a.m. January 22, 2008.

U

NITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

IT IS SO ORDERED

Judge William Alsup

Case 3:07-cv-03908-WHA Document 34 Filed 01/22/08 Page 5 of 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

STIPULATION TO REMAND, VACATE

BRIEFING SCHED ULE, AND ST AY CASE Case No. C 07-3908 WHA

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

I certify that on January 18, 2008, a true and correct copy of the foregoing

STIPULATION AND [PROPOSED] ORDER TO REMAND THE CHALLENGED

AGENCY DECISION, VACATE THE BRIEFING SCHEDULE, AND STAY THE CASE 

was served electronically via the Court’s e-filing system to Counsel of Record in Klamath

Riverkeeper v. EPA, Case No. C 07-3908 WHA.

 

 /s/ Rochelle L. Russell 

ROCHELLE L. RUSSELL

Case 3:07-cv-03908-WHA Document 34 Filed 01/22/08 Page 6 of 6