Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_19-cv-01934/USCOURTS-caed-2_19-cv-01934-1/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 893
Nature of Suit: Environmental Matters
Cause of Action: 33:1319 Clean Water 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 

- 1 -

Stipulation and Order Re Dismissal Case No: 2:19-cv-01934-TLN-CKD 

ANDREW L. PACKARD (State Bar No. 168690) 

WILLIAM N. CARLON (State Bar No. 305739) 

Law Offices of Andrew L. Packard 

245 Kentucky Street, Suite B3 

Petaluma, CA 94952 

Tel: (707) 782-4060 

Fax: (707) 782-4062 

E-mail: andrew@packardlawoffices.com 

 wncarlon@packardlawoffices.com 

Attorneys for Plaintiff 

CALIFORNIA SPORTFISHING 

PROTECTION ALLIANCE 

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 

CALIFORNIA SPORTFISHING 

PROTECTION ALLIANCE, 

Plaintiff, 

 v. 

ELDER CREEK TRANSER & RECOVERY, 

INC., 

Defendant. 

Case No: 2:19-cv-01934-TLN-CKD 

STIPULATION TO DISMISS CLAIMS 

WITH PREJUDICE; ORDER GRANTING 

DISMISSAL WITH PREJUDICE [FRCP 

41(a)(2)]

 

 Plaintiff California Sportfishing Protection Alliance (“CSPA”) and Defendant Elder Creek 

Transfer & Recovery, Inc. (“ECTR”) in the above-captioned action, stipulate as follows:

 WHEREAS, on or about July 23, 2019, CSPA provided ECTR with a Notice of 

Violations and Intent to File Suit (“CWA 60-Day Notice Letter”) under Section 505 of the 

Federal Water Pollution Control Act (“Act” or “Clean Water Act”), 33 U.S.C. § 1365; 

 WHEREAS, on September 23, 2019, CSPA filed its Complaint against ECTR in this 

Court and said Complaint incorporated by reference all of the allegations contained in CSPA’s 

CWA 60-Day Notice Letter; 

 WHEREAS, CSPA and ECTR, through their authorized representatives and without either 

adjudication of CSPA’s claims or admission by ECTR of any alleged violation or other 

wrongdoing, have chosen to resolve in full by way of settlement agreement the allegations of 

Case 2:19-cv-01934-TLN-CKD Document 23 Filed 03/17/20 Page 1 of 43
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 

- 2 -

Stipulation and Order Re Dismissal Case No: 2:19-cv-01934-TLN-CKD 

CSPA as set forth in CSPA’s CWA 60-Day Notice Letter and Complaint, thereby avoiding the 

costs and uncertainties of further litigation. A copy of the Parties’ proposed consent decree 

(“Settlement Agreement”) entered into by and between CSPA and ECTR is attached hereto as 

Exhibit A and incorporated by reference;

 WHEREAS, CSPA has submitted the Settlement Agreement via certified mail, return 

receipt requested, to the U.S. EPA and the U.S. Department of Justice and the U.S. Department of 

Justice has now filed their “Non-Opposition to Consent Judgment” (ECF No. 21);

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

Parties that CSPA’s claims as set forth in its CWA 60-Day Notice Letter and Complaint, be 

dismissed with prejudice pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(a)(2). The Parties 

respectfully request an order from this Court dismissing such claims with prejudice. In 

accordance with Section III, Paragraph 1 of the Settlement Agreement, the Parties also request 

that this Court retain and have jurisdiction over the Parties through October 31, 2022, for the sole 

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

provision of the Settlement Agreement. 

Dated: March 16, 2020 Respectfully submitted, 

 LAW OFFICES OF ANDREW L. PACKARD 

 By: /s/ Andrew L. Packard 

 Andrew L. Packard 

 Attorneys for Plaintiff 

 California Sportfishing Protection Alliance 

 

Dated: March 16, 2020 LAW OFFICES OF THOMAS M. BRUEN 

 By: /s/ Thomas M. Bruen 

 Thomas M. Bruen 

 Attorneys for Defendant 

 Elder Creek Transfer & Recovery, Inc. 

 

Case 2:19-cv-01934-TLN-CKD Document 23 Filed 03/17/20 Page 2 of 43
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 

- 3 -

Stipulation and Order Re Dismissal Case No: 2:19-cv-01934-TLN-CKD 

ORDER

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

 IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Plaintiff California Sportfishing Protection Alliance 

claims against Defendant Elder Creek Transfer & Recovery, Inc., as set forth in CSPA’s CWA 

60-Day Notice Letter and Complaint, are hereby dismissed with prejudice, each side to bear their 

own attorney fees and costs, except as provided for by the terms of the accompanying Settlement 

Agreement. 

 IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the Court shall retain and have jurisdiction over the 

Parties, with respect to disputes arising under the Settlement Agreement attached to the Parties’ 

Stipulation to Dismiss as Exhibit A, until October 31, 2022. 

 IT IS SO ORDERED. 

Dated: March 16, 2020 

Case 2:19-cv-01934-TLN-CKD Document 23 Filed 03/17/20 Page 3 of 43
SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT Case No. 2:19-cv-01934-TLN-CKD 

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 

SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT 

This Settlement Agreement (“Agreement”) is entered into by and between Plaintiff 

California Sportfishing Protection Alliance (hereinafter “CSPA”) and Defendant Elder Creek 

Transfer & Recovery (hereinafter “ECTR” or “Defendant”), as follows: 

Recitals 

 WHEREAS, Plaintiff CSPA is a non-profit public benefit corporation dedicated to the 

preservation, protection, and defense of the environment, wildlife, and natural resources of 

California’s waters; 

WHEREAS, Defendant ECTR operates a 19.26-acre waste transfer station located at 

8642 Elder Creek Road, in Sacramento, California (“the Facility”); 

WHEREAS, CSPA and Defendant collectively shall be referred to as the “Parties;” 

WHEREAS, the Facility collects and discharges storm water generated from within the 

Facility into storm water conveyances which discharge into the City of Sacramento’s storm 

water drainage system, which then discharges to Morrison Creek, which discharges to the 

Sacramento River, and the Sacramento-San Joaquin Delta (a map of the Facility is attached 

hereto as Exhibit A and incorporated herein by reference). Morrison Creek, the Sacramento 

River, and the Sacramento-San Joaquin Delta are waters of the United States within the meaning 

of the Clean Water Act; 

WHEREAS, storm water discharges associated with industrial activity are regulated 

pursuant to the National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (“NPDES”), General Permit 

No. CAS000001, State Water Resources Control Board (“State Board”) Water Quality Order 

No. 14-57-DWQ, issued pursuant to Section 402(p) of the Clean Water Act (“Act”), 33 U.S.C. 

§1342(p), (hereinafter “General Permit”) and, prior to July 1, 2015, were regulated by Water 

Quality Order No. 91-13-DWQ, as amended by Water Quality Orders 92-12-DWQ and 97-03-

DWQ; 

WHEREAS, on or about July 23, 2019, Plaintiff provided notice of Defendant’s alleged 

violations of the Act, and of its intention to file suit against Defendant to the Administrator of the 

United States Environmental Protection Agency (“EPA”); the Administrator of EPA Region IX; 

Case 2:19-cv-01934-TLN-CKD Document 23 Filed 03/17/20 Page 4 of 43
- 2 - 

SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT Case No. 2:19-cv-01934-TLN-CKD 

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 

the U.S. Attorney General; the Executive Director of the State Board; the Executive Officer of 

the Regional Water Quality Control Board, Central Valley Region (“Regional Board”); and to 

Defendant, as required by the Act, 33 U.S.C. § 1365(b)(1)(A) (a true and correct copy of CSPA’s 

Notice Letter is attached hereto as Exhibit B and incorporated herein by reference); 

WHEREAS, Defendant denies the occurrence of the violations alleged in the Notice 

Letter and maintains that it has complied at all times with the provisions of the General Permit 

and the Clean Water Act and maintains that there are no “ongoing and continuous” violations of 

the General Permit or the Act, and Defendant asserts other defenses; 

WHEREAS, on or about September 23, 2019, CSPA filed a complaint against Defendant 

in the United States District Court, Eastern District of California (this matter is hereinafter 

referred to as “the Action”); 

WHEREAS, the Parties agree that it is in their mutual interest to resolve this matter as to 

all entities and persons named in the Notice Letter and Complaint without further litigation and 

enter into this Agreement; 

WHEREAS, for purposes of this Agreement only, the Parties stipulate that venue is 

proper in the United State District Court for the Eastern District of California, and that Defendant 

does not contest the exercise of jurisdiction by this Court to dismiss this matter with prejudice 

under the terms of this Agreement and also to retain jurisdiction for the purpose of enforcing this 

Agreement pursuant to F.R. Civ. P. 41(a);

WHEREAS, within five (5) calendar days of mutual execution, this Agreement shall be 

submitted by Plaintiff’s counsel to the United States Department of Justice for the 45-day 

statutory review period, pursuant to 33 U.S.C. § 1365(c); 

WHEREAS, at the time the Agreement is submitted to the United States Department of 

Justice for the 45-day statutory review period, CSPA shall file a Notice of Settlement in the 

District Court and inform the Court of the expected dismissal date following the expiration of the 

statutory review period identified above; 

AND WHEREAS, within ten (10) calendar days of expiration of the statutory review 

period, or the earlier receipt of non-objection from the United States Department of Justice, the 

Case 2:19-cv-01934-TLN-CKD Document 23 Filed 03/17/20 Page 5 of 43
- 3 - 

SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT Case No. 2:19-cv-01934-TLN-CKD 

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 

Parties shall file with the Court a Stipulation and Order that shall provide that the Complaint and 

all claims therein shall be dismissed with prejudice pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil 

Procedure 41(a)(2) concurrently with the District Court’s retention of jurisdiction for the 

enforcement of this Agreement as provided herein (the date of entry of the Order to dismiss shall 

be referred to herein as the “Court Entry Date”). 

THEREFORE, IT IS HEREBY STIPULATED BETWEEN THE SETTLING 

PARTIES AS FOLLOWS: 

I. COMMITMENTS OF DEFENDANT 

1. Compliance with General Permit and the Clean Water Act. Throughout the 

term of this Agreement, and subject to Force Majeure as defined herein, Defendant shall 

continue implementing all best management practices needed to operate the Facility in 

compliance with the requirements of the General Permit and the Clean Water Act, subject to any 

defenses available under the law. 

2. Implementation of Specific Storm Water Best Management Practices. 

Unless otherwise indicated below, on or before October 1, 2020, and subject to Force Majeure as 

defined herein, Defendant shall complete the implementation and incorporation into the 

Facility’s Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan (“SWPPP”) of the following storm water 

source control measures/Best Management Practices (“BMPs”) at the Facility: 

(a) Re-Surfacing of Degraded Areas in Drainage Areas 1 and 2. ECTR shall 

resurface the shaded areas on the map attached hereto as Exhibit C by adding three layers to the 

pavement, consisting of a layer of course aggregate, followed by a layer of fine aggregate and 

then by a final layer of sealant. 

(b) Elimination of Run-on from Adjacent Property Along the Western Facility 

Boundary. ECTR shall place sand bags on the inward side of the Facility fence to prevent as best 

as practicable storm water run-on occurring on the Western boundary of the Facility. 

Case 2:19-cv-01934-TLN-CKD Document 23 Filed 03/17/20 Page 6 of 43
- 4 - 

SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT Case No. 2:19-cv-01934-TLN-CKD 

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) Advanced Filtration to Address Metals. ECTR shall install FILTREXX Metalox1

wattles at all of the Facility’s drop inlets, and at a rock check damn in the bioswale upstream of 

each drop inlet on the western, southern and eastern boundaries of the Facility. 

(d) Installation of a Digital Rain Gauge. ECTR shall install and maintain a fully 

automated rain gauge at the Facility for the Term of the Agreement. All records of rain events 

shall be maintained at the Facility as required under the General Permit.

(e) Increased Employee Training. ECTR shall increase training for its Storm Water 

Pollution Prevention Team (“SWPPT”), including at a minimum, holding a semi-annual training 

meeting in September-October and a second one in December -January of each year. ECTR 

shall incorporate the holding of these twice-annual meetings in its new SWPPP, and target 

training on tracking what storm events qualify for sampling purposes, undertaking visual 

monitoring, and logging and properly reporting data in the Facility’s SWPPP, Annual Report and 

the State’s on-line reporting system (“SMARTS”). ECTR shall log these meetings with the date, 

materials covered, written agenda, and a list of attendees for each, and shall retain these logs at 

the Facility. ECTR shall have at least one member of the SWPPT formally certified as a 

Qualified Industrial Storm Water Practitioner (“QISP”) at all time during the term of this 

agreement.

(f) Increased Facility Sweeping. ECTR shall use a regenerative sweeper (i.e., a 

Tymco 600 or equivalent) on all readily accessible paved areas of the Facility twice weekly 

during the Wet Season (October 1 through May 31) and weekly during the period from June 1 

through September 30. Records of all sweeping dates and times shall be maintained at the 

Facility. For areas on which dumpsters and/or bins are located, ECTR shall move those 

dumpsters/bins in September and January of each year during the Term and sweep under the 

dumpsters/bins with a regenerative sweeper. 

 

1

 ECTR shall install, maintain, repair and replace these filtration devices in accordance 

with all of the manufacturer’s instructions and specifications for the Term of this 

agreement. 

Case 2:19-cv-01934-TLN-CKD Document 23 Filed 03/17/20 Page 7 of 43
- 5 - 

SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT Case No. 2:19-cv-01934-TLN-CKD 

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 

(g) Re-Direction of Downspout Discharges. Should storm water sampling for 2020-

2021 Wet Season show that ECTR has not met, for that wet season, the General Permit NALs for 

each of the parameters in Exhibit D despite the resurfacing of the paved areas pursuant to 

Paragraph 2(a) and implementation of the other BMPs described in this Paragraph 3, ECTR 

shall, on or before October 1, 2021, spend up to $100,000 in design and construction to redirect 

storm water flows from the approximately fifteen (15) downspouts on the main Facility building 

to one or more subsurface conveyances to avoid, to the extent practicable, the co-mingling of 

such flows with storm water falling on, and traveling across, the non-roof surfaces of the Facility 

prior to discharge. Should ECTR be unable to accomplish this goal for a total cost within the 

$100,000 limit, ECTR will implement the redirection of storm water flows from the Facility 

building roof to the extent practicable for a cost of, but not to exceed, $100,000 by the October 1, 

2021 deadline. 

3. SWPPP Amendments. On or before October 1, 2020, Defendant shall amend 

the Facility SWPPP to incorporate all of the relevant requirements of this Agreement and the 

General Permit that are then implemented or being implemented. These revisions shall reflect all 

then-current site conditions and practices, and identify as potential pollutants per the General 

Permit those contaminants listed in Exhibit D, identify the location of all pervious and 

impervious areas, drop inlets, BMPs, and storm water flow vectors. These revisions shall also 

provide for data logging required by the General Permit; weekly monitoring and maintenance of 

all Facility collection and discharge points during the Wet Season; and twice-annual storm water 

management training for Facility employees. 

4. Sampling Frequency. For the 2020-2021 and 2021-2022 reporting years 

ending June 30th (2021 and 2022), Defendant shall collect and analyze samples from three 

Qualifying Storm Events2 (“QSEs”) within the first half of each reporting year (July 1 to 

 

2

 A Qualifying Storm Event (QSE) is defined in the General Permit as a precipitation event that: 

(a) Produces a discharge for at least one drainage area; and (b) is preceded by 48 hours with no 

discharge from any drainage area. See General Permit, Section XI(b)(1).

Case 2:19-cv-01934-TLN-CKD Document 23 Filed 03/17/20 Page 8 of 43
- 6 - 

SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT Case No. 2:19-cv-01934-TLN-CKD 

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 

December 31), and three QSEs within the second half of each reporting year (January 1 to June 

30). The storm water sample results shall be compared with the values set forth in Exhibit D, 

attached hereto, and incorporated herein by reference. If the results of such samples exceed the 

annual average parameter values set forth in Exhibit D as these parameter values (e.g., 

instantaneous versus average values) are applied in accordance with the General Permit, 

Defendant shall comply with the “Action Memorandum” requirements set forth below per the 

General Permit and this Agreement. If Defendant does not collect and analyze samples from all 

Facility discharge points during three QSEs within the first half of a reporting year, Defendant 

shall provide an explanation to CSPA on or before January 10th describing why three samples 

were not collected and/or properly analyzed. If Defendant does collect and analyze samples 

from all Facility discharge points during three QSEs during the first half of the reporting year, 

and analyze them for all parameters required herein, then Defendant may elect to waive one of 

the three required samples during the second half of that reporting year. 

5. Sampling Parameters. All samples in each reporting year shall be analyzed 

for each of the constituents listed in Exhibit D, by a laboratory accredited by the State of 

California, except for pH, which shall be analyzed in the field using a handheld, properly 

calibrated pH meter. All samples collected from the Facility shall be delivered to the laboratory 

as soon as possible to ensure that sample “hold time” is not exceeded. Analytical methods used 

by the laboratory shall comply with General Permit requirements in regards to both test method 

and detection limit. See General Permit, Table 2, at 43. Sampling results shall be provided to 

CSPA within ten (10) days of Defendant’s receipt of the laboratory report from each sampling 

event, pursuant to the Notice provisions below. 

6. Exceedance Response Actions (“ERA”); CSPA’s Review Of ERA Reports; 

Meet-and-Confer. If the results of sampling discussed herein exceed the applicable NALs set 

forth in Exhibit D, Defendant shall comply with the applicable requirements of the General 

Permit, including the applicable Exceedance Response Action (“ERA”) described in Sections 

I.M and XII of the General Permit. Any Level 1 ERA Evaluation required under Section XII.C.1 

of the General Permit during the Term of this Agreement shall be memorialized in a 

Case 2:19-cv-01934-TLN-CKD Document 23 Filed 03/17/20 Page 9 of 43
- 7 - 

SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT Case No. 2:19-cv-01934-TLN-CKD 

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 

memorandum and shared with Plaintiff pursuant to the Notice provisions of this Agreement on or 

before its due date (October 1); at Plaintiff’s request, the parties shall meet and confer regarding 

the sufficiency of the evaluation. Any Level 1 ERA Report required under Section XII.C.2 of 

the General Permit during the Term of this Agreement shall be shared with Plaintiff pursuant to 

the Notice provisions of this Agreement on or before its due date (January 1); at Plaintiff’s 

request, the parties shall meet and confer regarding the sufficiency of the report. Any Level 2 

ERA Action Plan required under Section XII.D.1 of the General Permit during the Term of this 

Agreement shall be shared with Plaintiff pursuant to the Notice provisions of this Agreement on 

or before its due date (January 1); at Plaintiff’s request, the parties shall meet and confer 

regarding the sufficiency of the plan. Any Level 2 ERA Technical Report required under 

Section XII.D.2 of the General Permit during the Term of this Agreement shall be shared with 

Plaintiff pursuant to the Notice provisions of this Agreement on or before its due date (January 

1); at Plaintiff’s request, the parties shall meet and confer regarding the sufficiency of the report. 

7. Inspections During The Term Of This Agreement. In addition to any site 

inspections conducted as part of the settlement process and the meet-and-confer process 

concerning an Action Memorandum as set forth above, Defendant shall permit representatives of 

CSPA to perform up to three (3) physical inspections of the Facility during the Term of this 

Agreement. These inspections shall be performed by CSPA’s counsel and consultants and may 

include sampling, photographing, and/or videotaping and CSPA shall provide Defendant with a 

copy of all sampling reports, photographs and/or video. Sampling shall be performed in 

accordance with California State Water Quality Control Board guidelines. CSPA shall provide 

at least two (2) business days advance notice of such physical inspection, except that Defendant 

shall have the right to deny access if circumstances would make the inspection unduly 

burdensome and pose significant interference with business operations or any party/attorney, or 

the safety of individuals. In such case, Defendant shall specify at least three (3) dates within the 

two (2) weeks thereafter upon which a physical inspection by CSPA may proceed. Defendant 

shall not make any alterations to Facility conditions during the period between receiving CSPA’s 

initial two business day advance notice and the start of CSPA’s inspection that Defendant would 

Case 2:19-cv-01934-TLN-CKD Document 23 Filed 03/17/20 Page 10 of 43
- 8 - 

SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT Case No. 2:19-cv-01934-TLN-CKD 

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 

not otherwise have made but for receiving notice of CSPA’s request to conduct a physical 

inspection of the Facility, excepting any actions taken in compliance with any applicable laws or 

regulations. Nothing herein shall be construed to prevent Defendant from continuing to 

implement any BMPs identified in the SWPPP during the period prior to an inspection by CSPA 

or at any time. 

8. Communications To/From Regional and State Water Boards. During the 

term of this Agreement, Defendant shall provide CSPA with copies of all documents submitted 

to, or received from, the Regional Water Board or the State Water Board concerning storm water 

discharges from the Facility, including, but not limited to, all documents and reports submitted to 

the Regional Water Board and/or State Water Board as required by the current General Permit. 

Such documents and reports shall be provided to CSPA pursuant to the Notice provisions set 

forth below and reasonably contemporaneously with Defendant’ submission(s) to, or, receipt 

from, such agencies. 

9. SWPPP Amendments. Pursuant to the Notice provisions set forth below, 

Defendant shall provide CSPA with a complete copy of the updated version of the Facility 

SWPPP within fifteen (15) days of any amendments to the Facility SWPPP made during the 

Term of the Agreement. 

II. MITIGATION, COMPLIANCE MONITORING AND FEES AND COSTS

10. Defendant’s Total Monetary Obligation. As and for Defendant’s settlement 

payment, Defendant shall pay a total of One Hundred Seven Thousand Five Hundred Dollars 

($107,500), as follows: 

11. Mitigation Payment In Lieu Of Civil Penalties Under the Clean Water Act. 

As mitigation to address any potential harms from the Clean Water Act violations alleged in the 

Action, Defendant agrees to pay the sum of $42,500 to the Rose Foundation for Communities 

and the Environment (“Rose Foundation”) for projects to improve water quality in Morrison 

Creek, the Sacramento River, and the Sacramento-San Joaquin Delta. The mitigation payment 

shall be remitted directly to the Rose Foundation at: Rose Foundation, Attn: Tim Little, 201 4th 

Street, Suite 102, Oakland, CA 94607 within twenty (20) days of the Court Entry Date. 

Case 2:19-cv-01934-TLN-CKD Document 23 Filed 03/17/20 Page 11 of 43
- 9 - 

SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT Case No. 2:19-cv-01934-TLN-CKD 

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 

12. Compliance Monitoring Funding. To defray CSPA’s reasonable 

investigative, expert, consultant and attorneys’ fees and costs associated with monitoring 

Defendant’s compliance with this Agreement, Defendant agrees to pay $10,000 for the Term of 

the Agreement, for compliance monitoring conducted by counsel for CSPA as described below. 

Payment shall be made payable to the “Law Offices of Andrew L. Packard Attorney-Client Trust 

Account” and remitted to Plaintiff’s counsel at the Notice address provided herein within twenty 

(20) days of the Court Entry Date. 

13. Reimbursement of Fees & Costs. Defendant agrees to reimburse CSPA the 

amount of $55,000 in full settlement of and to defray CSPA’s reasonable investigative, expert, 

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

the activities at the Facility, bringing the action, and negotiating a resolution of this action in the 

public interest. Such payment shall be made payable to the “Law Offices of Andrew L. Packard 

Attorney Client Trust Account” and remitted to the firm at the Notice address provided herein 

within twenty (20) days of the Court Entry Date. 

III. DISPUTE RESOLUTION AND ENFORCEMENT OF AGREEMENT 

14. With the exception of the timelines set forth above for addressing exceedances 

of values specified in Exhibit D and the ERA reports, if a dispute under this Agreement arises, 

or either Party believes that a breach of this Agreement has occurred, the Parties shall meet and 

confer within ten (10) business days of receiving written notification from the other Party of a 

request for a meeting to determine whether a breach has occurred and to develop a mutually 

agreed upon plan, including implementation dates, to resolve the dispute. If the Parties fail to 

meet and confer, or the meet-and-confer does not resolve the issue, 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 all rights and remedies under the law, including filing a motion with the District 

Court of California, Eastern District, which shall retain jurisdiction over the Action until the 

Termination Date for the limited purposes of enforcement of the terms of this Agreement. The 

Parties shall be entitled to seek reasonable fees and costs incurred in any such motion, and such 

reasonable fees and costs may be awarded in an amount as determined in the Court’s discretion, 

Case 2:19-cv-01934-TLN-CKD Document 23 Filed 03/17/20 Page 12 of 43
- 10 - 

SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT Case No. 2:19-cv-01934-TLN-CKD 

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 

pursuant to the provisions set forth in the then-applicable federal Clean Water Act and Rule 11 of 

the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, and applicable case law interpreting such provisions. This 

Dispute Resolution process for enforcement of this Agreement shall be the exclusive remedy for 

resolving any disputes between the parties that arise regarding the Facility during the Term of 

this Agreement. 

15. CSPA’s Waiver and Release. Upon the Court Approval Date of this 

Agreement, CSPA, on its own behalf and on behalf of its members, subsidiaries, successors, 

assigns, directors, officers, agents, attorneys, representatives, and employees, releases Defendant 

and its officers, directors, employees, shareholders, direct and indirect parents, subsidiaries, and 

affiliates, and each of its predecessors, successors and assigns, and each of its agents, attorneys, 

consultants, and other representatives (each a “Released Defendant Party”) from, and waives all 

claims which arise from or pertain to the Action, including, without limitation, all claims for 

injunctive relief, damages, penalties, fines, sanctions, mitigation, fees (including fees of 

attorneys, experts, and others), costs, expenses or any other sum incurred or claimed or which 

could have been claimed in this Action, for the alleged failure of any Released Defendant Party 

to comply with the Clean Water Act at the Facility, up to the Court Entry Date. 

16. Defendant’s Waiver and Release. Defendant, on its own behalf and on behalf 

of any Released Defendant Party under its control, release CSPA (and its officers, directors, 

employees, members, parents, subsidiaries, and affiliates, and each of their successors and 

assigns, and its agents, attorneys, and other representative) from, and waives all claims which 

arise from or pertain to the Action, including all claims for fees (including fees of attorneys, 

experts, and others), costs, expenses or any other sum incurred or claimed or which could have 

been claimed for matters associated with or related to the Action. 

17. Force Majeure. No Party shall be considered to be in default in the 

performance of any of its obligations under this Agreement when performance becomes 

impossible or infeasible due to circumstances beyond the Party’s control, including Force 

Majeure, which includes any act of god, war, fire, earthquake, windstorm, flood or natural 

catastrophe; civil disturbance, vandalism, sabotage, or terrorism; restraint by court order or by 

Case 2:19-cv-01934-TLN-CKD Document 23 Filed 03/17/20 Page 13 of 43
- 11 - 

SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT Case No. 2:19-cv-01934-TLN-CKD 

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 

any public authority or agency; action or non-action by, or inability to obtain the necessary 

authorizations, approvals, or permits from, any governmental agency, including Sacramento 

County; or inability to obtain equipment or materials from the marketplace if such materials or 

equipment are not reasonably available, though the cost of such material or equipment is not a 

factor in whether it is reasonably available. Impossibility and/or Force Majeure shall not include 

normal inclement weather, economic hardship, or inability to pay, although economic feasibility 

is a factor in determining if a Party has implemented BAT and/or BCT. 

The proposed structural BMPs described in this Agreement may require building permits 

and other permits from the County. They may also require modifications to the Facility’s Solid 

Waste Facilities Permit by the County Local Enforcement Agency. Defendant cannot lawfully 

construct any individual structural BMP for which permits are required from the County until the 

final permit(s) for that individual BMP has been issued. Should any such permit for an 

individual structural BMP not be issued by the County within the time period needed to 

reasonably meet the applicable compliance deadline in this Consent Decree, the time permits for 

compliance in this Consent Decree shall be reasonably extended to account for such delay. 

Should the County decline to issue any such permit, the parties shall meet and confer regarding 

an alternative BMP designed to achieve the same pollution control effectiveness as the original 

BMP. ECTR shall exercise its best efforts to timely obtain all such permits and, where available, 

shall pay expedited permit processing fees. 

Any Party seeking to rely upon this paragraph 16 to excuse or postpone performance 

shall have the burden of establishing that it could not reasonably have been expected to avoid the 

impossibility or Force Majeure event and which by exercise of due diligence has been unable to 

overcome the failure or performance. Delay in compliance with a specific obligation under this 

Agreement due to impossibility and/or Force Majeure as defined in this paragraph shall not 

excuse or delay compliance with any or all other obligations required under this Agreement. 

16.1 If Defendant claims compliance was or is impossible, they shall notify Plaintiff in 

writing as soon as possible, but in no event more than fifteen (15) business days of 

the date that Defendant learns of the event or circumstance that caused or would 

Case 2:19-cv-01934-TLN-CKD Document 23 Filed 03/17/20 Page 14 of 43
- 12 - 

SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT Case No. 2:19-cv-01934-TLN-CKD 

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 

cause a violation of this Agreement (hereinafter referred to as the “Notice of 

Nonperformance”). 

16.2 The Notice of Nonperformance shall include a detailed description of the reason for 

the nonperformance and the specific obligations under the Agreement that are or 

have been affected by the Force Majeure. They shall describe the anticipated length 

of time the delay may persist, the cause or causes of the delay, the measures taken or 

to be taken by Defendant to prevent or minimize the delay, the schedule by which 

the measures shall be implemented, and the anticipated date of compliance. 

Defendant shall adopt all reasonable measures to avoid and minimize such delays. 

16.3 The Parties shall meet and confer in good faith within ten (10) calendar days 

concerning the non-performance and, where the Parties concur that performance 

was or is impossible due to an event or matter covered under the Force Majeure 

provisions of this Agreement, despite the timely good faith efforts of Defendant, 

new deadlines shall be established. 

16.4 If Plaintiff disagrees with Defendant’s Notice of Nonperformance, or in the event 

that the Parties cannot timely agree on the terms of new performance deadlines or 

requirements, either Party shall have the right to invoke the dispute resolution 

procedures herein pursuant to Section 13. 

IV. MISCELLANEOUS PROVISIONS 

18. The Parties enter into this Agreement for the purpose of avoiding prolonged and 

costly litigation. Nothing in this Agreement shall be construed as, and Defendant expressly does 

not intend to imply, an admission as to any fact, finding, issue of law, or violation of law, nor 

shall compliance with this Agreement constitute or be construed as an admission by Defendant 

of any fact, finding, conclusion, issue of law, or violation of law. However, this paragraph shall 

not diminish or otherwise affect the obligation, responsibilities, and duties of the Parties under 

this Agreement. 

19. The Agreement shall be effective upon mutual execution by all Parties. The 

Agreement shall terminate on the “Termination Date,” which shall be October 31, 2022. 

Case 2:19-cv-01934-TLN-CKD Document 23 Filed 03/17/20 Page 15 of 43
- 13 - 

SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT Case No. 2:19-cv-01934-TLN-CKD 

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. The Agreement may be executed in one or more counterparts which, taken 

together, shall be deemed to constitute one and the same document. An executed copy of this 

Agreement shall be valid as an original. 

21. In the event that any one of the provisions of this Agreement is held by a court 

to be unenforceable, the validity of the enforceable provisions shall not be adversely affected. 

22. The language in all parts of this Agreement, unless otherwise stated, shall be 

construed according to its plain and ordinary meaning. This Agreement shall be construed 

pursuant to the law of the United Sates, without regard to choice of law principles. 

23. The undersigned are authorized to execute this Agreement on behalf of their 

respective Parties and have read, understood and agreed to be bound by all of the terms and 

conditions of this Agreement. 

24. All agreements, covenants, representations and warranties, express or implied, 

oral or written, of the Parties concerning the subject matter of this Agreement are contained 

herein. This Agreement and its attachments are made for the sole benefit of the Parties, and no 

other person or entity shall have any rights or remedies under or by reason of this Agreement, 

unless otherwise expressly provided for therein. 

25. Notices. Any notices or documents required or provided for by this Agreement 

or related thereto that are to be provided to CSPA pursuant to this Agreement shall be 

hand-delivered or sent by U.S. Mail, postage prepaid, and addressed as follows or, in the 

alternative, shall be sent by electronic mail transmission to the email addresses listed below: 

William Jennings, Executive Director 

California Sportfishing Protection Alliance 

3536 Rainer Avenue 

Stockton, California 95204 

Tel: (209) 464-5067 

E-mail: deltakeep@me.com 

With copies sent to: 

Andrew L. Packard 

William N. Carlon 

Law Offices of Andrew L. Packard 

245 Kentucky Street, Suite B3 

Petaluma, California 94952 

Tel: (707) 782-4060 

Case 2:19-cv-01934-TLN-CKD Document 23 Filed 03/17/20 Page 16 of 43
- 14 - 

SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT Case No. 2:19-cv-01934-TLN-CKD 

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 

E-mail: andrew@packardlawoffices.com 

 wncarlon@packardlawoffices.com 

Any notices or documents required or provided for by this Agreement or related thereto that are 

to be provided to Defendant pursuant to this Agreement shall be sent by U.S. Mail, postage 

prepaid, and addressed as follows or, in the alternative, shall be sent by electronic mail 

transmission to the email addresses listed below: 

Michael Caprio 

Area Vice President 

Elder Creek Transfer and Recovery, Inc. c/o 

Republic Services 

18500 North Allied Way 

Phoenix, AZ 85054 

E-mail: mcaprio@republicservices.com and 

jgeorge4@republicservices.com

With copies sent to: 

Thomas M. Bruen 

Law Offices of Thomas M. Bruen 

1990 North California Blvd., Suite 608 

Walnut Creek, California 94596 

Tel: (925) 295-3137 

E-mail: tbruen@tbsglaw.com 

Each Party shall promptly notify the other of any change in the above-listed contact information. 

26. Signatures of the Parties transmitted by facsimile or email shall be deemed 

binding. 

27. If for any reason the Court should decline to enter this Agreement in the form 

presented, the Parties shall use their best efforts to work together to modify the Agreement 

within thirty (30) days so that it is acceptable to the Court. If the Parties are unable to modify 

this Agreement in a mutually acceptable manner, this Agreement shall become null and void. 

28. This Agreement shall be deemed to have been drafted equally by the Parties, 

and shall not be interpreted for or against any Settling Party on the ground that any such party 

drafted it. 

29. This Agreement and the attachments contain all of the terms and conditions 

agreed upon by the Parties relating to the matters covered by the Agreement, and supersede any 

and all prior and contemporaneous agreements, negotiations, correspondence, understandings, 

Case 2:19-cv-01934-TLN-CKD Document 23 Filed 03/17/20 Page 17 of 43
- 15 - 

SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT Case No. 2:19-cv-01934-TLN-CKD 

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 communications of the Parties, whether oral or written, respecting the matters covered by 

this Agreement. 

30. This Agreement may be amended or modified only by a writing signed by the 

Parties or their authorized representatives. 

 

Dated: January 27, 2020 California Sportfishing Protection Alliance 

 

 By: ___________________________________ 

William Jennings, Executive Director 

Dated: January________, 2020 Elder Creek Transfer & Recovery 

By: ___________________________________ 

 Michael Caprio, Area President 

 

Case 2:19-cv-01934-TLN-CKD Document 23 Filed 03/17/20 Page 18 of 43
Case 2:19-cv-01934-TLN-CKD Document 23 Filed 03/17/20 Page 19 of 43
- 16 - 

SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT Case No. 2:19-cv-01934-TLN-CKD 

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 – Facility Site Map 

Case 2:19-cv-01934-TLN-CKD Document 23 Filed 03/17/20 Page 20 of 43
X

Elder Creek Transfer Station

Morrison Creek

Facility Location Offsite Water Body Facility Location - Figure 1

Location: Elder Creek Transfer & Rec...

Address: 8642 Elder Creek Road

Sacramento, California 3000 ft

0

Case 2:19-cv-01934-TLN-CKD Document 23 Filed 03/17/20 Page 21 of 43
▲

ďď▲

MP-3

▲

▲

MP-4 ďď ▲

▲

▲

▲

▲ ▲

▲ ▲

▲ ▲

▲

▲

▲

▲

▲

▲

▲

▲

Ë

▲

▲Ë

ď ▲

▲

▲

▲

ď ▲

▲

ď ď ▲ ▲

▲

▲

▲ ▲

▲

▲

MP-1 ďď

Ë

▲

Ë

▲

ďď MP-2 ▲

DA-3

DA-1

DA-4

DA-2

Bioswale Buildings Discharge Locations Drainage Areas

Fiber Rolls Flow Direction Jensen Precast Clarifier (Sanitary Sewer)

Site Boundary Stormwater Drain Inlets with Rip-Rap and Fabric Filters

Stormwater Pipes Vortech Stormwater Treatment System

Stormwater Conveyance - Fig...

Location:  Elder Creek Transfer &...

Address:  8642 Elder Creek Road

Sacramento, California

0 200 ft

Case 2:19-cv-01934-TLN-CKD Document 23 Filed 03/17/20 Page 22 of 43
ď MP-3

MP-4 ď

~

Scales

~ Container Storage ~

Truck Parking

~

White Goods Area

ď

Water

~

Maintenance

ď

Mobile Diesel

ď Used Oil & Plastic Oil New Oil ď

Shipping and Receiving~

Bin and Container Storage~

~ Truck Washing Area

Battery and Paint Storage~ ~ Green Waste Area

~

Processed Green Waste

ď Diesel

MP-1 ď

ď MP-2

DA-1

DA-2

DA-3

DA-4

Buildings Discharge Locations Drainage Areas Offsite Water Body

Paved Areas Potential Pollutant Sources Site Boundary

Tank, Aboveground Vegetation Areas

Potential Pollutants - Figure 3

Location:  Elder Creek Transfer &...

Address:  8642 Elder Creek Road

Sacramento, California

0 200 ft

Case 2:19-cv-01934-TLN-CKD Document 23 Filed 03/17/20 Page 23 of 43
ďď▲

MP-3

▲

MP-4 ďď

Ë

Ë

ď ▲ ~ ~

▲

ď ▲

▲

ď ď ▲

▲

▲

MP-1 ďď

Ë Ë ~

ďď MP-2

DA-3

DA-4

DA-2

DA-1

Bioswale Buildings Discharge Locations Drainage Areas

Fiber Rolls Jensen Precast Clarifier (Sanitary Sewer) Offsite Water Body

Site Boundary Spill Kits

Stormwater Drain Inlets with Rip-Rap and Fabric Filters Stormwater Pipes

Vortech Stormwater Treatment System

BMPs - Figure 4

Location:  Elder Creek Transfer &...

Address:  8642 Elder Creek Road

Sacramento, California

0 200 ft

Case 2:19-cv-01934-TLN-CKD Document 23 Filed 03/17/20 Page 24 of 43
- 17 - 

SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT Case No. 2:19-cv-01934-TLN-CKD 

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 B – CWA Notice of Violation and Intent to Sue Letter 

 

Case 2:19-cv-01934-TLN-CKD Document 23 Filed 03/17/20 Page 25 of 43
July 23, 2019

VIA CERTIFIED MAIL

William Thomson, Operations Manager

Elder Creek Transfer & Recovery, Inc.

8642 Elder Creek Road

Sacramento, CA 95828

David Burt, Area Environmental Manager

Elder Creek Transfer & Recovery, Inc.

8642 Elder Creek Road

Sacramento, CA 95828

CT Corporation System, Agent for Service 

of Process for Elder Creek Transfer & 

Recovery Inc.

818 West Seventh Street, Suite 930

Los Angeles, CA 90017

Robert B. Boyer, Chief Executive Officer

Elder Creek Transfer & Recovery, Inc.

18500 North Allied Way

Phoenix, AZ 85054

Re: NOTICE OF VIOLATIONS AND INTENT TO FILE SUIT UNDER THE 

FEDERAL WATER POLLUTION CONTROL ACT (“CLEAN WATER ACT”) 

(33 U.S.C. §§ 1251 et seq.)

Dear William Thomson, David Burt, and Robert Boyer:

This firm represents California Sportfishing Protection Alliance (“CSPA”) in regard to 

violations of the Clean Water Act (“the Act”) occurring at Elder Creek Transfer & Recovery 

Inc.’s facility located at 8642 Elder Creek Road, in Sacramento, California (the “Facility”). This 

letter is being sent to you as the responsible owners, officers and/or operators of the Facility, or 

as the registered agent for this entity. Unless otherwise noted, Elder Creek Transfer & Recovery 

Inc., William Thomson, David Burt, and Robert Boyer shall hereinafter be collectively referred 

to as “Elder Creek.” The purpose of this letter is to provide Elder Creek with notice of the 

violations of the Industrial General Permit occurring at the Facility, including, but not limited to, 

discharges of polluted storm water associated with industrial activities from the Facility into 

local surface waters. 

Elder Creek is in ongoing violation of the substantive and procedural requirements of the 

Clean Water Act, 33 U.S.C. § 1251 et seq., and National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System 

(“NPDES”) General Permit No. CAS000001 State Water Resources Control Board Water 

Quality Order No. 14-57-DWQ (“General Permit” or “Permit”).

1 Prior to July 1, 2015, Elder 

 

1 Elder Creek submitted a Notice of Intent (“NOI”) to comply with the General Permit for the

Facility on or about February 9, 2018, and again on January 24, 2019. The Facility’s Waste 

Discharge Identification number is 5S34I016593.

Case 2:19-cv-01934-TLN-CKD Document 23 Filed 03/17/20 Page 26 of 43
Notice of Violation and Intent To File Suit

July 23, 2019

Page 2

Creek’s storm water discharges were regulated under Water Quality Order No. 91-13-DWQ, as 

amended by Water Quality Orders 92-12-DWQ and 97-03-DWQ.

On July 1, 2015, the 2015 General Permit went into effect, superseding the 1997 General 

Permit that was operative between 1997 and June 30, 2015. The 2015 General Permit includes 

many of the same fundamental requirements and implements many of the same statutory 

requirements as the 1997 General Permit. Violation of both the 1997 and 2015 General Permit 

provisions is enforceable under the law. 2015 General Permit, Finding A.6.

Pursuant to Section 309(d) of the Act (33 U.S.C. § 1319(d)) and the Adjustment of Civil 

Monetary Penalties for Inflation, 40 C.F.R. § 19.4, each separate violation of the Act subjects 

Elder Creek to a penalty for all violations occurring during the period commencing five years 

prior to the date of the Notice Letter. These provisions of law authorize civil penalties of up to 

$37,500 per day per violation for all Clean Water Act violations occurring after January 12, 

2009, and $53,484 per day per violation for all violations that occurred after November 2, 2015. 

In addition to civil penalties, CSPA will seek injunctive relief preventing further violations of the 

Act pursuant to Sections 505(a) and (d) (33 U.S.C. §1365(a) and (d)) and such other relief as 

permitted by law. Lastly, Section 505(d) of the Act (33 U.S.C. § 1365(d)) permits prevailing 

parties to recover costs and fees, including attorneys’ fees.

The Clean Water Act requires that sixty (60) days prior to the initiation of a citizenenforcement action under Section 505(a) of the Act (33 U.S.C. § 1365(a)), a citizen enforcer

must give notice of its intent to file suit. Notice must be given to the alleged violator, the U.S. 

Environmental Protection Agency, and the Chief Administrative Officer of the water pollution 

control agency for the State in which the violations occur. See 40 C.F.R. § 135.2. As required

by the Act, this letter provides statutory notice of the violations that have occurred, and continue 

to occur, at the Facility. 40 C.F.R. § 135.3(a). At the expiration of sixty (60) days from the date 

of this letter, CSPA intends to file suit under Section 505(a) of the Act in federal court against 

Elder Creek for violations of the Clean Water Act and the Permit. 

I. Background

A. California Sportfishing Protection Alliance

CSPA is a non-profit corporation dedicated to the preservation, protection and defense of 

the environment, wildlife and natural resources of California waters, including the waters into

which Elder Creek discharges polluted storm water. Members of CSPA enjoy the waters that the 

Facility discharges into, including the Sacramento River. Members of CSPA use and enjoy these 

waters for their fishing, estuarine habitat and the rare, threatened and endangered species it 

supports, the wildlife habitat, marine habitat, and other designated beneficial uses. The 

discharge of pollutants from the Facility impairs each of these uses. Discharges of polluted 

storm water from the Facility are ongoing and continuous. Thus, the interests of CSPA’s 

members have been, are being, and will continue to be adversely affected by Elder Creek’ failure 

to comply with the Clean Water Act and the General Permit. 

Case 2:19-cv-01934-TLN-CKD Document 23 Filed 03/17/20 Page 27 of 43
Notice of Violation and Intent To File Suit

July 23, 2019

Page 3

B. The Clean Water Act

Congress enacted the CWA in 1972 in order to “restore and maintain the chemical, 

physical, and biological integrity of the Nation’s waters.” 33 U.S.C. § 1251. The Act prohibits 

the discharge of pollutants into United States waters except as authorized by the statute. 33 

U.S.C. § 1311; San Francisco Baykeeper, Inc. v. Tosco Corp., 309 F.3d 1153, 1156 (9th Cir. 

2002). The Act is administered largely through the NPDES permit program. 33 U.S.C. § 1342. 

In 1987, the Act was amended to establish a framework for regulating storm water discharges 

through the NPDES system. Water Quality Act of 1987, Pub. L. 100-4, § 405, 101 Stat. 7, 69 

(1987) (codified at 33 U.S.C. § 1342(p)); see also Envtl. Def. Ctr., Inc. v. EPA, 344 F.3d 832, 

840-41 (9th Cir. 2003) (describing the problem of storm water runoff and summarizing the Clean 

Water Act’s permitting scheme). The discharge of pollutants without an NPDES permit, or in 

violation of a permit, is illegal. Ecological Rights Found. v. Pacific Lumber Co., 230 F.3d 1141, 

1145 (9th Cir. 2000).

Much of the responsibility for administering the NPDES permitting system has been 

delegated to the states. See 33 U.S.C. § 1342(b); see also Cal. Water Code § 13370 (expressing 

California’s intent to implement its own NPDES permit program). The CWA authorizes states 

with approved NPDES permit programs to regulate industrial storm water discharges through 

individual permits issued to dischargers and/or through the issuance of a single, statewide 

general permit applicable to all industrial storm water dischargers. 33 U.S.C. § 1342(b). 

Pursuant to Section 402 of the Act, the Administrator of EPA has authorized California’s State 

Board to issue individual and general NPDES permits in California. 33 U.S.C. § 1342.

C. California’s General Permit for Storm Water Discharges Associated with 

Industrial Activities

Between 1997 and June 30, 2015, the General Permit in effect was Order No. 97-03-

DWQ, which CSPA refers to herein as the “1997 General Permit.” On April 1, 2014, pursuant to 

Order No. 2014-0057-DWQ the General Permit was reissued, including many of the same 

fundamental terms as the prior permit. This permit became effective July 1, 2015. For purposes 

of this notice letter, CSPA refers to the reissued permit as the “2015 General Permit.” 

Accordingly, Elder Creek is liable for violations of the 1997 General Permit and ongoing 

violations of the 2015 General Permit, and civil penalties and injunctive relief are available 

remedies. See Illinois v. Outboard Marine, Inc., 680 F.2d 473, 480-81 (7th Cir. 1982) (relief 

granted for violations of an expired permit); Sierra Club v. Aluminum Co. of Am., 585 F. Supp. 

842, 853-54 (N.D.N.Y. 1984) (holding that the Clean Water Act’s legislative intent and public 

policy favor allowing penalties for violations of an expired permit); Pub. Interest Research 

Group of N.J. v. Carter-Wallace, Inc., 684 F. Supp. 115, 121-22 (D.N.J. 1988) (“Limitations of 

an expired permit, when those limitations have been transferred unchanged to the newly issued 

permit, may be viewed as currently in effect”). 

Facilities discharging, or having the potential to discharge, storm water associated with 

industrial activities that have not obtained an individual NPDES permit must apply for coverage 

under the General Permit by filing a Notice of Intent to Comply (“NOI”). 1997 General Permit, 

Case 2:19-cv-01934-TLN-CKD Document 23 Filed 03/17/20 Page 28 of 43
Notice of Violation and Intent To File Suit

July 23, 2019

Page 4

Provision E.1; 2015 General Permit, Standard Condition XXI.A. Facilities must file their NOIs 

before the initiation of industrial operations. Id. Facilities must strictly comply with all of the 

terms and conditions of the General Permit; a violation of the General Permit is a violation of the 

CWA.

The General Permit contains three primary and interrelated categories of requirements: 

(1) discharge prohibitions, effluent limitations, and receiving water limitations; (2) Storm Water 

Pollution Prevention Plan (“SWPPP”) requirements; and (3) self-monitoring and reporting 

requirements.

D. Elder Creek’s Facility

Information available to CSPA indicates that Elder Creek’s industrial activities at the 

approximately 19.26-acre Facility include, but are not limited to: the sorting of municipal solid 

waste, hauling, cleaning, and maintenance of equipment and machinery, and other activities 

related to the transfer and recovery processes. The industrial activities at the Facility fall under 

Standard Industrial Classification (“SIC”) Codes 5093 and 4212 (“Scrap and Waste Materials”

and “Local Trucking Without Storage,” respectively).

Elder Creek collects and discharges storm water associated with industrial activities at the 

Facility through at least four discharge points into the City of Sacramento storm water drainage 

system, from which the water ultimately flows into the Sacramento River and the SacramentoSan Joaquin River Delta (“the Delta”). The Delta and is tributaries are waters of the United 

States within the meaning of the Clean Water Act. 

The areas of industrial activity at the Facility are sources of pollutants. The General 

Permit requires Elder Creek to analyze storm water samples for TSS, pH, and Oil and Grease. 

1997 General Permit, Section B.5.c.i; 2015 General Permit, Section XI.B.6. Facilities under SIC 

Code 5093 must also analyze storm water samples for Iron (“Fe”), Lead (“Pb”), Aluminum 

(“Al”), Zinc (“Zn”) and Chemical Oxygen Demand (“COD”). 1997 General Permit, Tables 1-2; 

2015 General Permit, Tables 1-2.

II. Elder Creek’s Violations of the Act and Permit

Based on its review of available public documents, CSPA is informed and believes that 

Elder Creek is in ongoing violation of both the substantive and procedural requirements of the 

CWA and the General Permit. These violations are ongoing and continuous. Consistent with the 

five-year statute of limitations applicable to citizen enforcement actions brought pursuant to the 

federal Clean Water Act, Elder Creek is subject to penalties for violations of the Act since May 

13, 2014.

Case 2:19-cv-01934-TLN-CKD Document 23 Filed 03/17/20 Page 29 of 43
Notice of Violation and Intent To File Suit

July 23, 2019

Page 5

A. Elder Creek Discharges Storm Water Containing Pollutants in Violation of

the General Permit’s Discharge Prohibitions, Effluent Limitations, and

Receiving Water Limitations

Elder Creek’s storm water sampling results provide conclusive evidence of Elder Creek’s

failure to comply with the General Permit’s discharge prohibitions, effluent limitations, and 

receiving water limitations. Self-monitoring reports under the Permit are deemed “conclusive 

evidence of an exceedance of a permit limitation.” Sierra Club v. Union Oil, 813 F.2d 1480, 

1493 (9th Cir. 1988). 

1. Discharge Prohibitions

The General Permit prohibits all discharges of storm water associated with industrial 

activities to waters of the United States except as specifically authorized by the General Permit 

or another NPDES permit. 2015 General Permit, Section III.A. The General Permit further

prohibits the discharge of liquids or materials other than storm water to waters of the United 

States unless authorized by another NPDES permit. 2015 General Permit, Section III.B. 

The General Permit requires that storm water discharges and authorized non-storm water 

discharges shall not cause or threaten to cause pollution, contamination, or nuisance. 1997 

General Permit, Discharge Prohibition A.2; 2015 General Permit, Discharge Prohibition III.C. 

The General Permit also prohibits discharges that violate any discharge prohibition contained in 

the applicable Regional Water Board’s Basin Plan or statewide water quality control plans and 

policies. 1997 General Permit, Receiving Water Limitation C.2; 2015 General Permit, Discharge 

Prohibition III.D.

2. Technology Based Effluent Limitations

Dischargers are required to reduce or prevent pollutants in their storm water discharges 

through implementation of best available technology economically achievable (“BAT”) for toxic 

and nonconventional pollutants and best conventional pollutant control technology (“BCT”) for 

conventional pollutants. 1997 General Permit, Effluent Limitation B.3; 2015 General Permit, 

Effluent Limitation V.A. Conventional pollutants include Total Suspended Solids, Oil & Grease, 

pH, Biochemical Oxygen Demand and Fecal Coliform. 40 C.F.R. § 401.16. All other pollutants 

are either toxic or nonconventional. 40 C.F.R. §§ 401.15-16. 

Under the General Permit, benchmark levels established by the EPA (“EPA 

benchmarks”) serve as guidelines for determining whether a facility discharging industrial storm 

water has implemented the requisite BAT and BCT. Santa Monica Baykeeper v. Kramer Metals,

619 F. Supp. 2d 914, 920, 923 (C.D. Cal 2009); 1997 General Permit, Effluent Limitations B.5-

6; 2015 General Permit, Exceedance Response Action XII.A.

The following EPA benchmarks have been established for pollutants discharged by Elder 

Creek: total suspended solids – 100 mg/L; oil & grease – 15.0 mg/L; iron – 1.0 mg/L; aluminum 

Case 2:19-cv-01934-TLN-CKD Document 23 Filed 03/17/20 Page 30 of 43
Notice of Violation and Intent To File Suit

July 23, 2019

Page 6

– 0.75 mg/L; zinc – 0.26 mg/L; lead – 0.262 mg/L; chemical oxygen demand – 120 mg/L; and, 

pH – 6.0-9.0 s.u. 

3. Receiving Water Limitations

Storm water discharges and authorized non-storm water discharges shall not adversely 

impact human health or the environment, and shall not cause or contribute to a violation of any 

water quality standards in any affected receiving water. 1997 General Permit, Receiving Water 

Limitations C.1, C.2; 2015 General Permit, Receiving Water Limitations VI.A, VI.B.

Dischargers are required to prepare and submit documentation to the Regional Board 

upon determination that storm water discharges are in violation of the General Permit’s 

Receiving Water Limitations. 1997 General Permit, p. VII; 2015 General Permit, Special 

Condition XX.B. The documentation must describe changes the discharger will make to its 

current storm water Best Management Practices (“BMPs”) in order to prevent or reduce any 

pollutant in its storm water discharges that is causing or contributing to an exceedance of water 

quality standards. Id. 

The Water Quality Control Plan for the Central Valley Region (Revised April 2016) 

(“Basin Plan”) also sets forth water quality standards and prohibitions applicable to Elder 

Creek’s storm water discharges. The Basin Plan identifies present and potential beneficial uses 

for the Sacramento River, which include municipal and domestic water supply, hydropower 

generation, agricultural supply, industrial service supply, navigation, wildlife habitat, warm 

freshwater habitat, cold freshwater habitat, warm and cold spawning, and contact and noncontact water recreation.

4. Elder Creek’s Storm Water Sample Results

The following discharges of pollutants from the Facility have violated the discharge prohibitions, 

effluent limitations, and receiving water limitations of the Permit: 

a. Discharge of Storm Water Containing Total Suspended Solids 

(TSS) at Concentrations in Excess of Applicable EPA 

Benchmark Value

Date Discharge 

Point

Parameter Concentration in 

Discharge (mg/L)

EPA Benchmark 

Value (mg/L)

2/25/2019 SWC TSS 320 100

12/24/2018 SWC TSS 400 100

2/26/2018 SWC TSS 260 100

2/26/2018 NWC TSS 120 100

1/5/2018 SWC TSS 340 100

1/5/2018 NWC TSS 230 100

Case 2:19-cv-01934-TLN-CKD Document 23 Filed 03/17/20 Page 31 of 43
Notice of Violation and Intent To File Suit

July 23, 2019

Page 7

b. Discharge of Storm Water Containing Zinc (Zn) at 

Concentrations in Excess of Applicable EPA Benchmark Value

Date Discharge 

Point

Parameter Concentration in 

Discharge (mg/L)

EPA Benchmark 

Value (mg/L)

2/25/2019 SWC Zn 0.36 0.26

12/24/2018 SWC Zn 0.38 0.26

2/26/2018 SWC Zn 0.38 0.26

1/5/2018 SWC Zn 0.32 0.26

c. Discharge of Storm Water Containing Iron (Fe) at 

Concentrations in Excess of Applicable EPA Benchmark Value

Date Discharge 

Point

Parameter Concentration in 

Discharge (mg/L)

EPA Benchmark 

Value (mg/L)

3/20/2019 SWC Fe 2.4 1.0

2/25/2019 SWC Fe 9.6 1.0

2/25/2019 NWC Fe 2.2 1.0

12/24/2018 SWC Fe 8.6 1.0

12/24/2018 NWC Fe 3.4 1.0

2/26/2018 SWC Fe 5.1 1.0

2/26/2018 NWC Fe 4.6 1.0

1/5/2018 SWC Fe 7.9 1.0

1/5/2018 NWC Fe 5.2 1.0

2/3/2017 SEC Fe 1.1 1.0

12/15/2016 NWC Fe 1.6 1.0

12/15/2016 NEC Fe 1.2 1.0

10/28/2016 NEC Fe 1.2 1.0

3/11/2016 NWC Fe 1.3 1.0

1/5/2016 NWC Fe 1.1 1.0

d. Discharge of Storm Water Containing Aluminum (Al) at 

Concentrations in Excess of Applicable EPA Benchmark Value

Date Discharge 

Point

Parameter Concentration in 

Discharge (mg/L)

EPA Benchmark 

Value (mg/L)

2/25/2019 SWC Al 6.2 0.75

2/25/2019 NWC Al 1.6 0.75

12/24/2018 SWC Al 3.9 0.75

12/24/2018 NWC Al 2.9 0.75

2/26/2018 SWC Al 6.1 0.75

2/26/2018 NWC Al 3.4 0.75

1/5/2018 SWC Al 7.7 0.75

Case 2:19-cv-01934-TLN-CKD Document 23 Filed 03/17/20 Page 32 of 43
Notice of Violation and Intent To File Suit

July 23, 2019

Page 8

1/5/2018 NWC Al 4.9 0.75

2/3/2017 SEC Al 1.3 0.75

12/15/2016 NWC Al 1.7 0.75

12/15/2016 NEC Al 1.4 0.75

10/28/2016 NEC Al 0.99 0.75

3/11/2016 NWC Al 1.1 0.75

3/11/2016 SEC Al 0.83 0.75

1/5/2016 SEC Al 0.78 0.75

1/5/2016 NWC Al 0.84 0.75

4/7/2015 NWC Al 0.87 0.75

4/7/2015 NEC Al 0.76 0.75

12/3/2014 NEC Al 1 0.75

12/3/2014 SWC Al 1.3 0.75

12/3/2014 NWC Al 0.98 0.75

12/3/2014 SEC Al 1.2 0.75

e. Discharge of Storm Water Containing Chemical Oxygen 

Demand (COD) at Concentrations in Excess of Applicable EPA 

Benchmark Value

Date Discharge 

Point

Parameter Concentration in 

Discharge (mg/L)

EPA Benchmark 

Value (mg/L)

3/20/2019 SWC COD 210 120

2/25/2019 SWC COD 780 120

12/24/2018 SWC COD 990 120

12/24/2018 NWC COD 160 120

2/26/2018 SWC COD 1100 120

2/26/2018 NWC COD 240 120

1/5/2018 SWC COD 710 120

1/5/2018 NWC COD 670 120

10/28/2016 SEC COD 140 120

f. Discharge of Storm Water Containing Oil & Grease (O&G) at 

Concentrations in Excess of Applicable EPA Benchmark Value

Date Discharge 

Point

Parameter Concentration in 

Discharge (mg/L)

EPA Benchmark 

Value (mg/L)

1/5/2018 SWC O&G 26 15

Case 2:19-cv-01934-TLN-CKD Document 23 Filed 03/17/20 Page 33 of 43
Notice of Violation and Intent To File Suit

July 23, 2019

Page 9

g. Discharge of Storm Water Containing Copper (Cu) at 

Concentrations in Excess of Applicable EPA Benchmark Value

Date Discharge 

Point

Parameter Concentration in 

Discharge (mg/L)

EPA Benchmark 

Value (mg/L)

2/25/2019 SWC Cu 0.048 0.0332

1/5/2018 SWC Cu 0.051 0.0332

h. Elder Creek's Sample Results Are Evidence of Violations of 

the General Permit

Elder Creek’s sample results demonstrate violations of the General Permit’s discharge 

prohibitions, technology based effluent limitations, and receiving water limitations set forth 

above. CSPA is informed and believes that Elder Creek has known that its storm water contains 

pollutants at levels exceeding General Permit standards since at least July 23, 2014.

CSPA alleges that such violations occur each time storm water discharges from the 

Facility. Attachment A hereto, sets forth the specific rain dates on which CSPA alleges that 

Elder Creek has discharged storm water containing impermissible levels of TSS, Fe, Al, COD, 

Zn, Cu, and O&G in violation of the General Permit. 1997 General Permit, Discharge 

Prohibition A.2, Receiving Water Limitations C.1 and C.2; 2015 General Permit, Discharge 

Prohibitions III.C and III.D, Receiving Water Limitations VI.A, VI.B. Elder Creek may have 

had other violations that can only be fully identified and documented once discovery and 

investigation have been completed. Hence, to the extent possible, CSPA includes such violations 

in this Notice and reserves the right to amend this Notice, if necessary, to include such further 

violations in future legal proceedings.

5. Elder Creek Has Failed to Implement BAT and BCT

Dischargers must implement BMPs that fulfill the BAT/BCT requirements of the CWA 

and the General Permit to reduce or prevent discharges of pollutants in their storm water 

discharges. 1997 General Permit, Effluent Limitation B.3; 2015 General Permit, Effluent 

Limitation V.A. To meet the BAT/BCT standard, dischargers must implement minimum BMPs 

and any advanced BMPs set forth in the General Permit’s SWPPP Requirements provisions 

where necessary to reduce or prevent pollutants in discharges. See 1997 General Permit, 

Sections A.8.a-b; 2015 General Permit, Sections X.H.1-2.

Elder Creek has failed to implement the minimum BMPs required by the General Permit, 

including: good housekeeping requirements; preventive maintenance requirements; spill and leak 

prevention and response requirements; material handling and waste management requirements;

erosion and sediment controls; employee training and quality assurance; and record keeping. 

Permit, Section X.H.1(a-g). Elder Creek has further failed to implement advanced BMPs 

necessary to reduce or prevent discharges of pollutants in its storm water sufficient to meet the 

BAT/BCT standards, including: exposure minimization BMPs; containment and discharge 

reduction BMPs; treatment control BMPs; or other advanced BMPs necessary to comply with 

Case 2:19-cv-01934-TLN-CKD Document 23 Filed 03/17/20 Page 34 of 43
Notice of Violation and Intent To File Suit

July 23, 2019

Page 10

the General Permit’s effluent limitations. 1997 General Permit, Section A.8.b; 2015 General 

Permit, Sections X.H.2.

Each day that Elder Creek has failed to develop and implement BAT and BCT at the 

Facility in violation of the General Permit is a separate and distinct violation of Section 301(a) of

the Act, 33 U.S.C. § 1311(a). Elder Creek has been in violation of the BAT and BCT 

requirements at the Facility every day since at least July 23, 2014.

6. Elder Creek Has Failed to Implement an Adequate Monitoring 

Implementation Plan

The General Permit requires dischargers to implement a Monitoring Implementation 

Plan. 2015 General Permit, Section X.I. As part of their monitoring plan, dischargers must 

identify all storm water discharge locations. 2015 General Permit, Section X.I.2.a. Dischargers 

must then conduct monthly visual observations of each drainage area, as well as visual 

observations during discharge sampling events. 2015 General Permit, Section XI.A.1 and 2. 

Dischargers must collect and analyze storm water samples from two (2) storm events 

within the first half of each reporting year (July 1 to December 31) and two (2) storm events 

during the second half of each reporting year (January 1 to June 3). 2015 General Permit, 

Section XI.B. Section XI.B requires dischargers to sample and analyze during the wet season for 

basic parameters such as pH, total suspended solids (“TSS”) and oil and grease (“O&G”), certain 

industry-specific parameters set forth in Table 2 of the General Permit, and other pollutants 

likely to be in the storm water discharged from the facility based on the pollutant source 

assessment. 2015 General Permit, Section XI.B.6. Dischargers must submit all sampling and 

analytical results via SMARTS within thirty (30) days of obtaining all results for each sampling 

event. 2015 General Permit Section XI.B.11. 

Elder Creek has failed to develop and implement an adequate Monitoring Implementation 

Plan. These failures include: using analytical test methods with method detection limits higher 

than existing approved analytical test methods to analyze samples of storm water; failing to 

collect samples from all discharge points during each sampling event; and, failing to collect the 

required number of samples during each reporting period.

Each day that Elder Creek has failed to develop and implement an adequate Monitoring 

Implementation Plan is a separate and distinct violation of the Act and Permit. Elder Creek has

been in violation of the Monitoring Implementation Plan requirements every day since at least

July 23, 2014.

7. Elder Creek Has Failed to Develop and Implement an Adequate 

Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan

The General Permit requires dischargers to develop and implement a site-specific 

SWPPP. 1997 General Permit, Section A.1; 2015 General Permit, Section X.A. The SWPPP 

must include, among other elements: (1) the facility name and contact information; (2) a site 

Case 2:19-cv-01934-TLN-CKD Document 23 Filed 03/17/20 Page 35 of 43
Notice of Violation and Intent To File Suit

July 23, 2019

Page 11

map; (3) a list of industrial materials; (4) a description of potential pollution sources; (5) an 

assessment of potential pollutant sources; (6) minimum BMPs; (7) advanced BMPs, if 

applicable; (8) a monitoring implementation plan; (9) annual comprehensive facility compliance 

evaluation; and (10) the date that the SWPPP was initially prepared and the date of each SWPPP 

amendment, if applicable. See id.

Dischargers must revise their SWPPP whenever necessary and certify and submit via the 

Regional Board’s Storm Water Multiple Application and Report Tracking System (“SMARTS”) 

their SWPPP within 30 days whenever the SWPPP contains significant revisions(s); and, certify 

and submit via SMARTS for any non-significant revisions not more than once every three (3) 

months in the reporting year. 2015 General Permit, Section X.B; see also 1997 General permit, 

Section A.

CSPA’s investigation indicates that Elder Creek has been operating with an inadequately 

developed or implemented SWPPP in violation of General Permit requirements. Elder Creek has 

further failed to evaluate the effectiveness of its BMPs and to revise its SWPPP as necessary, 

resulting in the Facility’s numerous NAL exceedences across multiple pollutant parameters.

Each day Elder Creek failed to develop and implement an adequate SWPPP is a violation 

of the General Permit. The SWPPP violations described above were at all times in violation of 

Section A of the 1997 General Permit, and Section X of the 2015 General Permit. Elder Creek

has been in violation of these requirements at the Facility every day since at least July 23, 2014.

8. Elder Creek Has Failed to File Timely, True and Correct Reports

Section XVI of the 2015 General Permit requires dischargers to submit an Annual Report 

by July 15th of each reporting year to the Regional Board. The Annual Report must be signed 

and certified by a discharger’s Legally Responsible Person, or Duly Authorized Representative. 

2015 General Permit, Sections XVI.A, XXI.K. The Annual Report must include a compliance 

checklist, certifying compliance with the General Permit and an explanation of any noncompliance. 2015 General Permit, Section XVI.B. 

CSPA’s investigations indicate that Elder Creek has submitted incomplete Annual 

Reports and purported to comply with the Permit despite significant noncompliance at the 

Facility.

III. Persons Responsible for the Violations

CSPA puts Elder Creek on notice that they are the persons and entities responsible for the 

violations described above. If additional persons are subsequently identified as also being 

responsible for the violations set forth above, CSPA puts Elder Creek on formal notice that it 

intends to include those persons in this action.

Case 2:19-cv-01934-TLN-CKD Document 23 Filed 03/17/20 Page 36 of 43
Notice of Violation and Intent To File Suit

July 23, 2019

Page 12

IV. Name and Address of Noticing Parties

The name, address and telephone number of each of the noticing parties is as follows:

Bill Jennings, Executive Director

California Sportfishing Protection Alliance

3536 Rainer Avenue

Stockton, CA 95204

(209) 464-5067

V. Counsel

CSPA has retained legal counsel to represent it in this matter. Please direct all 

communications to:

Andrew L. Packard

William N. Carlon

Law Offices Of Andrew L. Packard

245 Kentucky Street, Suite B3

Petaluma, CA 94952

(707) 782-4060

andrew@packardlawoffices.com 

wncarlon@packardlawoffices.com

VI. Conclusion

CSPA believes this Notice of Violations and Intent to File Suit sufficiently states grounds 

for filing suit. We intend to file a citizen suit under Section 505(a) of the CWA against Elder 

Creek and their agents for the above-referenced violations upon the expiration of the 60-day 

notice period. If you wish to pursue remedies in the absence of litigation, we suggest that you 

initiate those discussions within the next 20 days so that they may be completed before the end 

of the 60-day notice period. We do not intend to delay the filing of a complaint in federal court 

if discussions are continuing when that period ends.

Sincerely,

______________________

Andrew L. Packard

Law Offices of Andrew L. Packard

Counsel for CALIFORNIA SPORTFISHING 

PROTECTION ALLIANCE

Case 2:19-cv-01934-TLN-CKD Document 23 Filed 03/17/20 Page 37 of 43
Notice of Violation and Intent To File Suit

July 23, 2019

Page 13

SERVICE LIST

VIA CERTIFIED MAIL

Andrew Wheeler, Administrator

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency

1200 Pennsylvania Ave., N.W.

Washington, D.C. 20460

Mike Stoker, Acting Regional Administrator

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Region IX

75 Hawthorne Street

San Francisco, CA 94105

William Barr, U.S. Attorney General

U.S. Department of Justice

950 Pennsylvania Avenue, N.W.

Washington, DC 20530-0001

Eileen Sobeck, Executive Director

State Water Resources Control Board

P.O. Box 100

Sacramento, CA 95812

Patrick Pulupa, Executive Officer

Central Valley Regional Water Quality Control Board

11020 Sun Center Drive, Suite 200

Rancho Cordova, CA 95670

Case 2:19-cv-01934-TLN-CKD Document 23 Filed 03/17/20 Page 38 of 43
ATTACHMENT A 

Notice of Intent to File Suit, Elder Creek

Significant Rain Events,* July 23, 2014 – July 23, 2019

* Dates gathered from publicly available rain and weather data collected at stations located near the Facility.

9/25/2014 1/17/2016 1/3/2017 11/9/2017

10/31/2014 1/18/2016 1/4/2017 11/15/2017

11/13/2014 1/19/2016 1/7/2017 11/16/2017

11/20/2014 1/22/2016 1/8/2017 11/17/2017

11/22/2014 1/23/2016 1/9/2017 11/26/2017

11/28/2014 1/29/2016 1/10/2017 11/27/2017

11/29/2014 2/17/2016 1/11/2017 1/3/2018

11/30/2014 2/18/2016 1/12/2017 1/4/2018

12/2/2014 3/4/2016 1/18/2017 1/5/2018

12/3/2014 3/5/2016 1/19/2017 1/8/2018

12/5/2014 3/6/2016 1/20/2017 1/9/2018

12/11/2014 3/7/2016 1/21/2017 1/18/2018

12/12/2014 3/10/2016 1/22/2017 1/22/2018

12/15/2014 3/11/2016 2/2/2017 1/24/2018

12/16/2014 3/12/2016 2/3/2017 2/26/2018

12/19/2014 3/13/2016 2/5/2017 3/1/2018

2/6/2015 3/14/2016 2/6/2017 3/2/2018

2/8/2015 4/9/2016 2/7/2017 3/8/2018

3/11/2015 4/10/2016 2/8/2017 3/13/2018

4/5/2015 4/22/2016 2/9/2017 3/14/2018

4/7/2015 4/27/2016 2/16/2017 3/15/2018

4/24/2015 5/5/2016 2/17/2017 3/16/2018

4/25/2015 5/20/2016 2/19/2017 3/20/2018

5/7/2015 10/14/2016 2/20/2017 3/21/2018

10/17/2015 10/15/2016 2/21/2017 3/22/2018

11/1/2015 10/16/2016 3/4/2017 4/6/2018

11/2/2015 10/25/2016 3/20/2017 4/7/2018

11/8/2015 10/27/2016 3/21/2017 4/16/2018

11/9/2015 10/28/2016 3/22/2017 5/25/2018

11/15/2015 10/30/2016 3/24/2017 11/21/2018

12/3/2015 11/19/2016 4/6/2017 11/22/2018

12/13/2015 11/20/2016 4/7/2017 11/23/2018

12/18/2015 11/23/2016 4/8/2017 11/28/2018

12/19/2015 11/26/2016 4/12/2017 11/29/2018

12/21/2015 11/27/2016 4/13/2017 12/1/2018

1/4/2016 12/7/2016 4/16/2017 12/5/2018

1/5/2016 12/8/2016 4/17/2017 12/16/2018

1/6/2016 12/10/2016 4/19/2017 12/17/2018

1/13/2016 12/15/2016 6/8/2017 12/24/2018

1/15/2016 12/23/2016 11/4/2017 12/25/2018

1/16/2016 1/2/2017 11/8/2017 1/5/2019

Case 2:19-cv-01934-TLN-CKD Document 23 Filed 03/17/20 Page 39 of 43
ATTACHMENT A 

Notice of Intent to File Suit, Elder Creek

Significant Rain Events,* July 23, 2014 – July 23, 2019

* Dates gathered from publicly available rain and weather data collected at stations located near the Facility.

1/6/2019 2/26/2019

1/9/2019 2/27/2019

1/15/2019 3/2/2019

1/16/2019 3/5/2019

1/20/2019 3/6/2019

2/1/2019 3/19/2019

2/2/2019 3/20/2019

2/4/2019 3/22/2019

2/8/2019 3/23/2019

2/9/2019 3/25/2019

2/13/2019 3/27/2019

2/14/2019 4/2/2019

2/15/2019 4/5/2019

2/25/2019

2/26/2019

2/27/2019

3/2/2019

3/5/2019

3/6/2019

3/19/2019

3/20/2019

3/22/2019

3/23/2019

3/25/2019

3/27/2019

4/2/2019

4/5/2019

1/6/2019

1/9/2019

1/15/2019

1/16/2019

1/20/2019

2/1/2019

2/2/2019

2/4/2019

2/8/2019

2/9/2019

2/13/2019

2/14/2019

2/15/2019

2/25/2019

Case 2:19-cv-01934-TLN-CKD Document 23 Filed 03/17/20 Page 40 of 43
- 18 - 

SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT Case No. 2:19-cv-01934-TLN-CKD 

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 C -- Map: Surfaces in Drainage Areas 1 and 2 Scheduled for Resurfacing By 

10/1/20 

 

Case 2:19-cv-01934-TLN-CKD Document 23 Filed 03/17/20 Page 41 of 43

- 19 - 

SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT Case No. 2:19-cv-01934-TLN-CKD 

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 D 

Parameter Value 

pH (Field test) 6.0 – 9.0 s.u. 

Total Suspended Solids 100 mg/L 

Oil & Grease 15 mg/L 

Iron 1.0 mg/L 

Aluminum 0.75 mg/L 

Lead 0.262 mg/L 

Zinc 0.26 mg/L 

Chemical Oxygen Demand 120 mg/L 

Copper 0.0332 mg/L 

Cadmium 0.0053 mg/L 

Nickel 1.02 mg/L 

Arsenic 0.15 mg/L 

Case 2:19-cv-01934-TLN-CKD Document 23 Filed 03/17/20 Page 43 of 43