Case 3:20-cv-00615-JCS Document 1 Filed 01/27/20 Page 1 of 46
`
`
`
`
`
`
`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) 782-4061
`andrew@packardlawoffices.com
`wncarlon@packardlawoffices.com
`
`Attorneys for Plaintiff
`CALIFORNIA SPORTFISHING
`PROTECTION ALLIANCE
`
`
`
`UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
`
`NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
`
`
`
`CALIFORNIA SPORTFISHING
`PROTECTION ALLIANCE,
`
`Plaintiff,
`
`v.
`
`
`CANYON ROCK, CO., INC., and WENDEL
`TRAPPE,
`
`
`Defendants.
`
`
`
`
`Case No.
`
`COMPLAINT FOR DECLARATORY AND
`INJUNCTIVE RELIEF AND CIVIL
`PENALTIES
`
`(Federal Water Pollution Control Act, 33 U.S.C.
`§§ 1251-1387)
`
`
`
`
`
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`
`CALIFORNIA SPORTFISHING PROTECTION ALLIANCE (“CSPA”), by and through its
`
`counsel, hereby alleges:
`
`I.
`
`JURISDICTION AND VENUE
`
`1.
`
`This is a civil suit brought under the citizen suit enforcement provision of the Federal
`
`Water Pollution Control Act, 33 U.S.C. §§ 1251–1387 (the “Clean Water Act”, the “CWA” or “the
`
`Act”) against Canyon Rock, Co., Inc. and Wendel Trappe (“Defendants”). This Court has subject matter
`
`jurisdiction over the parties and the subject matter of this action pursuant to Section 505(a)(1) of the Act,
`
`33 U.S.C. § 1365(a), and 28 U.S.C. § 1331 (an action arising under the laws of the United States).
`
`Specifically, this action arises under Section 505(a)(1)(A) of the Act, 33 U.S.C. § 1365(a)(1)(A) (citizen
`
`suit to enforce effluent standard or limitation). The relief requested is authorized pursuant to 33 U.S.C.
`
`
`Complaint for Declaratory and Injunctive Relief and Civil Penalties
`1
`
`
`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
`
`
`
`30
`
`

`

`Case 3:20-cv-00615-JCS Document 1 Filed 01/27/20 Page 2 of 46
`
`
`
`
`
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`§1365(a) (injunctive relief), 1319(d) (civil penalties), and 28 U.S.C. §§ 2201–2202 (power to issue
`
`declaratory relief in case of actual controversy and further necessary relief based on such a declaration).
`
`2.
`
`On November 26, 2019, Plaintiff provided written notice to Defendants, via certified
`
`mail, of Defendants’ violations of the Act (“Notice Letter”), and of its intention to file suit against
`
`Defendants, as required by the Act. See 33 U.S.C. § 1365(b)(1)(A); 40 C.F.R. § 135.2(a)(1). Plaintiff
`
`mailed a copy of the Notice Letter to the Administrator of the United States Environmental Protection
`
`Agency (“EPA”); the Administrator of EPA Region IX; the Executive Director of the State Water
`
`Resources Control Board (“State Board”); and the Executive Officer of the Regional Water Quality
`
`Control Board, North Coast Region (“Regional Board”), pursuant to 40 C.F.R. § 135.2(a)(1). A true and
`
`correct copy of the Notice Letter is attached hereto as Exhibit A, and is incorporated by reference.
`
`3.
`
`More than sixty days have passed since Plaintiff served the Notice Letter on Defendants
`
`and the agencies. Plaintiff is informed and believes, and thereupon alleges, that neither the EPA nor the
`
`State of California has commenced nor is diligently prosecuting a court action to redress the violations
`
`alleged in this Complaint. This action’s claims for civil penalties are not barred by any prior
`
`administrative penalty under Section 309(g) of the Act, 33 U.S.C. § 1319(g).
`
`4.
`
`Venue is proper in the Northern District of California pursuant to Section 505(c)(1) of the
`
`Act, 33 U.S.C. § 1365(c)(1), because the sources of the violations are located within this District.
`
`Venue is also proper under 28 U.S.C. § 1391(b) because a substantial part of the events or omissions
`
`giving rise to Plaintiff’s claims occurred in this District. Intra-district venue is proper in either San
`
`Francisco or Oakland, California, because the sources of the violations are located within Sonoma
`
`21
`
`County.
`
`22
`
`II.
`
`INTRODUCTION
`
`5.
`
`This Complaint seeks relief for Defendants’ violations of the CWA at the approximately
`
`80-acre aggregate and rock processing facility located at 7525 Highway 116, in Forestville, California
`
`(the “Forestville Facility”), and at the approximately 120-acre aggregate and rock processing facility
`
`located at 600 Austin Creek Road, in Cazadero, California (the “Cazadero Facility” and together with
`
`the Forestville Facility, the “Facilities”). Defendants discharge pollutant-contaminated storm water
`
`
`Complaint for Declaratory and Injunctive Relief and Civil Penalties
`2
`
`
`23
`
`24
`
`25
`
`26
`
`27
`
`28
`
`
`
`30
`
`

`

`Case 3:20-cv-00615-JCS Document 1 Filed 01/27/20 Page 3 of 46
`
`
`
`
`
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`from the Forestville Facility into storm water conveyances that discharge to Green Valley Creek, which
`
`drains to the Russian River. Defendants also discharge pollutant-contaminated storm water from the
`
`Cazadero Facility into storm water conveyances that discharge into Austin Creek, which drains to the
`
`Russian River. Green Valley Creek, Austin Creek and the Russian River (the “Impacted Waters”) are
`
`waters of the United States within the meaning of the Clean Water Act. Defendants are in violation of
`
`both the substantive and procedural requirements of the CWA.
`
`6.
`
`Defendants’ discharges of polluted storm water from the Facilities violate Section 301 of
`
`the Act, which prohibits the discharge of storm water associated with industrial activities to waters of
`
`the United States except in compliance with the terms of a National Pollutant Discharge Elimination
`
`10
`
`System (“NPDES”) permit issued pursuant to Section 402 of the Act, 33 U.S.C. § 1342. These
`
`11
`
`violations are ongoing and continuous.
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`
`7.
`
`Defendants’ discharges of polluted storm water from the Facilities violate the State of
`
`California’s General Industrial Permit for storm water discharges, State Water Resources Control Board
`
`(“State Board”) Water Quality Order No. 91-13-DWQ, as amended by Water Quality Order No. 92-12-
`
`DWQ, Water Quality Order No. 97-03-DWQ, and Water Quality Order No. 14-0057-DWQ, NPDES
`
`General Permit No. CAS000001 (hereinafter “General Permit” or “Permit”). Defendants’ violations of
`
`the permitting, filing, monitoring, reporting, discharge and management practice requirements, and other
`
`procedural and substantive requirements of the General Permit and the Act are ongoing and continuous.
`
`8.
`
`The failure on the part of industrial facility operators, such as Defendants, to apply for
`
`and comply with the General Permit is recognized as a significant cause of the continuing decline in
`
`water quality of receiving waters, such as the Russian River. The general consensus among regulatory
`
`agencies and water quality specialists is that storm water pollution amounts to more than half the total
`
`pollution entering the aquatic environment each year. With every rainfall event, hundreds of thousands
`
`of gallons of polluted storm water originating from industrial facilities discharge to the impacted waters.
`
`25
`
`III.
`
`PARTIES
`
`26
`
`9.
`
`Defendant Canyon Rock Co., Inc. is a California corporation doing business as Canyon
`
`27
`
`Rock, Austin Creek Quarry, and River Ready Mix.
`
`
`Complaint for Declaratory and Injunctive Relief and Civil Penalties
`3
`
`
`28
`
`
`
`30
`
`

`

`Case 3:20-cv-00615-JCS Document 1 Filed 01/27/20 Page 4 of 46
`
`
`
`
`
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10.
`
`Defendant Wendel Trappe is the owner of Canyon Rock Co., Inc. and is identified as the
`
`Legally Responsible Person under the General Permit for both Facilities.
`
`11.
`
`Defendants own and operate the Forestville Facility, an approximately 80-acre aggregate
`
`and rock processing facility located at 7525 Highway 116, in Forestville, California.
`
`12.
`
`Defendants’ primary industrial activities at the Forestville Facility include aggregate and
`
`rock material crushing, processing, screening, stockpiling and recycling, and producing ready-mix
`
`concrete. The Forestville Facility also includes a rock quarry, as well as a shop, fueling area, and a
`
`network of roads that provide connectivity between the various industrial areas.
`
`13.
`
`The industrial activities at the Forestville Facility fall under Standard Industrial
`
`10
`
`Classification (“SIC”) Code 1442 (“Construction Sand and Gravel”) and 3273 (“Ready-Mixed
`
`11
`
`Concrete”).
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`14.
`
`Defendants own and operate the Cazadero Facility, and approximately 120-acre
`
`aggregate and rock processing facility located at 600 Austin Creek Road, in Cazadero, California.
`
`15.
`
`Defendants’ primary industrial activities at the Cazadero Facility include aggregate and
`
`rock material crushing, and processing, screening, stockpiling and recycling. Industrial activities at the
`
`Cazadero Facility also include rock quarrying on the open faces of rock east of Austin Creek Road, as
`
`well as a shop, fueling area, and a network of roads that provide connectivity between the various
`
`18
`
`industrial areas.
`
`19
`
`16.
`
`The industrial activities at the Cazadero Facility fall under SIC Code 1442 (“Construction
`
`20
`
`Sand and Gravel”).
`
`17.
`
`Plaintiff CSPA is a non-profit public benefit corporation organized under the laws of
`
`California, with its main offices in Stockton, California. CSPA is dedicated to the preservation,
`
`protection, and defense of the environment, wildlife, and natural resources of California waters,
`
`including the waters into which Defendants discharge polluted storm water. To further its goals, CSPA
`
`actively seeks federal and state agency implementation of state and federal water quality laws, including
`
`the CWA, and as necessary, directly initiates enforcement actions on behalf of itself and its members.
`
`
`Complaint for Declaratory and Injunctive Relief and Civil Penalties
`4
`
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`
`25
`
`26
`
`27
`
`28
`
`
`
`30
`
`

`

`Case 3:20-cv-00615-JCS Document 1 Filed 01/27/20 Page 5 of 46
`
`
`
`
`
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`18.
`
` Members of CSPA, including citizens, taxpayers, property owners, and residents, live,
`
`work, travel and recreate on and near the Impacted Waters, into which Defendants cause pollutants to be
`
`discharged. These members of CSPA use and enjoy the Impacted Waters for recreational, educational,
`
`scientific, conservation, aesthetic and spiritual purposes. Defendants’ discharges of storm water
`
`containing pollutants impairs each of those uses. Thus, the interests of CSPA’s members have been, are
`
`being, and will continue to be adversely affected by Defendants’ failure to comply with the Clean Water
`
`Act and the General Permit.
`
`19. Members of CSPA reside in California and use and enjoy California’s numerous rivers
`
`for recreation and other activities. Members of CSPA use and enjoy the Impacted Waters, into which
`
`Defendants have caused, are causing, and will continue to cause, pollutants to be discharged. Members
`
`of CSPA use these areas to fish, boat, kayak, swim, bird watch, view wildlife, and engage in scientific
`
`study, including monitoring activities, among other things. Defendants’ discharges of pollutants
`
`threaten or impair each of those uses or contribute to such threats and impairments. Thus, the interests
`
`of CSPA’s members have been, are being, and will continue to be adversely affected by Defendants’
`
`ongoing failure to comply with the Clean Water Act. The relief sought herein will redress the harms to
`
`Plaintiff caused by Defendants’ activities because that relief will significantly reduce pollution discharged
`
`17
`
`from Defendants’ Facilities into the Impacted Waters.
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20.
`
`Continuing commission of the acts and omissions alleged above will irreparably harm
`
`Plaintiff and the citizens of the State of California, for which harm they have no plain, speedy or adequate
`
`20
`
`remedy at law.
`
`21
`
`IV.
`
`LEGAL BACKGROUND
`
`22
`
`
`
`A.
`
`Clean Water Act
`
`21.
`
`Congress enacted the CWA to “restore and maintain the chemical, physical, and
`
`biological integrity of the Nation’s waters.” 33 U.S.C. § 1251(a). The CWA establishes an “interim
`
`goal of water quality which provides for the protection and propagation of fish, shellfish, and wildlife
`
`and provides for recreation in and on the water . . . .” 33 U.S.C. § 1251(a)(2). To these ends, Congress
`
`developed both a water quality-based and a technology-based approach to regulating discharges of
`
`
`Complaint for Declaratory and Injunctive Relief and Civil Penalties
`5
`
`
`23
`
`24
`
`25
`
`26
`
`27
`
`28
`
`
`
`30
`
`

`

`Case 3:20-cv-00615-JCS Document 1 Filed 01/27/20 Page 6 of 46
`
`
`
`
`
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`pollutants from point sources into waters of the United States.
`
`22.
`
`Section 301(a) of the Act, 33 U.S.C. § 1311(a), prohibits the discharge of any pollutant
`
`from a point source into waters of the United States, unless such discharge is in compliance with various
`
`enumerated sections of the Act. Among other things, Section 301(a) prohibits both discharges not in
`
`conformance with a NPDES permit, such as discharges without a NPDES permit issued pursuant to
`
`Section 402 of the Act (33 U.S.C. §1342) or discharges that violate the terms of an NPDES permit.
`
`23.
`
`The term “discharge of pollutants” means “any addition of any pollutant to navigable
`
`waters from any point source.” 33 U.S.C. § 1362(12). Pollutants are defined to include, among other
`
`examples, industrial waste, chemical wastes, biological materials, heat, rock, and sand discharged into
`
`10
`
`water. 33 U.S.C. § 1362(6).
`
`11
`
`12
`
`24.
`
`A “point source” is defined as “any discernible, confined and discrete conveyance,
`
`including but not limited to any pipe, ditch, channel, tunnel, [or] conduit . . . from which pollutants are
`
`13
`
`or may be discharged.” 33 U.S.C. § 1362(14).
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`25.
`
`“Navigable waters” means “the waters of the United States.” 33 U.S.C. § 1362(7).
`
`Waters of the United States includes, among others things, waters that are, were, or are susceptible to
`
`use in interstate commerce, and tributaries to such waters. 40 C.F.R. § 230.3 (2015). Section 402 of the
`
`Act, 33 U.S.C. § 1342, establishes the NPDES program, a permitting program that regulates the
`
`discharge of pollutants into waters of the United States. Section 402(p) establishes a framework for
`
`regulating municipal and industrial storm water discharges under the NPDES program, 33 U.S.C. §
`
`1342(p), and, specifically, requires an NPDES permit for storm water discharges associated with
`
`industrial activity. 33 U.S.C. § 1342(p)(2)(B). Section 402 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
`
`24
`
`storm water dischargers. 33 U.S.C. § 1342(b).
`
`26.
`
`Section 505(a)(1) provides for citizen enforcement actions against any “person,”
`
`including individuals, corporations, or partnerships, 33 U.S.C. § 1362(5), for violations of NPDES
`
`permit requirements and for unpermitted discharges of pollutants. 33 U.S.C. §1365(a)(1) (authorizing
`
`
`Complaint for Declaratory and Injunctive Relief and Civil Penalties
`6
`
`
`25
`
`26
`
`27
`
`28
`
`
`
`30
`
`

`

`Case 3:20-cv-00615-JCS Document 1 Filed 01/27/20 Page 7 of 46
`
`
`
`
`
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`actions against any person alleged to be in violation of an effluent standard or limitation); 33 U.S.C. §
`
`1365(f) (defining “effluent limitation” broadly to include “a permit or condition thereof issued under
`
`[section 402] of this title,” and “any unlawful act under subsection (a) of [section 301] of this title”).
`
`27.
`
`An action for injunctive relief under the Act is authorized by 33 U.S.C. § 1365(a).
`
`Violators of the Act are also subject to an assessment of civil penalties of up to $37,500 per day for
`
`violations occurring after January 12, 2009 and $55,800 per day per violation for all violations that
`
`occurred after November 2, 2015, pursuant to Sections 309(d) and 505 of the Act. 33 U.S.C. §§ 1319(d),
`
`1365, and 40 C.F.R. §§ 19.1–19.4.
`
`9
`
`
`
`B.
`
`State Regulations
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`28.
`
`The Act requires States to promulgate water quality standards. See 33 U.S.C. §§ 1313(a)-
`
`(c). Water quality standards consist of both “designated uses” for a body of water and a set of “criteria”
`
`specifying the maximum concentration of pollutants that may be present in the water without impairing
`
`its suitability for designated uses. 33 U.S.C. § 1313(c)(2)(A). The Act requires States to assess whether
`
`14
`
`these water quality standards are being met.
`
`29.
`
`The Russian River is heavily degraded from pollutant loading. This is officially
`
`recognized by the EPA, the State Board, and the Regional Board, which has placed the waterbody on the
`
`CWA section 303(d) list of waters that are so polluted that they do not meet applicable water quality
`
`standards. The Regional Board’s Water Quality Control Plan for the North Coast Region (hereafter
`
`referred to as the “Basin Plan”) is the master policy document setting forth the legal, technical, and
`
`programmatic bases of water quality regulation in the Region. Among other things, the Basin Plan
`
`includes the water quality objectives needed to protect the designated beneficial water uses. The Basin
`
`Plan sets forth narrative water quality objectives for sediment, settleable and suspended materials, as
`
`well as narrative objectives for preventing the impairment of water quality with oil sheens, turbidity, or
`
`other nuisance conditions. The Basin Plan also includes numeric water quality standards for pH,
`
`dissolved oxygen and toxic pollutants as well as site specific objectives for certain pollutants of concern
`
`such as aluminum, arsenic, cadmium, chromium, lead, mercury, nitrate, endrin, benzene, 1,2-dibromo-3-
`
`chloropropane, 1,1-dichloroethane, 1,2-dichloroethane, ethylbenzene, heptachlor, and 1,1,2,2-
`
`
`Complaint for Declaratory and Injunctive Relief and Civil Penalties
`7
`
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`
`25
`
`26
`
`27
`
`28
`
`
`
`30
`
`

`

`Case 3:20-cv-00615-JCS Document 1 Filed 01/27/20 Page 8 of 46
`
`
`
`
`
`
`tetrachloroethane.
`
`30.
`
`In addition, a rule promulgated by EPA known as the California Toxics Rule (“CTR”),
`
`discussed further below, sets Water Quality Standards ("WQS") for 126 toxic priority pollutants in
`
`California's rivers, lakes, enclosed bays, and estuaries. The CTR applies to the Impacted Waters, and
`
`includes limits for several toxic metals, including antimony, arsenic, beryllium, cadmium, chromium,
`
`copper, lead, mercury, nickel, selenium, silver, thallium, and zinc.
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`
`
`C.
`
`California Industrial Storm Water General Permit
`
`8
`
`9
`
`31.
`
`Pursuant to Section 402 of the Act, 33 U.S.C. § 1342, the Administrator of EPA has
`
`authorized California’s State Board to issue NPDES permits in California, including general NPDES
`
`10
`
`permits.
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`32.
`
`The State Board elected to issue a statewide general permit for industrial discharges. The
`
`State Board issued the General Permit on or about November 19, 1991, modified the General Permit on
`
`or about September 17, 1992, and reissued the General Permit on April 17, 1997 and again on April 1,
`
`2014 (effective July 1, 2015), pursuant to Section 402(p) of the Clean Water Act, 33 U.S.C. § 1342(p).
`
`33.
`
`Facilities discharging, or having the potential to discharge, storm water associated with
`
`industrial activity that have not obtained an individual NPDES permit must apply for coverage under the
`
`State’s General Permit by filing a Notice of Intent (“NOI”). The General Permit requires facilities to file
`
`their NOIs before the initiation of industrial operations.
`
`34.
`
`Once regulated by an NPDES permit, facilities must strictly comply with all of the terms
`
`and conditions of that permit. A violation of the General Permit is a violation of the Act. See General
`
`21
`
`Permit, Section XXI.A.
`
`22
`
`23
`
`35.
`
`In order to discharge storm water lawfully in California, industrial dischargers must
`
`comply with the terms of the General Permit or have obtained and complied with an individual NPDES
`
`24
`
`permit.
`
`36.
`
`The General Permit contains three primary and interrelated categories of requirements: 1)
`
`discharge prohibitions; 2) Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan (“SWPPP”) requirements; and 3)
`
`monitoring and reporting requirements, including the requirement to prepare an annual report.
`
`
`Complaint for Declaratory and Injunctive Relief and Civil Penalties
`8
`
`
`25
`
`26
`
`27
`
`28
`
`
`
`30
`
`

`

`Case 3:20-cv-00615-JCS Document 1 Filed 01/27/20 Page 9 of 46
`
`
`
`
`
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`37.
`
`Discharge Prohibition III.B of the General Permit prohibits discharges of liquids or
`
`materials other than storm water, either directly or indirectly to waters of the United States unless
`
`authorized by another NPDES permit or as authorized in Section IV of the General Permit.
`
`38.
`
`Discharge Prohibition III.C of the General Permit prohibits storm water discharges and
`
`authorized non-storm water discharges that cause or threaten to cause pollution, contamination or
`
`nuisance as defined in section 13050 of the California Water Code.
`
`39.
`
`Receiving Water Limitation VI.A of the General Permit prohibits storm water discharges
`
`that cause or contribute to an exceedance of any applicable water quality standards in any affected
`
`receiving water.
`
`40.
`
`Receiving Water Limitation VI.B of the General Permit prohibits storm water discharges
`
`to any surface or ground water that adversely impact human health or the environment.
`
`41.
`
`Effluent Limitation V.A of the General Permit requires dischargers to reduce or prevent
`
`pollutants in their storm water discharges through implementation of the Best Available Technology
`
`Economically Achievable (“BAT”) for toxic and nonconventional pollutants and the Best Conventional
`
`Pollutant Control Technology (“BCT”) for conventional pollutants.
`
`42.
`
`EPA has established Benchmark Levels as guidelines for determining whether a facility
`
`discharging industrial storm water has implemented the requisite BAT and BCT standards. 65 Fed. Reg.
`
`64746, 64767 (Oct. 30, 2000). The following benchmarks have been established for pollutants
`
`discharged by Defendants: Total Suspended Solids (“TSS”) – 100 mg/L; Oil & Grease (“O&G”) – 15.0
`
`20
`
`mg/L; and Iron (“Fe”) – 1.0 mg/L.
`
`21
`
`43.
`
`The Regional Board has established water quality standards for the Impacted Waters in
`
`22
`
`the Basin Plan.
`
`44.
`
`The Basin Plan includes a toxicity standard which states that “[a]ll waters shall be
`
`maintained free of toxic substances in concentrations that are toxic to or that produce detrimental
`
`physiological responses in, human, plant, animal, or aquatic life.” 3-4.00 Basin Plan.
`
`45.
`
`The Basin Plan provides that “[w]aters designated for use as domestic or municipal supply
`
`(MUN) shall not contain concentrations of chemical constituents in excess of the limits specified in [22
`
`
`Complaint for Declaratory and Injunctive Relief and Civil Penalties
`9
`
`
`23
`
`24
`
`25
`
`26
`
`27
`
`28
`
`
`
`30
`
`

`

`Case 3:20-cv-00615-JCS Document 1 Filed 01/27/20 Page 10 of 46
`
`
`
`
`
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`C.C.R. §§ 64435 and 64444.5].” 3-5.00 Basin Plan. According to the 2014/2016 303(d) List of Impaired
`
`Water Bodies, Russian River Hydrologic Unit, Middle Russian River Hydrologic Area downstream of
`
`the Facility is impaired for: Indicator Bacteria, Nitrogen, Dissolved Oxygen, Sediment/Siltation, and
`
`Temperature.
`
`46.
`
`EPA issued the CTR in 2000, establishing numeric receiving water limits for certain toxic
`
`pollutants in California surface waters. 40 C.F.R. § 131.38 (2013). The CTR establishes the following
`
`applicable numeric limit for freshwater surface waters: Arsenic – 0.34 mg/L; Cadmium – 0.0043 mg/L;
`
`Chromium (III) – 0.55 mg/L; Chromium (VI) – 0.016 mg/L; Copper – 0.013 mg/L; Lead – 0.065 mg/L;
`
`Nickel - 0.47 mg/L; Silver – 0.0034 mg/L; and, Zinc – 0.12 mg/L.
`
`47.
`
`The General Permit requires dischargers to develop and implement a site-specific
`
`SWPPP. General Permit, Section X.A. The SWPPP must include, among other elements: (1) the
`
`facility name and contact information; (2) a site 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) an annual comprehensive
`
`facility compliance evaluation; and (10) the date that the SWPPP was initially prepared and the date of
`
`16
`
`each SWPPP amendment, if applicable.
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`48.
`
`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 their SWPPP not more than once every three (3) months in the reporting year for any non-
`
`21
`
`significant revisions. General Permit, Section X.B.
`
`49.
`
`Dischargers must implement the minimum BMPs identified in Section X.H.1. of the
`
`General Permit. In addition to the minimum BMPs identified in Section X.H.1, advanced BMPs must
`
`be implemented if necessary to reduce or prevent discharges of pollutants in storm water dischargers in a
`
`manner that reflects best industry practice. General Permit, Section X.H.2.
`
`50.
`
`Special Conditions Section XX.B of the General Permit require a discharger to prepare
`
`and submit documentation to the Regional Board upon determination that storm water discharges are in
`
`
`Complaint for Declaratory and Injunctive Relief and Civil Penalties
`10
`
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`
`25
`
`26
`
`27
`
`28
`
`
`
`30
`
`

`

`Case 3:20-cv-00615-JCS Document 1 Filed 01/27/20 Page 11 of 46
`
`
`
`
`
`
`violation of Receiving Water Limitations, Section VI. The documentation must describe changes the
`
`discharger will make to its current 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. General Permit,
`
`Section XX.B.
`
`51.
`
`Section XV of the General Permit requires an annual evaluation of storm water controls
`
`including the preparation of an evaluation report and implementation of any additional measures in the
`
`SWPPP to respond to the monitoring results and other inspection activities within 90 days of the annual
`
`evaluation.
`
`52.
`
`The General Permit requires dischargers to eliminate all non-storm water discharges to
`
`storm water conveyance systems other than those specifically set forth in Section IV of the General
`
`Permit unless authorized by another NPDES permit. General Permit, Section III. B.
`
`53.
`
`The General Permit requires dischargers to implement a Monitoring Implementation
`
`Plan. General Permit, Section X.I. As part of their monitoring plan, dischargers must identify all storm
`
`water discharge locations. General Permit, Section X.I.2. Dischargers must then conduct monthly
`
`visual observations of each drainage area, as well as visual observations during discharge sampling
`
`events. General Permit, Section XI.A.1 and 2. Dischargers must also 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 30). 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, and any other pollutants likely to be in the storm water discharged from the
`
`facility base on the pollutant source assessment. General Permit, Section XI.B.6.
`
`54.
`
`Dischargers must submit all sampling and analytical results via SMARTS within thirty
`
`(30) days of obtaining all results for each sampling event. Section XI.B.11. Sampling results must be
`
`compared to the two types of Numeric Action Level (“NAL”) values set forth at Table 2 of the General
`
`Permit. General Permit, Section XII. An annual NAL exceedance occurs when the average of the
`
`results for a parameter for all samples taken within a reporting year exceeds the annual NAL value.
`
`
`Complaint for Declaratory and Injunctive Relief and Civil Penalties
`11
`
`
`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
`
`
`
`30
`
`

`

`Case 3:20-cv-00615-JCS Document 1 Filed 01/27/20 Page 12 of 46
`
`
`
`
`
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`General Permit, Section XII.A.1. An instantaneous NAL exceedance occurs when two (2) or more
`
`results from samples taken for any single parameter within a reporting year exceed the instantaneous
`
`maximum NAL value. General Permit, Section XII.A.2. If a discharger has an NAL exceedance during
`
`a reporting year, the discharger’s status changes to Level 1 status under the General Permit and the
`
`discharger must comply with the requirements set forth for Level 1 status operators set forth at Section
`
`XII.C. The discharger’s status shall change to Level 2 status if sampling results indicated an NAL
`
`exceedance for a parameter while the discharger is in Level 1 status. If a discharger becomes Level 2
`
`status it must comply with the obligations set forth at Section XII.D of the General Permit.
`
`55.
`
`Dischargers must submit an Annual Report no later than July 15th following each
`
`10
`
`reporting year, certifying compliance with the General Permit and/or an explanation for any non-
`
`11
`
`compliance. General Permit, Section XVI.
`
`12
`
`V.
`
`STATEMENT OF FACTS
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`56. The Forestville Facility is an approximately 80-acre aggregate and rock processing facility
`
`and quarry. A site map of the Forestville Facility is attached as Exhibit B. Defendants’ primary
`
`industrial activities at the Forestville Facility include aggregate and rock material crushing, processing,
`
`screening, stockpiling and recycling, and producing ready-mix concrete. Most of these industrial activities
`
`occur outside in areas that are exposed to storm water and storm flows due to the lack of overhead
`
`coverage, functional berms, and other storm water controls.
`
`57. The primary industrial activities at the Forestville Facility fall under SIC Code 1442
`
`(“Construction Sand and Gravel”) and 3273 (“Ready-Mixed Concrete”).
`
`58. Defendants collect and discharge storm water associated with industrial activities at the
`
`Forestville Facility through at least two discharge points which drain to Green Valley Creek, a tributary
`
`of the Russian River. Green Valley Creek and the Russian River are waters of the United States within
`
`24
`
`the meaning of the Clean Water Act.
`
`59. Defendants have owned and operated the Forestville Facility since at least 1972.
`
`60. Defendants filed a Notice of Intent to comply with the General Permit on or about June 17,
`
`2015. The Forestville Facility’s Waste Discharge Identification (“WDID”) number is 1 49I001091.
`
`
`Complaint for Declaratory and Injunctive Relief and Civil Penalties
`12
`
`
`25
`
`26
`
`27
`
`28
`
`
`
`30
`
`

`

`Case 3:20-cv-00615-JCS Document 1 Filed 01/27/20 Page 13 of 46
`
`
`
`
`
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`61. On August 13, 2015, Defendants uploaded to the Storm Water Multiple Application &
`
`Report Tracking System (“SMARTS”) a Storm Water Pollution Prevent Plan (“SWPPP”) for the
`
`Forestville Facility.
`
`62. On January 25, 2020, Defendants uploaded to SMARTS an amendment to the Forestville
`
`Facility’s SWPPP.
`
`63. Between August 13, 2015 and January 25, 2020, no other amen