IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA

FLORIDA WILDLIFE FEDERATION, INC.; SIERRA CLUB, INC.; CONSERVANCY OF SOUTHWEST FLORIDA, INC., ENVIRONMENTAL CONFEDERATION OF SOUTHWEST FLORIDA, INC.; AND ST. JOHNS RIVERKEEPER, INC. Plaintiffs, Case No. 4:08-cv-00324-RH-WCS

v. STEPHEN L. JOHNSON, Administrator of the United States Environmental Protection Agency; and THE UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY, Defendants. __________________________________________/

FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT FOR DECLARACTORY AND INJUNCTIVE RELIEF INTRODUCTION Plaintiffs—Florida Wildlife Federation, Inc.; Sierra Club, Inc.; Conservancy of Southwest Florida, Inc. ; Environmental Confederation of Southwest Florida, Inc, and St. Johns Riverkeeper, Inc.—bring the following complaint against Stephen L. Johnson and the United States Environmental Protection Ag ency (“EPA”) for failing to comply with their non-discretionary duty to promptly set numeric nutrient criter ia for the state of Florida as directed by section 303(c)(4)(B) of the Clean Water Act. This complaint seeks a declaratory judgment and injunctive relief. Case 4:08-cv-00324-RH-WCS Document 4 Filed 08/05/2008 Page 1 of 16NATURE OF THE CASE
1. This citizen’s suit is br ought pursuant to section 505(a)(2) of the Federal Water Pollution Control Act (“Clean Water Ac t” or “CWA”), 33 U. S.C § 1365(a)(2), and under the Administrative Procedures Act (“APA”), 5 U.S.C. §§ 701 et. seq. , to compelthe United States Environmental Protection Agency (“EPA”) to perform its nondiscretionary duty mandated by section 303(c )(4)(B), 33 U.S.C. § 1313(c)(4)(B), of the CWA. That provision requires EPA to “p romptly” propose a new or revised water quality standard for a state once it has made a determination that the standard is necessary to meet the requirements of the CWA.
2. In 1998, EPA determined that prompt development of numeric standards for the nutrients phosphorus and nitrogen by th e state of Florida was necessary to meet the requirements of the CWA. EPA action is required here in orde r to achieve sufficient protection of Florida’s waters because the State of Florid a has failed to develop these standards.
3. The United States Environmental Protection Agency’s duty under the CWA is to protect public heath and the environment. Both th e letter and the spirit of its mandate require that it promptly develop numeric nutrient standards to protect the waters—and the people—of the State of Florida. JURISDICTION AND VENUE
4. This Court has subject matter jurisdic tion over this claim by virtue of 33 U.S.C. § 1365(a) (“Citizen suits” provisi on of the Clean Water Act) because this complaint alleges a failure of the Admi nistrator to perform a duty which is nondiscretionary under the act. Additionally, jurisdiction exists under 5 U.S.C. § 701-706 Case 4:08-cv-00324-RH-WCS Document 4 Filed 08/05/2008 Page 2 of 16(Administrative Procedure Act); 28 U.S.C § 1331 (“Federal question”); 28 U.S.C § 1361 (“Action to compel an officer of the United States to perform his duty”); and 28 U.S.C. §§ 2201-2202 (“Creation of remedy” and “Further relief” provisions establishing power to issue declaratory judgments in cases of actual controversy). 5. Venue is proper in this judicial district and in this court under 28 U.S.C § 1391(e) because no real property is involved in this action and first named plaintiff, Florida Wildlife Federation, resides or main tains its principal place of business in Tallahassee, Florida which is located in the Northern District of Florida.
6. Plaintiffs have provided Defendants with at least sixty days written notice of the violations of law alleged herein in the form and manner re quired by the CWA (33 U.S.C. § 1365(b)(2)). A copy of the notice is attached as exhibit “A.” THE PARTIES
7. Plaintiff Florida Wildlife Federation (“Federation”) is a Florida statewide non-profit conservation and education organizati on with its principal place of business in Tallahassee, Florida. It is a membership -based organization with approximately 13,000 members throughout Florida. The organi zation’s mission includes the preservation, management, and improvement of Florida’s water resources and its fish and wildlife habitat. The Federation repres ents its members in state a nd federal litigation brought to preserve and protect Florida’s ri ver, lakes, and estuaries.
8. Plaintiff Sierra Club, Inc. (“Sierra Club”) is a non-pr ofit public benefit corporation with its principal place of busine ss in San Francisco, California. Sierra Club consists of members living throughout th e state and around the nation. There are approximately 30,000 members living in the State of Florida. The Sierra Club represents Case 4:08-cv-00324-RH-WCS Document 4 Filed 08/05/2008 Page 3 of 16the interests of its members in state a nd federal litigation, public policy advocacy, administrative proceedings, and before state, local, and federal lawmakers. The Sierra Club is very involved in advocacy regardi ng issues related to preserving wetlands, improving water quality, and stopping factory farm runoff. All of th ese activities support Sierra Club’s mission to explore, enjoy, and protect the wild places of the earth and educate and enlist humanity to protect and restore the quality of the natural and human environment.
9. Plaintiff Conservancy of Southwest Florida, Inc. (“CSF”) is a Florida nonprofit corporation with its primary place of business in Naples, Florida. There are approximately 6,000 CSF members residing thro ughout Florida. CSF is a grassroots organization devoted to protec ting the land, water a nd wildlife of Southwest Florida. CSF works to protect both the quality and quant ity of southwest Florida’s water resources through education, monitoring, litigation, and preservation.
10. Plaintiff Environmental Confederation of Southw est Florida (“ECOSWF”) is a Florida non-profit corporati on with its primary place of bus iness in Sarasota, Florida. ECOSWF has approximately 50 members cons isting of business entities, governmental agencies and other organizations and individu als living in Southwest Florida. ECOSWF is a regional coalition which focuses its effort s on protecting the cons ervation interests of Southwest Florida, including Charlotte, Coll ier, DeSoto, Lee, Manatee, and Sarasota Counties. ECOSWF accomplishes its goals through active stewardship of Southwest Florida’s wildlife, water, so il and air, through citizen par ticipation and ed ucation, through legal challenges aimed at pr eserving Florida’s waters, and by its support of preservation and conservation. Case 4:08-cv-00324-RH-WCS Document 4 Filed 08/05/2008 Page 4 of 1611. Plaintiff St. Johns Riverkeeper, Inc. (“Riverkeeper”) is a Florida nonprofit membership-based corpor ation with its primary place of business in Jacksonville, Florida. Riverkeeper is dedicated to the protection, preservation, and restoration of the ecological integrity of the St. Johns Rive r watershed for curren t users and future generations. Riverkeeper monitors the envir onmental quality in the St. Johns River and its tributaries. It has over 1000 members who use and enjoy the waters of the St. Johns River for boating, fishing, and observing birds and other wildlife in the St. Johns River watershed. Riverkeeper organi zes regular boat trips for its members and citizens to learn more about the river and how they ca n participate in its management.
12. Each of the Plaintiffs files this actio n on its own behalf and on behalf of its members in an effort to protect their healt h, economic, recreational, aesthetic, scientific and conservation interests in the waters of Florida.
13. Defendant Johnson is the Administrator of the United States Environmental Protection Agency. He is ch arged with the superv ision and management of the CWA, including mandates under 33 U. S.C. § 1313(c)(4)(B) which are at issue here. Mr. Johnson is sued in his official capacity only.
14. Defendant United States Environmenta l Protection Agency (“EPA”) is an agency of the federal government, which has the primary statutory responsibility under the CWA to protect the waters of the United States from pollution. 15. Defendants’ headquarters are at Ar iel Rios Building, 1200 Pennsylvania Avenue, N.W., Washington, D.C., 20460. Case 4:08-cv-00324-RH-WCS Document 4 Filed 08/05/2008 Page 5 of 16STANDING
16. Members of the Federation, Sierra Club, CSF, ECOSWF, and Riverkeeper use and enjoy waters throughout the state for a variety of purposes, including, but not limited to, wading, walking, swimming, canoeing, sailing, sport boating, wildlife observation, photography, personal and comme rcial research, sport and commercial fishing, and collecting aquatic life for personal and commercial consumption.
17. Their ability to use Florida waters for these purposes is being harmed because failure to adopt numeric nutrient stan dards in Florida has resulted in excessive levels of nitrogen and phosphorus in Florida wa ter bodies – which EPA admits is a direct cause of toxic blue-g reen algae blooms.
18. Blue-green algae (also known as cyanobacteria) produce “dermatoxins” that can create severe dermatitis and are known tumor promoters; “neurotoxins” which interfere with nerve ce ll function; and “hepatotoxins” whic h attack the liver. Exposure to blue-green algae toxins through ingestion, derm al contact or inhalation can cause rashes, skin and eye irritation, allergic reactions, gastrointest inal upset, serious illness, and even death. 19. Blue-green algae toxins can cont aminate drinking water supplies, endanger public health, and result in the shut down of drinking plants that rely on surface waterbodies as their dr inking water source.
20. The frequency of toxic blue-green al gae blooms is increasing in lakes, rivers, streams, reservoirs, a nd estuaries thr oughout Florida.
21. From mid-July to mid-October 2005, ma jor portions of the St. Johns River suffered a toxic blue-green algae bloom wh ich was dubbed “The Green Monster” for the Case 4:08-cv-00324-RH-WCS Document 4 Filed 08/05/2008 Page 6 of 16fluorescent green slime created on the surface of th e water. Toxin levels were recorded at 50 – 140 times above the World Health Organi zation’s suggested recreational limits and many people reported respiratory problems, raw throats, and irritated eyes. Photographs of this bloom are attached as exhibits “B1” and “B2.”
22. From mid-August to mid-October 2005, almost the entirety of the Caloosahatchee River in Southwest Florida suffered a massive blue-green algae bloom following excessive releases of nutrient laden water from Lake Okeechobee. Attached as exhibit “C1” is a photograph of this algae bloom.
23. Beginning in mid-June 2008, a toxic blue-green algae bloom occurred north of the Franklin Lock on the Caloosah atchee River. The Olga Water Treatment Plant, which obtains its s ource water from the Caloosah atchee and which provides drinking water for 30,000 people, was forced to shut down as a result of this bloom. Photographs of this bloom are attached as exhibits “D1” and “D2.” Exhibit “D2” shows the Olga Treatment plant beside the pea-green soup river.
24. In August to September 2005, the St. Lucie River and estuary suffered a massive toxic algae bloom also caused by rele ases of nutrient polluted water from Lake Okeechobee. Toxin levels in the St. Lucie River and estuary duri ng this bloom were three hundred times above suggested drinki ng water limits and sixty times above suggested recreational limits. Attached as exhi bits “E1” and “E2” are photographs of the St. Lucie algae bloom. 25. In addition, Florida’s estuaries and co astal oceans have been plagued with harmful algae blooms associated with nut rient over-enrichment including macroalgae (seaweed) blooms, which displace seagrass a nd overgrow coral reef ecosystems, and Case 4:08-cv-00324-RH-WCS Document 4 Filed 08/05/2008 Page 7 of 16novel and toxic dinoflagellate (red tide) bl ooms. Attached as exhibit “F1” is a photograph of a face-guarded lifeguard on a deserted Volusia County beach during a toxic red tide event in October 2007. This bloom moved from the Southwest Florida coast, around the tip of Florida, and up the Atlantic Coast to Flagler, Volusia, and Brevard Counties. It lingered for several m onths, causing massive fish kills and angering tourists and residents who were unable to enjoy the beach.
26. From June 2006 through August 2006, thr ee visitors to Wakulla Springs, hailed as the crown jewel of North Florida, re ported skin irritations after swimming in the spring. One of the visitors experienced bur ning and itching after coming out of the water and the other two broke out in rashes, all thought to be caused by elevat ed levels of algae toxins. Over twenty similar incidents were reported at nearby Ichetucknee Springs, located northwest of Fort White, from June 2002 – August 2006. Additionally, the springhead of Wakulla Springs is now covered with thick, green algal mats. Attached as exhibit “G1” is a series of photographs of these mats gather ing on hydrilla as well as the springhead. High nitrate and phosphorous levels in the spring have contributed to the algae blooms, resulting in lowe r oxygen levels in the water. This depletion chokes out native plant growth and provides a nutrient rich environment where algae and hydrilla, which covers the surface water of the spri ng without regular removal, flourish.
27. As Lake Munson’s primary inflow and outflow stream, Munson Slough continues to experience an influx of nutrients that contribute to high levels of algae growth within its bound aries and beyond. Attached as exhi bit “H1” is a picture of an algae bloom within drainage to the slough. In December 2006, a large fish kill from algae hepatotoxins in the lake prompted an investigation by the Flor ida Fish and Wildlife Case 4:08-cv-00324-RH-WCS Document 4 Filed 08/05/2008 Page 8 of 16Conservation Commission (the Comm ission). A study prepared by McGlynn Laboratories Inc. for the Comm ission concluded that the wate r entering Lake Munson is not clean enough to support a healthy Lake eco system. The report went on to state that during the previous two years, an algae hepatotoxin, known as microcystin, had been present in every water sample collected, and at levels far above water quality standards set by the World Health Orga nization (WHO). As of May 2006, samples indicated algae toxin levels in the Lake were twenty-six times higher than the drinking water standard recommended by the WHO. A photograph of a researcher wearing protective breathing gear as he collects water samples after a toxic bloom is attached as exhibit “H2.” Another major concern is the proximity of th e lake and southern outflow of the slough to connected sinks, which lead directly to the underground aquifer system running throughout most of the state. Consequentl y, drainage from the slough could threaten contamination of the area’s drinking water.
28. Plaintiffs and their respective members who use and enjoy these water bodies and coastal areas, and other rivers, lakes, and coastal waters around the state which are being similarly affected, have b een, are being, and—unle ss the relief prayed for herein is granted—will continue to be a dversely affected and i rreparably injured by Defendants’ unlawful failure to perform its non-discretionary duty under 33 U.S.C. § 1313(c)(4)(B). BACKGROUND AND FACTS 29. The Clean Water Act was enacted by Congress in 1972 to “restore and maintain the chemical, physical, and biological integrity of the na tion’s waters.” 33 U.S.C § 1251(a). The CWA further declared that “it is the national goal that the Case 4:08-cv-00324-RH-WCS Document 4 Filed 08/05/2008 Page 9 of 16discharge of pollutants into the navigable waters be eliminated by 1985.” 33 U.S.C. § 1251(a)(1).
30. In order to meet this end, 33 U.S.C. § 1313 requires the states to establish water quality standards and provide s a schedule to effectuate this process. It directs that the standards “shall be such as to protect the public health or welfar e, enhance the quality of water and serve the purposes of the [the Clean Water Act].” 33 U.S.C § 1313(c)(2).
31. The CWA, as one means of maintain ing or achieving those standards, mandates that EPA “promptly prepare and publish” revised or new water quality standards for navigable waters “in any case where the Administrator determines that a revised or new standard is necessary to meet the requirements of [the Clean Water Act].” 33 U.S.C § 1313(c)(4)(B).
32. The vast majority of water quality standards are expressed in numeric terms. For example, Florida’s water quality standard for mercury is expressed as 0.012 micrograms per liter of water.
33. However, Florida has a “narrative” wa ter quality standard for nutrients:

“ Nutrients: In no case shall nutrient concentr ations of a body of water be altered so as to cause an imbalance in natural pop ulations of aquatic flora and fauna .” Rule 62- 302.530(47)(b), Fla. Admin. Code.
34. The result of having a narrative rather than a numeric standard is that there is no measurable, objective, water quality ba seline against which to measure progress in decreasing nutrient pollution, nor is th ere any measurable, objective means of determining whether a water qu ality violation has occurred. Case 4:08-cv-00324-RH-WCS Document 4 Filed 08/05/2008 Page 10 of 1635. In 1998, Defendant EPA reported 1 that: [N]utrient pollution is the leading cause of impairment in lakes and coastal waters and the second leading cause of impairment of rivers and streams. Nutrient enrichment has also been strongly linked to the large hypoxic zone in the Gulf of Mexico and to recent outbreaks of the t oxic microorganism Pfiesteria along the Gulf and Mid-Atlantic coasts.
36. EPA determined that “adding nutrien t criteria to State water quality standards is essential for Federal, State, and local agencies, and the public, to better understand, identify, and manage nutrient overenr ichment problems in surface waters.” The consequence of not having numeric sta ndards was that “nutrient overenrichment problems are underestimated and the response authorities of the Clean Water Act and other laws are not fully engaged.”
37. EPA then required all states to deve lop numeric nutrient standards that were protective of a wate r body’s “designated uses” 2 by 2003, or EPA would develop standards for them. 3

1 See USEPA, National Strategy for the Development of Re gional Nutrient Criteria, June 1998 (noticed in the Federal Register on June 25, 1998 at 63 Fed. Reg. 34648). 2 The Clean Water Act requires states to designate the uses to be made of every navigable water body. 33 U.S.C. §1313(c)(2)(A). Florida has five classes of designated uses. The designated uses of less stringently regulated classifications are included within the designated uses of more stringently regulated classifications. Class I - Potable Water Supplies Fourteen general areas throughout the state including: impoundments and associated tributaries, certain lakes, rivers, or portions of rivers, used as a drinking water supply. Class II - Shellfish Propagation or Harvesting Generally coastal waters where shellfish harvesting occurs. Class III - Recreation, Prop agation and Maintenance of a Healthy, Well-Balanced Population of Fish and Wildlife The surface waters of the state are Class III unless described in rule 62-302.400 F.A.C. Class IV - Agricultural Water Supplies Generally located in agriculture areas around Lake Okeechobee. Class V - Navigation, Utility and Industrial Use. Case 4:08-cv-00324-RH-WCS Document 4 Filed 08/05/2008 Page 11 of 1638. For example, Florida has designated the section of the Caloosahatchee River where the Olga Water Treatment Plan t is located (and where the algae bloom photographs attached as exhibits D1 and D2 were taken) for use as “Potable Water Supplies.” It is readily apparent that the Florida’s narrative nutrie nt standards have not been protective of the river’s use as a drinki ng water source given that the plant had to be closed due to an algae bloom fueled by excessive nutrients. The purpose of EPA’s requirement that states must set numeric sta ndards was to prevent exactly such an event from occurring. 39. In May 2006, Florida’s Integrated Wate r Assessment (a report which by law is submitted to EPA) found that fifty per cent of Florida’s river and stream miles, sixty percent of Florida’s la kes (excluding the 730 square miles of Lake Okeechobee which is itself impaired due to nutrient pollutio n), and sixty percent of the square miles of Florida’s estuaries had poor water quality. Nutrient pollution was the major source of

concern. 40. The Assessment’s list of major water quality concerns included: 1) documentation of increasing levels of nutrien ts in Florida’s surface waters since the 1970s, 2) water quality declines in springs as sociated with increases in nitrate levels (nitrate is also a nutrient); 3) freshwater harmful algal blooms which were increasing in frequency, duration, and magnitude which posed a significant threat to surface drinking water resources and recreational areas; 4) abundant populations of blue green algae (cyanobacteria) capable of producing health threat ening toxins in rivers and lakes; and 5)

Currently, there are no t any designated Class V bodies of water. The Fenholloway River was reclassified as Class III in 1998

3 This date was subsequently ch anged to 2004 because EPA was de layed in getting out its guidance documents. Case 4:08-cv-00324-RH-WCS Document 4 Filed 08/05/2008 Page 12 of 16the finding of levels of these cyanotoxins above suggested guidelines in finished drinking water from some drinking water facilities.
41. On May 25, 2007, EPA’s Office of Wate r issued a bleak report on the states’ efforts to develop numeric nutrien t criteria over the preceding nine years. 4 As of that date, virtually no progress had been made. The majority of states were still at the level of collecting data and many were only beginning the criteria process.
42. In the section of the memo titled “Why Action is Needed,” EPA explained that: High nitrogen and phosphorus loading, or nutrient pollution, re sults in harmful algal blooms, reduced spawning grounds a nd nursery habitats, fish kills, oxygenstarved hypoxic or ‘dead’ z ones, and public health conc erns related to impaired drinking water sources and increased e xposure to toxic microbes such as cyanobacteria. Nutrient problems can exhi bit themselves locally or much further downstream leading to degraded estuarie s, lakes and reser voirs, and to hypoxic zones where fish and wildlife can no longer survive.
43. The memo further explained that nume ric nutrient criteria were needed to address this “major source of environm ental degradation” because “[a]s any environmental professional understands, we can’t effectively manage what we can’t
measure.”
44. As of today, Florida has failed to de velop numeric nutrient criteria for phosphorus and nitrogen. 45. Moreover, Defendants have failed to take action by promptly setting numeric nutrient criteria for the state of Florida as mandated by the CWA.

4 Memo from Benjamin Grumbles, USEPA Assistant Administrator re: Nutrient Pollution and Water Quality Standards (May 25, 2007). Case 4:08-cv-00324-RH-WCS Document 4 Filed 08/05/2008 Page 13 of 16COUNT I CLAIM FOR DECLARATORY RELIEF
46. Plaintiffs hereby incorporate all prec eding paragraphs of this complaint and all allegations contained within them.
47. Defendants determined that numeric nut rient criteria were necessary to meet the requirements of the CWA in 1998 a nd required that states either adopt such standards by 2003 or have EPA set the standards for them.
48. Since that time, Florida has neither adopted nor proposed numeric nutrient standards and EPA has set no numeric standards for nutrients in Florida. 49. Defendants’ failure to promptly pr omulgate its own numeric nutrient criteria for Florida is a failure to perf orm their non-discretionary duty under section 303(c)(4)(B), 33 U.S.C. § 1313( c)(4)(B), of the CWA. 50. Based on the foregoing facts, Plaint iffs request a declaration of Defendants’ failure to perform their non-disc retionary duty under se ction 303(c)(4)(B), 33 U.S.C. § 1313(c)(4)(B), of the CWA. COUNT II CLAIM FOR INJUNCTIVE RELIEF 51. Plaintiffs hereby incorporate all prec eding paragraphs of this complaint and all allegations contained within them. 52. Plaintiffs have no adequate remedy at law for these violations. 53. Each day on which EPA violates its du ty to protect the water of Florida causes severe and irreparable environmental degradation and heightened public health risks because of the continuing pollution in violation of water quality standards. Case 4:08-cv-00324-RH-WCS Document 4 Filed 08/05/2008 Page 14 of 1654. Therefore, Plaintiffs are entitled to inj unctive relief set forth in the prayer to prevent injury to themselves and the public. PRAYER FOR RELIEF WHEREFORE, Plaintiffs Florida Wildlif e Federation, Inc., Si erra Club, Inc., and Conservancy of Southwest Florida, Inc. respec tfully request this H onorable Court to enter the following relief: (1) a declaratory judgment against Stephen L. Johnson, as Administrator, and the United States Environmental Protection Agency that their failure to promptly set numeric nutrient standards for the state of Florida stands in violation of their nondiscretionary duty mandated by section 303(c )(4)(B), 33 U.S.C. § 1313(c)(4)(B), of the Clean Water Act; (2) an injunction against Defendant s, requiring them to promptly set numeric nutrient standards for the state of Florida; (3) an award of litigation costs, in cluding reasonable attorney and expert witness fees, as authorized in section 505( d) of the Clean Water Act, 33 U.S.C. § 1365(d); and (4) any other relief this Court deem s necessary and just to effectuate a complete resolution of the legal disput es between Plaintiffs and Defendants. Respectfully submitted on this 5 th day of August, 2008. /s/Monica K. Reimer

______ Monica K. Reimer Fla. Bar. No. 0090069 David G. Guest Fla. Bar No. 0267228 P. O. Box 1329 Tallahassee, Florida 32302 (850) 681-0031 (Telephone) Case 4:08-cv-00324-RH-WCS Document 4 Filed 08/05/2008 Page 15 of 16(850) 681-0020 (Facsimile) COUNSEL FOR PLAINTIFFS 

### CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I hereby certify that a true and co rrect copy of the foregoing was filed with the Clerk of Court using CM/ECF on this 5th day of August, 2008. I also certify that the forgoing document is being served on this day to the following Service List in the manner specified. Stephen L. Johnson, Administrator United States Environmental Protection Agency Ariel Rios Building 1200 Pennsylvania Avenue, N.W. Washington, DC 20460 CM/ECF United States Environmental Protection Agency Ariel Rios Building 1200 Pennsylvania Avenue, N.W. Washington, DC 20460 CM/ECF J. I. Palmer, Jr. Regional Administrator, Region 4 United States Environmental Protection Agency Sam Nunn Atlanta Federal Center 61 Forsyth Street, SW Atlanta, GA 30303-8960 Thomas F. Kirwin United States Attorney General 111 N. Adams Street, 4th Floor Tallahassee, FL 32301 Michael B. Mukasey, Attorney General U.S. Department of Justice 950 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW Washington, DC 20530-0001

/s/Monica K. Reimer Attorney Case 4:08-cv-00324-RH-WCS Document 4 Filed 08/05/2008 Page 16 of 16Case 4:08-cv-00324-RH-WCS Document 4-2 Filed 08/05/2008 Page 1 of 15Case 4:08-cv-00324-RH-WCS Document 4-2 Filed 08/05/2008 Page 2 of 15Case 4:08-cv-00324-RH-WCS Document 4-2 Filed 08/05/2008 Page 3 of 15Case 4:08-cv-00324-RH-WCS Document 4-2 Filed 08/05/2008 Page 4 of 15

### Copyrighted page/s removed. Copyrighted ma terial is not available in Regulations.gov since it may not be reproduced without consent of the copyright holder. Contact the EPA Docket Center’s P ublic Reading Room to view or receive a copy of this document. Requests for copies may be made as follows: In person/writing: Environmental Protection Agency, Docket Center 1301 Constitution Ave NW, 2822T, Room 3334 Washington, DC. 20004 Telephone: 202-566-1744 Fax: 202-566- 9744 Email: docket-customerservice@epa.gov