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 Agency (“EPA”) for failing to comply with 

their non-discretionary duty to promptly set numeric nutrient criteria 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 16
NATURE OF THE CASE

1. This citizen’s suit is brought pursuant to section 505(a)(2) of the Federal 

Water Pollution Control Act (“Clean Water Act” or “CWA”), 33 U.S.C § 1365(a)(2), and 

under the Administrative Procedures Act (“APA”), 5 U.S.C. §§ 701 et. seq., to compel 

the 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 “promptly” 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 the state of Florida was necessary to meet 

the requirements of the CWA. EPA action is required here in order to achieve sufficient 

protection of Florida’s waters because the State of Florida 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 the 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 jurisdiction over this claim by virtue of 33 

U.S.C. § 1365(a) (“Citizen suits” provision of the Clean Water Act) because this 

complaint alleges a failure of the Administrator 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 maintains 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 required 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 organization with its principal place of business in 

Tallahassee, Florida. It is a membership-based organization with approximately 13,000 

members throughout Florida. The organization’s mission includes the preservation, 

management, and improvement of Florida’s water resources and its fish and wildlife 

habitat. The Federation represents its members in state and federal litigation brought to 

preserve and protect Florida’s river, lakes, and estuaries. 

8. Plaintiff Sierra Club, Inc. (“Sierra Club”) is a non-profit public benefit 

corporation with its principal place of business in San Francisco, California. Sierra Club 

consists of members living throughout the 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 16
the interests of its members in state and federal litigation, public policy advocacy, 

administrative proceedings, and before state, local, and federal lawmakers. The Sierra 

Club is very involved in advocacy regarding issues related to preserving wetlands, 

improving water quality, and stopping factory farm runoff. All of these 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 throughout Florida. CSF is a grassroots 

organization devoted to protecting the land, water and wildlife of Southwest Florida. 

CSF works to protect both the quality and quantity of southwest Florida’s water resources 

through education, monitoring, litigation, and preservation. 

10. Plaintiff Environmental Confederation of Southwest Florida (“ECOSWF”) 

is a Florida non-profit corporation with its primary place of business in Sarasota, Florida. 

ECOSWF has approximately 50 members consisting of business entities, governmental 

agencies and other organizations and individuals living in Southwest Florida. ECOSWF 

is a regional coalition which focuses its efforts on protecting the conservation interests of 

Southwest Florida, including Charlotte, Collier, DeSoto, Lee, Manatee, and Sarasota 

Counties. ECOSWF accomplishes its goals through active stewardship of Southwest 

Florida’s wildlife, water, soil and air, through citizen participation and education, through 

legal challenges aimed at preserving 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 16
11. Plaintiff St. Johns Riverkeeper, Inc. (“Riverkeeper”) is a Florida nonprofit membership-based corporation 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 River watershed for current users and future 

generations. Riverkeeper monitors the environmental 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 organizes regular boat trips for its members and citizens to learn 

more about the river and how they can participate in its management. 

12. Each of the Plaintiffs files this action on its own behalf and on behalf of its 

members in an effort to protect their health, 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 charged with the supervision 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 Environmental 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 Ariel 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 16
STANDING

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 commercial 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 standards in Florida has resulted in excessive 

levels of nitrogen and phosphorus in Florida water bodies – which EPA admits is a direct 

cause of toxic blue-green 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 cell function; and “hepatotoxins” which attack the liver. Exposure to 

blue-green algae toxins through ingestion, dermal contact or inhalation can cause rashes, 

skin and eye irritation, allergic reactions, gastrointestinal upset, serious illness, and even 

death. 

19. Blue-green algae toxins can contaminate drinking water supplies, 

endanger public health, and result in the shut down of drinking plants that rely on surface 

waterbodies as their drinking water source. 

20. The frequency of toxic blue-green algae blooms is increasing in lakes, 

rivers, streams, reservoirs, and estuaries throughout Florida. 

21. From mid-July to mid-October 2005, major portions of the St. Johns River 

suffered a toxic blue-green algae bloom which was dubbed “The Green Monster” for the 

Case 4:08-cv-00324-RH-WCS Document 4 Filed 08/05/2008 Page 6 of 16
fluorescent green slime created on the surface of the water. Toxin levels were recorded at 

50 – 140 times above the World Health Organization’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 Caloosahatchee River. The Olga Water Treatment 

Plant, which obtains its source water from the Caloosahatchee 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 releases of nutrient polluted water from Lake 

Okeechobee. Toxin levels in the St. Lucie River and estuary during this bloom were 

three hundred times above suggested drinking water limits and sixty times above 

suggested recreational limits. Attached as exhibits “E1” and “E2” are photographs of the 

St. Lucie algae bloom. 

25. In addition, Florida’s estuaries and coastal oceans have been plagued with 

harmful algae blooms associated with nutrient over-enrichment including macroalgae 

(seaweed) blooms, which displace seagrass and overgrow coral reef ecosystems, and 

Case 4:08-cv-00324-RH-WCS Document 4 Filed 08/05/2008 Page 7 of 16
novel and toxic dinoflagellate (red tide) blooms. 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 months, causing massive fish kills and angering 

tourists and residents who were unable to enjoy the beach. 

26. From June 2006 through August 2006, three visitors to Wakulla Springs, 

hailed as the crown jewel of North Florida, reported skin irritations after swimming in the 

spring. One of the visitors experienced burning and itching after coming out of the water 

and the other two broke out in rashes, all thought to be caused by elevated 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 gathering on hydrilla as well as the 

springhead. High nitrate and phosphorous levels in the spring have contributed to the 

algae blooms, resulting in lower 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 spring 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 boundaries and beyond. Attached as exhibit “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 Florida Fish and Wildlife 

Case 4:08-cv-00324-RH-WCS Document 4 Filed 08/05/2008 Page 8 of 16
Conservation Commission (the Commission). A study prepared by McGlynn 

Laboratories Inc. for the Commission concluded that the water entering Lake Munson is 

not clean enough to support a healthy Lake ecosystem. 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 Organization (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 the lake and southern outflow of the slough to 

connected sinks, which lead directly to the underground aquifer system running 

throughout most of the state. Consequently, 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 been, are being, and—unless the relief prayed 

for herein is granted—will continue to be adversely affected and irreparably 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 nation’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 16
discharge 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 provides a schedule to effectuate this process. It directs that 

the standards “shall be such as to protect the public health or welfare, 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 maintaining 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” water quality standard for nutrients: 

“Nutrients: In no case shall nutrient concentrations of a body of water be altered so as 

to cause an imbalance in natural populations 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 baseline against which to measure progress in 

decreasing nutrient pollution, nor is there any measurable, objective means of 

determining whether a water quality violation has occurred. 

Case 4:08-cv-00324-RH-WCS Document 4 Filed 08/05/2008 Page 10 of 16
35. In 1998, Defendant EPA reported1

 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 toxic microorganism Pfiesteria along the 

Gulf and Mid-Atlantic coasts. 

36. EPA determined that “adding nutrient criteria to State water quality 

standards is essential for Federal, State, and local agencies, and the public, to better 

understand, identify, and manage nutrient overenrichment problems in surface waters.” 

The consequence of not having numeric standards 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 develop numeric nutrient standards that 

were protective of a water body’s “designated uses”2

 by 2003, or EPA would develop 

standards for them.3

 

 

1 See USEPA, National Strategy for the Development of Regional 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, Propagation 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 16
38. For example, Florida has designated the section of the Caloosahatchee 

River where the Olga Water Treatment Plant 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 nutrient standards have not 

been protective of the river’s use as a drinking 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 standards was to prevent exactly such an event 

from occurring. 

39. In May 2006, Florida’s Integrated Water Assessment (a report which by 

law is submitted to EPA) found that fifty percent of Florida’s river and stream miles, 

sixty percent of Florida’s lakes (excluding the 730 square miles of Lake Okeechobee 

which is itself impaired due to nutrient pollution), 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 nutrients in Florida’s surface waters since the 

1970s, 2) water quality declines in springs associated 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 threatening toxins in rivers and lakes; and 5) 

 Currently, there are not any designated Class V bodies of water. The Fenholloway River was reclassified as 

Class III in 1998 

3

 This date was subsequently changed to 2004 because EPA was delayed in getting out its guidance 

documents. 

Case 4:08-cv-00324-RH-WCS Document 4 Filed 08/05/2008 Page 12 of 16
the 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 Water issued a bleak report on the 

states’ efforts to develop numeric nutrient 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, results in harmful 

algal blooms, reduced spawning grounds and nursery habitats, fish kills, oxygenstarved hypoxic or ‘dead’ zones, and public health concerns related to impaired 

drinking water sources and increased exposure to toxic microbes such as 

cyanobacteria. Nutrient problems can exhibit themselves locally or much further 

downstream leading to degraded estuaries, lakes and reservoirs, and to hypoxic 

zones where fish and wildlife can no longer survive. 

43. The memo further explained that numeric nutrient criteria were needed to 

address this “major source of environmental 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 develop 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 16
COUNT I

CLAIM FOR DECLARATORY RELIEF

46. Plaintiffs hereby incorporate all preceding paragraphs of this complaint 

and all allegations contained within them. 

47. Defendants determined that numeric nutrient criteria were necessary to 

meet the requirements of the CWA in 1998 and 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 promulgate its own numeric nutrient 

criteria for Florida is a failure to perform 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, Plaintiffs request a declaration of 

Defendants’ failure to perform their non-discretionary duty under section 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 preceding 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 duty 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 16
54. Therefore, Plaintiffs are entitled to injunctive relief set forth in the prayer 

to prevent injury to themselves and the public. 

PRAYER FOR RELIEF

 WHEREFORE, Plaintiffs Florida Wildlife Federation, Inc., Sierra Club, Inc., and 

Conservancy of Southwest Florida, Inc. respectfully request this Honorable 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 Defendants, requiring them to promptly set 

numeric nutrient standards for the state of Florida; 

 (3) an award of litigation costs, including 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 deems necessary and just to effectuate a 

complete resolution of the legal disputes between Plaintiffs and Defendants. 

 Respectfully submitted on this 5th 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 correct 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 16
Case 4:08-cv-00324-RH-WCS Document 4-2 Filed 08/05/2008 Page 1 of 15
Case 4:08-cv-00324-RH-WCS Document 4-2 Filed 08/05/2008 Page 2 of 15
Case 4:08-cv-00324-RH-WCS Document 4-2 Filed 08/05/2008 Page 3 of 15
Case 4:08-cv-00324-RH-WCS Document 4-2 Filed 08/05/2008 Page 4 of 15
Copyrighted page/s removed. Copyrighted material is not available in 

Regulations.gov since it may not be reproduced without consent of 

the copyright holder. 

Contact the EPA Docket Center’s Public 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