CONSENT DECREE Case No. 3:13-cv-2857-JSW Christopher Sproul (State Bar No. 126398) Jodene Isaacs (State Bar No. 226895) ENVIRONMENTAL ADVOCATES 5135 Anza Street San Francisco, California 94121 Telephone: (415) 533-3376, (510) 847-3467 Facsimile: (415) 358-5695 Email: csproul@enviroadvocates.com Email: jisaacs@enviroadvocates.com Michael A. Costa (State Bar No. 219416) 3848 Sacramento St. #2 San Francisco, CA 94118 Telephone: (415) 342-0042 Email: mike@ocefoundation.org Attorneys for Plaintiffs SAM HIRSCH Acting Assistant Attorney General U.S. Department of Justice Environment & Natural Resources Division ETHAN CARSON EDDY, Trial Attorney Wildlife and Marine Resources Section P.O. Box 7611, Ben Franklin Station Washington, D.C. 20044 Telephone: (202) 305-0202 Facsimile: (202) 305-0275 Email: ethan.eddy@usdoj.gov JOHN THOMAS H. DO, Trial Attorney Environmental Defense Section P.O. Box 7611, Ben Franklin Station Washington, D.C. 20044 Telephone: (202) 514-2593 Facsimile: (202) 514-8865 Email: john.do@usdoj.gov Attorneys for Defendants

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE NORTHERN DIST RICT OF CALIFORNIA

OUR CHILDREN’S EARTH FOUNDATION and ECOLOGICAL RIGHTS FOUNDATION, Plaintiffs, v. U.S

. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY, et al., Defendants.

___________________________________________ ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) Case No. 3:13-cv-2857-JSW CONSENT DECREE Case4:13-cv-02857-JSW Document53-1 Filed08/22/14 Page1 of 16 Case4:13-cv-02857-JSW Document55 Filed08/25/14 Page1 of 16CONSENT DECREE 1 Case No. 3:13-cv-2857-JSW WHEREAS, Plaintiffs Our Children’s Earth Foundation and Ecological Rights Foundation (“Plaintiffs”) filed th eir Complaint on June 20, 2013 pur suant to Secti on 505(a)(2) of the Clean Water Act (“CWA”), 33 U.S.C. § 1365(a )(2), Section 11(g) of the Endangered Species Act (“ESA”), 16 U.S.C. § 1540(g)(1)(A), and Sec tion 706(1) of the Admi nistrative Procedure Act (“APA”), 5 U.S.C. § 706(1), against the U. S. Environmental Protection Agency (“EPA”), the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, and the Na tional Marine Fisheries Service (together “the Services”), and certain federal o fficials of all three agencies; WHEREAS, the Complaint alleges claims related to the EPA-promulgated Final California Toxics Rule, 65 Fed. Reg. 31,682 (May 18, 2000) (“2000 Final CTR”) and associated March 24, 2000, ESA biological opinion; WHEREAS, the Complaint includes six claims alleging specifically that (1) EPA failed to perform a non-discretionary duty to set water qu ality criteria for selenium and mercury for the State of California as required by CWA Secti on 303(c)(4), 33 U.S.C. § 1313(c)(4); (2) EPA violated ESA Section 9, 16 U.S.C. § 1538(a)(1 )(B), by failing to adopt certain CWA Section 303(c) criteria for selenium, mercury, pentach lorophenol (“PCP”), cadmium and dissolved metals as envisioned in the ESA biological opini on; (3) EPA violated ESA Sections 7(a)(1) and 7(a)(2), 16 U.S.C. § 1536(a)(1) and (2), by faili ng to carry out certain conservation programs and reasonable and prudent measures contained in the ESA biological opinion; (4) EPA violated ESA Section 7(a)(2), 16 U.S.C. § 1536(a)(2), by failing to reinitiate consultation; (5) the Services violated ESA Section 7(a)(2), 16 U.S.C. § 1536(a)(2), by failing to reinitiate consultation; and (6) EPA violated the APA, 5 U.S.C. § 706(1), by fai ling to promulgate the selenium and mercury wa ter quality criteria; WHEREAS, concurrent with or prior to the entry of this consent decree, the Second, Case4:13-cv-02857-JSW Document53-1 Filed08/22/14 Page2 of 16 Case4:13-cv-02857-JSW Document55 Filed08/25/14 Page2 of 16CONSENT DECREE 2 Case No. 3:13-cv-2857-JSW Third, Fourth and Fifth Claims in the Complain t are dismissed without prejudice and the Sixth Claim is dismissed with prejudice; WHEREAS, Section 303(c)(4)(B) of the CWA, 33 U.S.C. § 1313(c)(4)(B), provides that the EPA Administrator shall promptly prepare and publish proposed regulations setting forth a revised or new water quality standard when the Administrator determines that a revised or new water quality standard is necessary to meet the requirements of the CWA; WHEREAS, Section 303(c)(4)(B ) of the CWA, 33 U.S.C. § 1313(c)(4)(B), further provides that EPA must promulgate a final standard within 90 da ys of publication of a proposed standard; WHEREAS, EPA found that ce rtain new or revised water quality standards were necessary to implement CWA S ection 303(c)(2)(B) for the St ate of California when EPA published the proposed rule for the “Establishme nt of Numeric Criteria for Priority Toxic Pollutants for the State of California,” referred to as the California Toxics Rule (“1997 Proposed CTR”), covering a long list of pr iority toxic pollutants, water bodies, and designated uses at 62 Fed. Reg. 42,160 (Aug. 5, 1997); WHEREAS the 1997 Proposed CTR proposed seleni um aquatic life criteria and mercury aquatic life criteria while leavi ng intact any water quality criter ia that had been previously promulgated or approved by EPA, including those promulgated in the 1992 National Toxics Rule (“1992 NTR”), 57 Fed. Reg. 60,848 (Dec. 22, 1992); WHEREAS, EPA previously promulgated seleni um aquatic life criteria for three water body segments of the San Francisco Bay and Delta and lower San Joaquin River system in the 1992 NTR; WHEREAS, EPA initiated formal consultation with the Services under Section 7 of the Case4:13-cv-02857-JSW Document53-1 Filed08/22/14 Page3 of 16 Case4:13-cv-02857-JSW Document55 Filed08/25/14 Page3 of 16CONSENT DECREE 3 Case No. 3:13-cv-2857-JSW ESA on the Proposed CTR which resulted in the Services’ issuance of their March 24, 2000 Biological Opinion; WHEREAS, the EPA-promulgated 2000 Final Ca lifornia Toxics Rules, consistent with the Biological Opinion, reserved the promulga tion of the freshwater selenium aquatic life criterion maximum concentration and all mercury aquatic life criteria in order to address the

Services’ concern that the proposed criteria were not su fficiently protective of ESA-listed species; WHEREAS, since the 2000 Final CTR, the State of California has submitted, and EPA has approved, seven site-specific mercury crit eria for the protection of aquatic life; WHEREAS, Plaintiffs and EPA (collectivel y “the Parties”) wish to effectuate a settlement of the above-captioned ma tter without conti nued litigation; WHEREAS, the Parties have agre ed to a settlement of this ac tion, as described in Section III below, without any admission or ad judication of fact or law; WHEREAS, the Parties consider this Decree to be in the public interest and an adequate and equitable resolution of the claims in the above-captioned matter; and WHEREAS, the Court, by entering this Decree , finds that the Decree is fair, reasonable, in the public interest, an d consistent with the CWA, 33 U.S.C. §§ 1251-1387; NOW THEREFORE, without trial or determina tion of any issue of fact or law, and upon the consent of the Parties, it is here by ORDERED, ADJUDGED and DECREED that: I. GENERAL TERMS

1. This Court has subject matter jurisdicti on over the First Claim set forth in the Complaint. Venue is proper in the United States District Court for the Northern District of

California. Case4:13-cv-02857-JSW Document53-1 Filed08/22/14 Page4 of 16 Case4:13-cv-02857-JSW Document55 Filed08/25/14 Page4 of 16CONSENT DECREE 4 Case No. 3:13-cv-2857-JSW 2. Plaintiffs and EPA shall not challenge the terms of this Decree or this Court's jurisdiction to enter and enforce this Decree. Upon entry, no part y shall challeng e the terms of

this Decree. II. DEFINITIONS

3. “Selenium Criteria” mean one or more wate r quality criteria to protect aquatic life and aquatic-dependent wildlife from the harm ful long-term effects of selenium, including protection from harmful long-term effects of short-term exposures to selenium. Such water quality criteria will consist of numeric values that EPA determines are protective of the designated uses of the applicable waters, pe rtaining to aquatic life and aquatic-dependent

wildlife. 4. “Mercury Criteria” mean one or more mercury water quality criteria to protect aquatic life and aquatic-dependent wildlife. Such water quality criteria will consist of numeric

values that EPA determines ar e protective of the designated us es of the applicable waters, pertaining to aquatic life and aquatic-dependent wildlife. 5. “Mercury Site-Specific Criteria” mean the EPA-approved site-specific mercury water quality criteria for the protection of aqua tic and aquatic-dependent wildlife. Since the 2000 Final CTR, the California State Water Resources Control Board has submitted, and EPA has approved, seven site-specific mercury criteria. 1 6. “Bay Delta” means the waters cove red by the 1992 NTR promulgation of

1 See attached Exhibit 1 (December 24, 1987, May 29, 2000 and January 5, 2005 EPA letters approving criteria based on salinity for San Francisco Bay an d Delta); Exhibit 2 (February 12, 2008 EPA letter approving criteria for San Franci sco Bay and Delta); Exhibit 3 (September 29, 2008 EPA letter approving criteria for Walker Cr eek, Soulajule Reservoir and all tributaries); Exhibit 4 (June 1, 2010 EPA lette r approving criteria for Guad alupe River watershed (with exceptions) and upstream tributar ies); Exhibit 5 (Oct ober 20, 2011 EPA letter approving criteria for Sacramento and San Joaquin Delta); Exhi bit 6 (February 6, 2007 EPA letter approving criteria for Cache Creek, Bear Creek and Ha rley Gulch); Exhibit 7 (September 26, 2003 EPA letter approving criteria for Clear Lake). Case4:13-cv-02857-JSW Document53-1 Filed08/22/14 Page5 of 16 Case4:13-cv-02857-JSW Document55 Filed08/25/14 Page5 of 16CONSENT DECREE 5 Case No. 3:13-cv-2857-JSW selenium aquatic life criteria fo r two water bodies in the San Fr ancisco Bay Delta system and a third intervening water body. Thes e three criteria promulgations together covered selenium for an extended segment reaching from San Francisco Bay upstream through the Delta and into the lower reaches of the San Joaquin River system. The three segments ar e, going upstream: (1) “Waters of San Francisco Bay upstream to and including Suisun Bay and the Sacramento-San Joaquin Delta”; (2) “Waters of the San Joaquin River from the mouth of the Merced River to Vernalis”; and (3) “Waters of Salt Slough, Mud Sl ough (north) and the San Joaquin River, Sack Dam to the mouth of the Merced River.” 57 Fed. Reg. 60848, 60921, codified at 40 C.F.R. § 131.36(b)(1)(ii). 7. “Propose criteria” by a date certain m eans that, on or before that date, the appropriate EPA official signs, for publication in the Federal Register, proposed regulations setting forth numeric water quality criteria, pursuant to Section 303(c) of the Clean Water Act, 33 U.S.C. § 1313(c). 8. “Finalize” a proposal by a da te certain means that, on or before that date, the appropriate EPA official signs, for publication in the Federal Register, a notice(s) of final rulemaking addressing each of the water quality cr iteria that were proposed in the proposal. 9. In Section III.A. (respecting Selenium Criteria), “Rest of California” means

waters of the United States in California that are fr esh waters and are not part of the “Bay Delta.” 10. In Section III.B. (respecting Mercury Cr iteria), “Rest of California” means waters

of the United States in California that are not covered by the “Mercury Site-Specific Criteria.”

11. “Salt Waters” are those waters with 10 parts per thousand (“ppt”) or more of salinity 95% or more of the time. 40 C.F.R. § 131.36(c)(3)(ii). 12. “Fresh Waters” are those with 1 ppt or le ss of salinity 95% or more of the time. Case4:13-cv-02857-JSW Document53-1 Filed08/22/14 Page6 of 16 Case4:13-cv-02857-JSW Document55 Filed08/25/14 Page6 of 16CONSENT DECREE 6 Case No. 3:13-cv-2857-JSW 40 C.F.R. § 131.36(c)(3)(i).

13. “Estuarine Waters” are t hose waters with salinities that exceed the maximum threshold of salinity for Fresh Waters but do not meet the minimum threshold of salinity for Salt

Waters. III. TERMS OF AGREEMENT

A. Selenium Criteria: 14. Except as provided in Paragraphs 15 or 18, EPA shall propose Selenium Criteria for the Rest of California by November 30, 2016. 15. In the event that EPA proposes Selenium Criteria for Salt and Es tuarine Waters of the Bay Delta by June 30, 2016, EPA will propose Se lenium Criteria for the Rest of California by November 30, 2018. 16. EPA shall request initiation of any n ecessary ESA Section 7(a)(2) consultation with the Services on the proposed Selenium Criteria for the Rest of California no later than nine (9) months after the date EPA proposes the criteria. 17. Except as provided in paragraph 18, EPA shall finalize its proposal of Selenium Criteria for the Rest of California within six (6) months of the later of the following dates: (1) the date of EPA’s conclusion (if any) that it will not seek ESA Section 7(a)(2) consultation because some or all of the proposed Selenium Criteria have “no e ffect” on any listed ESA species or designated critical habitat; (2) the da te of the Services’ written concurrence(s) with any EPA conclusion that some or all of the pr oposed Selenium Criteria are “not likely to adversely affect” listed ESA species or designa ted critical habitat pursuant to 50 C.F.R. §§ 402.13(a) and 402.14(b); or (3) the date of the Se rvices’ Biological Opin ion(s) concluding any formal consultation on the proposed Selenium Criteria pursuant to 50 C.F.R. § 402.14(l). Case4:13-cv-02857-JSW Document53-1 Filed08/22/14 Page7 of 16 Case4:13-cv-02857-JSW Document55 Filed08/25/14 Page7 of 16CONSENT DECREE 7 Case No. 3:13-cv-2857-JSW 18. In the event that EPA approves, pursu ant to Section 303(c)(3) of the CWA, Selenium Criteria submitted by the State of Calif ornia for all or any portion of the Rest of California, EPA’s obligation to propose or finalize a proposal fo r Selenium Criteria under this Section for that specific area is null and void.

19. This Consent Decree shall not be constr ued for any purpose as a requirement that EPA propose or finalize any proposal for se lenium criteria for the Bay Delta. B. Mercury Criteria: 20. In the event that EPA has not approv ed, pursuant to CWA Section 303(c)(3), 33 U.S.C. § 1313(c)(3), Mercury Criteria submitted by the State of California for all waters in the Rest of California by June 30, 2017, then EPA shall propose Mercury Criteria by June 30, 2017

for those waters in the Rest of California fo r which EPA has not approved Mercury Criteria submitted by the State of California. 21. EPA shall request initiation of any n ecessary ESA Section 7(a)(2) consultation with the Services on the proposed Mercury Criteria no later than ni ne (9) months after the date EPA proposes the criteria. 22. Except as provided in Paragraph 23, EPA shall finalize its proposal of Mercury Criteria within six (6) months of the later of the followi ng dates: (1) the date of EPA’s conclusion (if any) that it will not seek ESA Sec tion 7(a)(2) consultation because some or all of the proposed Mercury Criteria have “no effect” on any listed ESA species or designated critical habitat; (2) the date of the Services’ written c oncurrence(s) with any EPA conclusion that some or all of the proposed Mercury Criteria are “not li kely to adversely affect” listed ESA species or designated critical habitat pursu ant to 50 C.F.R. §§ 402.13(a) a nd 402.14(b); or (3) the date of the Services’ Biological Opinion( s) concluding any formal consu ltation on the proposed Mercury Case4:13-cv-02857-JSW Document53-1 Filed08/22/14 Page8 of 16 Case4:13-cv-02857-JSW Document55 Filed08/25/14 Page8 of 16CONSENT DECREE 8 Case No. 3:13-cv-2857-JSW Criteria pursuant to 50 C.F.R. § 402.14(l). 23. In the event that EPA approves, pursu ant to Section 303(c)(3) of the CWA, Mercury Criteria submitted by the State of Calif ornia for all or any portion of the Rest of California, EPA’s obligation to propose or finalize a proposal fo r Mercury Criteria under this Section III.A for that specific area is null and void. IV. ATTORNEYS’ FEES AND COSTS 24. The Parties agree that Plaintiffs are entit led to reasonable attorn eys’ fees and costs

accrued as of the Effective Date of this Consen t Decree on the First Claim of the Complaint. The Parties will attempt to reach agreement as to the appropriate amount of the recovery. If the Parties are unable to reach agreement after follo wing the informal dispute resolution process in Paragraph 34, Plaintiffs shall file with the Cour t any request for attorney ’s fees no earlier than ninety days (90) after the Effec tive Date of this Consent Decree. EPA shall have forty-five (45) days to file its response to Pl aintiffs’ fee request. Payment of fees and costs pursuant to this paragraph shall constitute payment in full of a ny fees and costs to which Plaintiffs may be

entitled in this acti on through the date of payment of such fees and costs.

V. EFFECTIVE DATE

25. This Consent Decree shall become eff ective upon the date of its entry by the Court. If for any reason the District Court does not enter this Consent D ecree, the obligations set

forth in this Consent Decree are null and void. VI. REMEDY, SCOPE OF JUDICIAL REVIEW 26. Nothing in this Consent Decree shal l be construed to confer upon the Court jurisdiction to review any decisi on, either procedural or substan tive, to be made by EPA pursuant to this Consent Decree, except for the purpose of determining EPA’s compliance with this Case4:13-cv-02857-JSW Document53-1 Filed08/22/14 Page9 of 16 Case4:13-cv-02857-JSW Document55 Filed08/25/14 Page9 of 16CONSENT DECREE 9 Case No. 3:13-cv-2857-JSW Consent Decree. 27. Nothing in this Consent Decree alters or affects the standards for judicial review, if any, of any final EPA action. VII. RELEASE BY PLAINTIFFS 28. Upon entry of this Consent Decree by the Court, without further order from the Court, Plaintiffs' Sixth Claim sh all be deemed dismissed with prejudice and Plaintiffs' Second, Third, and Fourth Claims shall be deemed dismi ssed without prejudice. Plaintiffs' First Claim shall be deemed dismissed with prejudice on the date that this Consent Decree terminates. Plaintiffs voluntarily dismisse d the Fifth Claim on May 1, 2014. 29. Upon entry of this Consent Decree by the Court, this Consent Decree shall constitute a complete and final settlement of all claims that were asserted, or that could have been asserted, by Plaintiffs against Defendants relating to the First and Sixth Claims in the Complaint. 30. Plaintiffs hereby release, discharge, and covenant not to assert (by way of the commencement of an action, the jo inder of the Administrator and/or EPA in an existing action, or in any other fashion) any and all claims, causes of action, suits or demands of any kind whatsoever in law or in equity that they may have had, or may now have, against Defendant EPA

related to the First and Sixth Claims in the Co mplaint, expressly including any allegation that EPA has failed to propose or finali ze any proposed water quality criter ia at issue in those Claims under CWA Section 303(c), 33 U.S.C. § 1313(c) or that such failure has violated the ESA Sections 7(a)(1), 7(a)(2) or 9, 16 U.S. C. § 1536(a)(1), (2), or § 1538(a)(1)(B). VIII. TERMINATION OF CONSENT DECREE 31. When EPA’s obligations under Paragr aphs 14 through 23 have been completed, Case4:13-cv-02857-JSW Document53-1 Filed08/22/14 Page10 of 16 Case4:13-cv-02857-JSW Document55 Filed08/25/14 Page10 of 16CONSENT DECREE 10 Case No. 3:13-cv-2857-JSW and the Plaintiffs’ claims for costs of litigation have been resolved pursuant to the process described in Paragraph 24, this Consent Decree shall terminate. The Parties shall file the appropriate notice with the Court so that the Clerk may close the file. IX. FORCE MAJEURE AND APPROPRIATED FUNDS 32. The obligations imposed upon EPA under this Decree can only be undertaken using appropriated funds. No provision of this Decree shall be interprete d as or constitute a commitment or requirement that the Administrato r obligate or pay funds in contravention of the Anti-Deficiency Act, 31 U.S.C. §§ 1341, et seq, or any other applicab le federal statute. 33. The Parties recognize that the performa nce of this Consent Decree is subject to fiscal and procurement laws and regulations of the United States which include, but are not limited to, the Anti-Deficiency Act, 31 U.S.C. §§ 1341, et seq. The possibility exists that

circumstances outside the reasonable contro l of EPA could delay compliance with the obligations in this Consent Decree. Such situat ions include, but are not limited to, a government shutdown; catastrophic environmental events requiring immediate and/or time-consuming response by EPA; and extreme weather events (including but not limited to drought and hurricanes). Should a delay occur due to such ci rcumstances, any resulting failure to fulfill any obligation set forth herein shall not constitute a failure to comply with the terms of this Consent Decree, and any deadline so affected shall be extended one day for each day of the delay. EPA will provide Plaintiffs with reasonable notice in the event that EPA invokes this Paragraph. Any dispute regarding such invocation shall be reso lved in accordance with the dispute resolution process set forth in Paragraph 34. X. DISPUTE RESOLUTION

34. In the event of a dis pute between the Parties conc erning the interpretation or Case4:13-cv-02857-JSW Document53-1 Filed08/22/14 Page11 of 16 Case4:13-cv-02857-JSW Document55 Filed08/25/14 Page11 of 16CONSENT DECREE 11 Case No. 3:13-cv-2857-JSW implementation of any aspect of this Decree, th e disputing Party shall provide the other Party with a written notice outlining the nature of the dispute and requesting info rmal negotiations. If the Parties cannot reach an agreed -upon resolution within thirty (30) days af ter receipt of the notice, any Party may move the Co urt to resolve the dispute. XI. MODIFICATIONS AND EXTENSIONS 35. The deadlines set forth in Paragraphs 14 through 23 above may be extended by written agreement of the Parties with notice to the C ourt. To the extent the Parties are not able to agree on an extension of any deadline set forth in this Consent Decree, EPA may seek extension

of the deadline in accordance with the procedures specified below. A. If EPA files a motion requesting ex tension of any date or dates established by this Consent Decree totaling more than thirty ( 30) days and has provided notice to Plaintiffs at least thirty (30) days prior to filing such motion and has filed the motion at least sixty (60) days prior to the date for which modification is s ought, then the filing of such motion shall, upon request, automatically extend th e date for which modification is sought. Such automatic

extension shall remain in effect until the earlier of (i) a dispositive ruling by this Court on such motion, or (ii) the date sought in such motion. EPA may seek only one extension under this subparagraph for each date established by this Consent Decree. B. If EPA files a motion requesting ex tension of a date or dates established by this Consent Decree totaling thirty (30) days or less and has provided no tice to Plaintiffs at least fifteen (15) days prior to the filing of such motion and has f iled the motion at least seven (7) days prior to the date for which modification is sought, then the filing of such motion shall, upon request, automatically extend the date for which modification is sought. Such extension shall remain in effect until the earlier of (i) a dispos itive ruling by this Court on such motion, or (ii) Case4:13-cv-02857-JSW Document53-1 Filed08/22/14 Page12 of 16 Case4:13-cv-02857-JSW Document55 Filed08/25/14 Page12 of 16CONSENT DECREE 12 Case No. 3:13-cv-2857-JSW the date sought in the motion. EPA may seek only one extension under this subparagraph for each date established by this Consent Decree.

C. If the automatic extension set forth in Subparagraphs 34.A or 34.B does not apply, EPA may move the Court for a stay of the date for which modification is sought. EPA shall give notice to Plaintiffs as soon as reasonab ly possible of its intent to seek an extension and/or stay of the date sought to be modified. D. If the Court denies a motion by EP A to extend a date established by this Consent Decree, then the date for performance for which modifi cation had been requested shall be such date as the Court may specify. XII. CONTINUING JURISDICTION 36. The Court retains jurisdiction for the purposes of resolving any disputes arising under this Consent Decree, and issu ing such further orders or dire ctions as may be necessary or appropriate to construe, implement , modify, or enforce the terms of this Consent Decree, and for granting any further relief as the interests of justice may require. XIII. AGENCY DISCRETION 37. Except as provided herein, nothing in this Decree shall be construed to limit or modify any discretion accorded the Administrator by the CWA, the APA, the ESA or general principles of administrative law in taking the actions that are the subject of this Decree. 38. Nothing in this decree shall be construe d as an admission of a ny issue of fact or

law. XIV. NOTICE AND CORRESPONDENCE 39. Any notices required or provided for by this Decree shall be made in writing, via electronic mail and, if electronic mail is infeasible due to the nature of the notice, by U.S. mail, Case4:13-cv-02857-JSW Document53-1 Filed08/22/14 Page13 of 16 Case4:13-cv-02857-JSW Document55 Filed08/25/14 Page13 of 16CONSENT DECREE 13 Case No. 3:13-cv-2857-JSW and sent to the following: For Plaintiffs: Christopher Sproul Jodene Isaacs ENVIRONMENTAL ADVOCATES 5135 Anza Street San Francisco, California 94121 Telephone: (415) 533-3376, (510) 847-3467 Facsimile: (415) 358-5695 Email: csproul@enviroadvocates.com Email: jisaacs@env iroadvocates.com Michael Costa (electronic mail copies only) 3848 Sacramento St. #2 San Francisco, CA 94118 Telephone: (415) 342-0042 Email: mike@ocefoundation.org For Defendant EPA: Ethan Carson Eddy, Trial Attorney Wildlife and Marine Resources Section P.O. Box 7611, Ben Franklin Station Washington, D.C. 20044 (202) 305-0202 (phone) (202) 305-0275 (fax) ethan.eddy@usdoj.gov John Thomas H. Do, Trial Attorney Environmental Defense Section P.O. Box 7611, Ben Franklin Station Washington, D.C. 20044 (202) 514-2593 (phone) (202) 514-8865 (fax) john.do@usdoj.gov David Berol, Attorney-Advisor U.S. Environmental Protection Agency 1200 Pennsylvania Avenue, N.W., MC-2333A, Washington, DC 20460 (202) 564-6873 berol.david@epa.gov Marcela von Vacano, Assistant Regional Counsel U.S. Environmental Protection Agency Case4:13-cv-02857-JSW Document53-1 Filed08/22/14 Page14 of 16 Case4:13-cv-02857-JSW Document55 Filed08/25/14 Page14 of 16CONSENT DECREE 14 Case No. 3:13-cv-2857-JSW Region 9 75 Hawthorne Street (ORC-2) San Francisco, CA 94105 415-972-3905 vonvacano.marcela@epa.gov Tom Hagler, Assistant Regional Counsel U.S. Environmental Protection Agency Region 9 75 Hawthorne Street, RC-2 San Francisco, California 94105-3901 (415)972-3945 hagler.tom@epa.gov XV. REPRESENTATIVE AUTHORITY 40. This Consent Decree may be signed in c ounterparts, and its validity shall not be challenged on that basis. 41. The undersigned representatives of e ach Party certify that they are fully authorized by the Party they represent to bi nd that Party to the terms of this Decree.

SO AGREED

For Plaintiffs:

Dated: 8/22/2014 _____

_____________ ______________ Christopher Sproul Jodene Isaacs ENVIRONMENTAL ADVOCATES Case4:13-cv-02857-JSW Document53-1 Filed08/22/14 Page15 of 16 Case4:13-cv-02857-JSW Document55 Filed08/25/14 Page15 of 16CONSENT DECREE 15 Case No. 3:13-cv-2857-JSW For Defendant EPA: SAM HIRSCH Acting Assistant Attorney General U.S. Department of Justice Environment & Natural Resources Division

Dated: 8/22/2014 _____

_______________ _____________ JOHN THOMAS H. DO, Trial Attorney Environmental Defense Section

SO ORDERED

Dated and entered this _______ day of ____________, 2014.

____________________________ United States District Judge Case4:13-cv-02857-JSW Document53-1 Filed08/22/14 Page16 of 16 Case4:13-cv-02857-JSW Document55 Filed08/25/14 Page16 of 16